Sitting of 25 March 1890

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
  MR. BAUMANN: Mr. Speaker, I see that there is a Motion in reference to this Bill upon the Paper in my name. That Motion has been put down without any communication with me. I do not know whether that is in accordance with the practice of the House, but, as a matter of fact, I am opposed to the Motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: Another hon. Member handed the Motion in, but the name was not attached, and by an error, the name of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Baumann) was put down as the Mover. I have ascertained from the hon. Member who handed in the Motion that this is an error.
  MR. J. STUART: It was I who handed in the Motion to the Clerk, and I did so without my name being attached to it. The Clerk remembers the circumstance. I, therefore, beg leave to take upon myself the full responsibility for the Motion and to move it now.
  MR. BAUMANN: I object.
  MR. SPEAKER: If there is any objection it cannot be taken to day, but it may be taken to-morrow.
  MR. J. STUART: Then I will put it down for Thursday.

QUESTIONS.
  POLICE SUPERANNUATION.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I had intended to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to announce the decision of the Government upon the long-deferred question of police superannuation, but at the request of the right hon. Gentleman I will defer the question.

  THE COUNTY COUNCILS AND EMIGRATION.
  MR. SAMUELSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any County Councils have asked the consent of the Local Government Board for powers under Section 69 of "The Local Government Act, 1888," to borrow money for making advances in aid of emigration or colonisation of inhabitants of the county; and, if so, what has been the amount sanctioned by the Department?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): No application has been made to the Local Government Board by County Councils for consent, under the Local Government Act, to loans for making advances in aid of emigration or colonisation of inhabitants of the county.

  LORD ARTHUR SOMERSET.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Lord Arthur Somerset is still a Justice of the Peace for Monmouthshire, and also Deputy Lieutenant of the same county?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am informed by the Lord Chancellor that steps have been taken to remove the name in question from the county of Monmouth. I am informed by the War Office that the name is not on the list of Deputy Lieutenants for that county.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Lord Arthur Somerset has received any money, or will receive any pension, as Major in Her Majesty's Ser-

  1805
  vice, which he resigned 5th November, 1889?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): Lord Arthur Somerset has not received, and will not receive, any pension whatever.

  THE MAHARAJA SCINDIA.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: In the absence of the Under Secretary for India, I beg to ask the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Secretary of State is aware that the late Maharaja Scindia, in a letter dated 30th June, 1886, asked the Government of India that his son and heir should not be placed "under the instruction of a European tutor," and that, in reply, the Viceroy, by a service telegram, dated 19th June, stated that the Government of India would "make every effort to meet Your Highness's wishes;" whether, in spite of this promise, the two Indian tutors appointed by the late Maharaja have been removed, although the Government of India stated they were "entirely satisfied with the progress His Highness had made" under their care, and a European tutor, Mr. W. D. Johnstone, Principal of Rajkumai College, has been appointed; whether the cost of the education of the Maharaja for salaries alone has been increased from Rs.325 per month to Rs.2,700 per month; and whether the Secretary of State will see that the promise made to the late Maharaja by the Marquess of Dufferin is kept, and that the tutors appointed by the Maharaja shall continue the course of instruction with which the Government of India was entirely satisfied?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): The late-Maharaja Scindia, in May, 1886, informed the Government of India that he had appointed two native tutors for his son. The Viceroy, in reply, telegraphed, on the 19th of June, that "the Government of India will always be most anxious to act, as far as possible, in accordance with the wishes you have expressed." In reply to the second question of the hon. Member, I have to say that, in 1889, the Government of India, having regard to the Maharaja's age, resolved that the time had come to place His Highness
  1806
  under an English tutor, and Mr. John stone was appointed. Mr. Johnstone's salary is Rs.1,500 a month. The Secretary of State has no other information as to the education of the Maharaja. The Government of India, as promised by Lord Dufferin, has "always been most anxious to act, far as possible, in accordance with the wishes" of the late Maharaja. The present arrangement has been approved by the Council of the Regency.

  IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS.
  MR. DONAL SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the results examination of the school of the Irish National Teacher, who, having been summoned to the July examination of 1889 as a candidate for promotion, attended, and passed that examination, and from whom promotion was withheld, was postponed in 1887, as well as in 1888, from Juno to August, and that these postponements necessitated, on the 24th June, 1889, an examination of his school on the full 12 months' course of instruction, although the pupils were only 10 months in their classes, the Commissioners will make any allowance for the peculiar circumstances connected with this teacher's results examination of 1889, over which, he had no control; did the Inspector inspect this teacher's school since the results examination of 24th June, 1889; and, if not, what were his reasons for withholding from the Commissioners, when furnishing them with his Report on the results examination of 24th June, 1889, the information he conveyed to them by his special letter in December, 1889, which information led the Commissioners to decide that promotion was not warranted, notwithstanding their notification when the Report on the results examination of 24th June, 1889, was under observation, that this teacher's promotion would be made conditional on the state of his school during the current school year; when the accuracy of the statements made in an Inspector's Report is impeached, what is the mode of procedure adopted by the Commissioners; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will recommend the teacher for his promotion
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Commissioners of National Education report that, before they arrived at their final decision in the case of the teacher referred to, they gave careful consideration to all the circumstances. They have also subsequently reconsidered the case, and find no ground for departing from that decision. (2.) The Commissioners state that the Inspector did not inspect the school since the 24th Juno, 1889, and that he did not withhold any information from them, but the correspondence which arose out of the results examination, determined the Commissioners in their decision that the teacher could not be promoted. (3.) The course alluded to in the third paragraph is to refer the complaint in the first instance to the Inspector for his remarks. The Commissioners then determine if any ulterior action is called for. The Commissioners state that they must adhere to their decision in the case.

  THE PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the total area and population of the districts presumed to be congested under the Purchase of Land Congested Districts (Ireland) Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The information asked for could not be very conveniently given in reply to a question, but I hope shortly to lay it on the Table, together with other particulars suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. In the meantime the hon. Member will be able to form an estimate of the parts of the country proposed to be dealt with as congested districts by referring to the districts scheduled for emigration purposes under the Arrears Act, bearing in mind that they will be included only when they form 25 per cent. of the whole county. The districts can be conveniently identified by reference to the emigration map published with Irish Local Government Board Report for 1884.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I will further ask the right hon. Gentleman whether
  1808
  the nominated members of the Congested District Board are to receive salaries; and, in that case, what will be their amount?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; the unofficial members of the Congested District Board will receive no remuneration for their services in the shape of salaries.

  MANUFACTURE OF GUNPOWDER IN IRELAND.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is true the Government have, from time to time, entered into a contract for powder with the Ballincollig Powder Mills Company, County Cork; whether any specification or requirement has been demanded of the company by the Government with respect to the casks in which such powder is delivered; and whether there is any objection to such casks being manufactured at Ballincollig?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The Government have contracts, from time to time, with the Ballincollig Powder Company. The barrels in which powder is supplied must be of the usual War Department pattern; and when the local barrel makers can match that pattern so as to pass inspection there will be no objection to the barrels being obtained from Ballincollig. Correspondence on the subject has been going on for some time.
  DR. TANNER: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that if gunpowder can be manufactured at. Ballincollig so as to secure the requirements of the Department, the War Office will not object to its manufacture?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Certainly.

  ARRESTS AT CLONGOREY.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at or about 6 a.m. on Friday last, Mrs. Mary Kelly, the tenant of a farm at Clongorey, and Mrs. Morressey, of the same place, were arrested by a force of bailiffs, accompanied by armed police, and were conveyed with Mrs. Morressey's infant, to Dublin, and lodged in Grangegorman Prison; that Michael Morressey also was arrested and taken to Kilkenny Gaol; by what authority this course was taken; whether the bailiffs

  1809
  acted legally in refusing to exhibit a warrant when called upon to do so; and for what period the women and the infant are to be kept in prison?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It appears that the prisoners in question were arrested on an Order obtained in January last from the County Court Judge in consequence of their failure to comply with an injunction restraining them from permitting League huts to be erected on their promises in support of the Plan of Campaign on the O'Kelly estate. The process was at the suit of the landlord. The matter is one over which the Executive Government have no control. Inquiry, however, will be made as to the matters of fact detailed in the question.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it not the fact that the Order of the County Court Judge was not to restrain the tenant from building huts, but to remove huts built; was it within the competence of the bailiffs to arrest people other than the tenant; and how does it happen that a woman who had nothing to do with the farm is in prison?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The information which I have received says that the injunction was to restrain the tenant from erecting huts. I have no information on the second point, but I have no doubt that the Attorney General for Ireland will be glad to answer any question on the point.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct particular attention to the arrest of Mrs. Morressey's infant, who certainly was not the tenant of the farm?
  SIR C. LEWIS: Is it not the ordinary course of law to arrest all persons on the premises under such circumstances?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My knowledge of the law is so imperfect that I am unable to answer the question. The hon. Baronet had better put the question on the Paper.

  MR. JOHN RYE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the substitution of Mr. John Rye's name on the Grand Jury List for that of his father, Captain Richard Tonson Rye, D.L., now on his
  1810
  trial for a felony and attempt to murder; and whether any remonstrance will be sent to those who committed this alleged irregularity?
  MR. A J. BALFOUR: The impanelling of Grand Jurors is regulated by Statute, and is in no way under the control of the Executive Government. With respect to the case of Captain Rye, the charge has not reached the stage indicated in the question. The preliminary inquiry at Petty Sessions has not yet concluded.
  DR. TANNER: When Captain Rye is brought forward for trial, would not the son, being upon the Grand Jury, be able to adjudicate upon the case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should think not, but I have no knowledge of the matter and have no control over it.
  DR. TANNER: Captain Rye is charged with having committed a particular crime. If his son is upon the Grand Jury would he not have the power of adjudicating upon the case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have said that I have no knowledge and no responsibility in the matter.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not a felony to fire two shots deliberately at an unfortunate gentleman with intent to kill him?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !

  THE DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY.
  MR. PETER M'DONALD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the Report in the Irish Times of Friday last, 21st instant, of the schedule of complaints submitted to the Directors of the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company by the Committee of the Kingstown and Suburban Residents' Association, and whether any of these complaints come within the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade; and, if so, whether any or what steps will be taken, in compliance with the recommendations of the Inquiring Committee of 1878, to remedy the grievances so complained of?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I have seen the Report in question, and have communicated with the Railway Company, who have made me the following reply:—

  1811
  "On the 20th instant, a Deputation from the Townships of Kingstown, Dalkey, and Bray waited on the Directors of- this Company and put before them a list of matters of which they complained."
  "The Directors promised the Deputation the matters referred to should receive due consideration."
  The Board of Trade have no statutory authority to require the company to make the improvements suggested.

  THE BARONY OF MOYCULLEN.
  MR. FOLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Barony Constable of the Barony of Moycullen, in the County of Galway, has, in the collection of the summer cess of 1889, charged the cess-payers one halfpenny in the pound in excess of the rate passed by the Grand Jury; and, if so, will he say on what principle and for what purpose such, excess is demanded and received, as appears, by certain receipts now in hand, ready to be produced if desired?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Secretary to the Grand Jury of the County of Galway has favoured me with a statement to the effect that the correct rate for the Summer 1889 Grand Jury Cess in Moycullen Barony is 1s. 4½d., but that in the Query Book the halfpenny was omitted through a printer's error, which may have misled the collector when getting his forms of receipt originally printed. The Warrant subsequently issued which directs him to make the collection contains the correct rate.

  ENGINEER OFFICERS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Globe of Thursday last—
  "That in consequence of the scarcity of Engineer Officers at the various Steam Reserves, the Admiralty are seriously considering the desirability of re-employing the most efficient probationary assistant engineers at the College at Greenwich before the completion of their studies";
  and to the statement in the Civil Service Guide—
  "That it is not possible yet to fix the date of the intended examination in June for candidates from the Technical Colleges for the appoint-
  1812
  ment of probationary assistant engineer, as, up to the present, only one candidate has expressed his intention of coming forward to compete for the 10 vacancies offered by the Admiralty;"
  whether these statements are true; and whether he can give the House any further information as to the supply of Engineer Officers?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The Admiralty are not considering the desirability of reemploying the probationary assistant engineers at the Royal Naval College before the completion of the studies; but should their services be specially required, they would be withdrawn from the college for appointment to ships, as has been done in former years. The date of the examination of canditates from the Technical Colleges has been recently fixed to commence on Thursday the 29th of May next, and a satisfactory number of applications, namely, 20, have been already received. I have nothing to add to my previous statement that an adequate supply of candidates for the engineering branch of the Naval Service can always be obtained.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I think the noble Lord has overlooked one portion of the question, namely, where I asked whether the requirements in reference to examinations have been dispensed with, owing to the scarcity of Engineer Officers?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I am informed that there has been no departure from the former practice.

  STAMPING POSTCARDS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, under the Post Office Regulations, a person residing in the provinces is compelled, if he wish to have his own postcards stamped, either to attend personally in London for the purposes of witnessing the operation of stamping, and of paying in cash the charge for that operation, or to engage an agent in London so to attend in person; and whether he can see his way to relieve persons resident in the country from the obligation alluded to, and to accept postal orders in payment of the said charge for stamping?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): It is not required that persons wishing to have their own postcards stamped should attend, either in person or by an agent, to witness the operation of stamping. They must, however, if resident in London, deliver the material and pay the duty and stamping fees at Somerset House, and on the completion of the stamping must fetch away the stamped cardboard. As regards persons resident in the provinces, there are seven provincial centres at which the duty and stamping fees can be paid to the local collector of Inland Revenue, after which the owners are required themselves to forward the material to Somerset House, whence, after the completion of the stamping, it is returned direct to them, they bearing the cost of carriage in both directions. Persons resident elsewhere than in London or at one of the seven provincial centres referred to must arrange for the payment of the duty and fees and for the delivery and collection of the material through an agent in London. I do not myself see why payments by money orders or postal orders, as suggested by the hon. Member, should not be accepted, the owners of the material in such cases bearing, of course, the cost of carrying it to and fro; but he will perhaps inquire of the Board of Inland Revenue whether they will accept payments in this manner.
  MR. H. HEATON: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Board of Inland Revenue in order to correct this abuse or grievance?
  MR. RAIKES: It is not in my Department, and I should not like to deprive the Board of Inland Revenue of the pleasure of communicating with the hon. Gentleman.

  COST OF HALF-PENNY STAMPS AND POSTCARDS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can inform the House of the actual cost to the Government of a million half-penny postcards, and a million half-penny stamps, respectively?
  MR. RAIKES: A million thin postcards cost £137 10s.; a million stout cards, £283 6s. 8d,; and a million half-penny stamps, £16 17s. 6d. The
  1814
  cost of distributing postcards is, moreover, very large as compared with that of distributing adhesive stamps.

  PRIVATELY PRINTED CARDS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether in four years the number of privately printed cards stamped for the post by the inland Revenue Department rose from 3,000,000 to 50,000,000 per annum; whether the Post Office Authorities increased the charge for impressing the Queen's head on these cards from 1s. to 1s. 6d. per 1,000 with a view to confine the supply of stationery as far as possible to Messrs. De La Rue & Co., and so to compensate them partially for the reductions of price to which they had consented; whether the result of this decision to increase the charge for stamping cards has been an addition to the profits resulting to Messrs. De La Rue & Co. from their existing contracts; and, whether the decision in question has ever been communicated to Parliament?
  MR. RAIKES: The figures in the first part of the question are substantially correct, except that the period should be six instead of four years. As to the second paragraph of the question, the reasons for the increase of fee for stamping private postcards from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. (not 1s. to 1s. 6d.) per 1,000 were given at length by the Secretary to the Treasury on the 9th of July last in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. It is impossible for me to say what effect the increase of the fee has had upon Messrs. De La Rue's profits, of which I have no cognisance. But if the hon. Member desires to imply that in fixing the present charge Her Majesty's Government were actuated by a wish to increase Messrs. De La Rue's receipts, I can assure him that the insinuation is as unfounded as, I am bound to say, it is offensive.
  MR. H. HEATON: In reference to the fourth paragraph of my question, may I ask whether the decision has ever been laid on the Table of this House?
  MR. RAIKES: I believe that it has been communicated by the Secretary to the Treasury.
  MR. H. HEATON: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the document on the Table?
  MR. RAIKES: I will communicate with the Treasury.

  ALLOTMENTS
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Sanitary Authority for the Midsomer Norton District have recently taken land for allotments under the provisions of "The Allotments Act, 1887;" whether the Surveyor to the Sanitary Authority refused to survey the land for allotments although directed to do so by the Allotments Sub-Committee of the Board, and whether, as a consequence, the land has lain unoccupied for six months, and additional expenditure has been incurred by employing another Surveyor; and whether this additional expenditure, together with the rent for the six months during which the land has been idle, is now to be charged to the allotment holders?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have received a communication from the Midsomer Norton Local Board in which it is stated that the terms of taking some of the land acquired by the Authority for allotments were only agreed to on January 20th last. The making and publishing of bye-laws which regulate lettings necessarily occupied some time. At the last meeting of the Local Board on the 17th inst. the Secretary to the managers delivered a plan of the allotments, the cost of which was £2 2s., and recommended the Authority to let the land at4½d. per perch, at which price offers had been obtained for the whole, or nearly all, of the allotments. The rent offered was deemed satisfactory, and agreed to.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther) whether he is aware that the Trustees of the Broughall Charity Estate have recently set out land for allotments under the provisions of "The Allotments Extension Act, 1882," for which they are demanding six months' rent in advance, although the land is in an uncultivated state, and compelling the men to sign agreements by which their tenancy may be determined at a month's notice, terminating with any year of their tenancy; and whether the Charity
  1816
  Commissioners will take any action in the matter?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Trustee of the Broughall Charity Estate has recently set out land for allotments under the provisions of the Allotments Extension Act, 1882. The Trustee proposed that the allotment holders should pay six months' rent in advance, and that the tenancy should be determinable at the end of any year of tenancy by one month's previous notice on either side; but he is willing to modify the agreement in both these particulars. The Charity Commissioners will inform the Trustee that the period for which rent is demanded in advance must not exceed three months, and that the notice for terminating the tenancy must be in conformity with the provisions of Section 110 of the Enclosure Act, 1845, and Section 33 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883.

  TEMPORARY HOME FOR DISCHARGED PRISONERS.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has received an application, supported by the leading judicial authorities in London, from the St. Giles's Christian Mission to Discharged Prisoners for the grant of an old ship as a temporary home for the considerable number of first offenders successfully remitted by the Metropolitan magistrates to the care of the Mission, instead of to prison during a probationary period; and if it will be possible for him to accede to the request?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Admiralty received an application to this effect from the Secretary of the St. Giles's Christian Mission in August, 1889, but, with every wish to assist in furthering the good work of this Society, they were obliged to give a refusal, having no vessel suitable or available for the purpose.

  BRISTOL PILOTAGE
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state, or whether he will consent to a Return showing the amounts paid by the Government, and to whom, for each of the years from 1820 to 1830 inclusive, on account of compensation to the pilots of the Port of Bristol, in respect of the abolition of the Differential Dues on foreign ships
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The only information I can find relating to the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member (which occurred between 60 and 70 years ago) is contained in Parliamentary Paper 557 of Session 1828, in which it is stated that the sum of £389 10s. 6d. was paid out of the Public Revenue between the years 1819 and 1828 to the Corporation of Bristol for compensation for pilotage, but whether this was in respect of Differential Dues is not stated in the Return.

  CROWN EIGHTS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. KEAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury where information can be obtained regarding all persons to whom any Crown rights of fishings or foreshores in Scotland have been granted, sold, or leased before the 10th October, 1851, similar to the information regarding the same matters from that date to 1886, contained in the Return on the Motion of Mr. Macfarlane, No. 175, of 1886; if no such information has been furnished to Parliament will Her Majesty's Government have any objection to furnish such; what period could it be made to cover before 1851; and is there any objection to furnish similar information from the date of Mr. Macfarlane's Return up to the present time?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): There was no such information, practically, before 1851, and there have been very few transactions since 1886. Such as they are they have been before the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Crown rights in the Scotch salmon fisheries. I understand that the Commission will very shortly present their Report. I hope the hon. Member will wait and see that Report, and any information which may not be given to him can be made the subject of another question.

  LONDON POSTMEN.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he can furnish the House with the information of the number of established postmen, verbally or by means of a Return, in the London postal district of three and more years' service employed at wages of less than
  1818
  24s. per week; the total number of first-class postmen in the London postal district, and how many of them are in receipt of the maximum 35s. per week: the number of auxiliaries employed less than eight hours per day, the number of auxiliaries employed eight hours and more, and the numbers of second, and first-class established postmen in the London postal district; and the total number of postal employés of all classes over 21 years of age employed for eight hours or more per day in the London postal district at less than 24s. per week?
  MR. RAIKES: The number of established postmen in the London postal district of three and more years' service employed at wages of less than 24s. a week is 587, and nearly all of these, so far as I am aware, are not yet over 22 years of age. The total number of first-class town postmen in the London postal district is 1,160, and of that number 526 are in receipt of the maximum. Of these 300 receive from wages and good-conduct stripes together 35s. a week. The number of auxiliaries employed less than eight hours or more a day is 1,500, and the number of auxiliaries employed eight hours or more a day is six. The number of established postmen, town and suburban, now employed in the London postal district is—of the first class, 2,170; of the second class, 1,211; total, 3,381. The number of postal employés of all classes over 21 years of age employed for eight hours or more per day in the London postal district at less than 24s. a week is 2,279, out of a total force of 8,339, and of these few, if any, belonging to an established class are more than 22 years of age.

  THE THAMES WATERMEN AND LIGHTERMEN'S BILL.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Select Committee on the Thames Watermen and Lightermen's Bill will be nominated?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not know why the question should be put to me. I have nothing whatever to do with the matter, and I rather think that it was the hon. Member himself who moved the Motion.

  THE ABERDEEN TELEGRAPH STAFF.
  MR. HUNTER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the reason of the continued delay in filling up a vacancy in the supervising class of the Aberdeen telegraph, staff that has existed since June, 1888?
  MR. RAIKES: The vacancy on the class of senior clerks at Aberdeen to which the hon. Member refers was filled up by the promotion in August last of Mr. Gordon, and I regret that I have not yet been able to fill up the vacancy caused by Mr. Gordon's promotion, but I hope to be able to do so shortly.

  MR. RICHARDSON GARDNER.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the public announcement made by the Member for Windsor that he was about to resign his seat for that constituency; whether he is aware that at the present time the constituency in question is to all intents and purposes in the midst of an election contest; and whether, in these circumstances, he will inform the House whether the hon. Gentleman has applied for the Chiltern Hundreds; and, if so, what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): My attention has been called to the public announcement made by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Richardson Gardner) that he is about to resign his seat. I am aware that the constituency at present is, to all intents and purposes, in the midst of an electoral contest. But I may inform the hon. Member that I have not received any application for the Chiltern Hundreds. If I do, it will, of course, be granted.

  RIFLE RANGES.
  MR. MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is any truth in a paragraph which has appeared in the newspapers to the effect that the Government will in future require firing rights over 5,000 yards behind the butts
  1820
  of all rifle ranges; and whether the proposed Metropolitan Rifle Range at Staines, with firing rights over 3,000 yards behind the butts, will be considered safe for the practice of the magazine rifle.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The paragraph is a pure invention, and we have never authorised any statement to be made that at Staines, or anywhere else, firing rights over 5,000 yards behind the targets will be required.

  THE TITHES BILL.
  MR. HERBERT KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of the debate on the Second Reading of the Tithes Bill not being concluded on Thursday, it will be proceeded with on Friday or Monday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I can hardly think that the debate on the Second Reading will be concluded on Thursday, having regard to the fact that very important Instructions to the Committee, which will raise more important questions than are contained in the Bill itself, have already appeared on the Paper. But whether that is so or not I hope the House will read the Bill a second time on Thursday; and, if it does not, I am afraid it will be necessary to ask the House to continue the debate on Friday, and it will also be necessary to ask for some Votes in Supply on Monday.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: What Votes will be taken?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: There are certain Votes authorising the construction of certain public works. Delay in the commencement of these works will be very injurious to the public interest.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of altering the order of the Votes?
  MR. W. H, SMITH: Certainly not. I consider myself bound to make such arrangements as will enable us to consider the Estimates which were postponed last year at the earliest possible period which circumstances will permit this year.

  COAL, CINDERS, &c.
  Accounts ordered—
  "Of the quantities of Coals, Cinders, and Patent Fuel shipped at the several Ports of England, Scotland, and Ireland, coastways to other Ports of the United Kingdom, in the year 1889: "
  "Of the quantities and declared value of Coals, Cinders, and Patent Fuel exported from the several Ports of England, Scotland, and Ireland to Foreign Countries and the British Settlements Abroad in the year 1889, distinguishing the Countries to which the same were sent:"
  "Of the quantities of Coals, Cinders, and Patent Fuel exported from the United Kingdom in the year 1889:"
  "Of the quantities of Coals and Patent Fuel brought coastways, by inland navigation, and by Railway, into the Port of London during the year 1889:"
  "And, of the quantities of Coal and Patent Fuel received coastways at the various Ports of the United Kingdom."—(Sir Henry Hussey Vivian.)

  LUNACY CONSOLIDATION BILL [LORDS.]—No. 191.)
  Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee on Statute Law Revision Bill [Lords], with Minutes of Evidence;
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 110.]
  Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House for Thursday.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1S87, (PERSONS PROCEEDED AGAINST, &c.)
  Return ordered,
  "Containing Names of all Persons proceeded against under 'The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887,' from the 30th day of November, 1888, to the 31st day of March, 1890, &c." (in same form as, and in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 28, of Session 1889).— (Mr. John Ellis.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask you, Sir, whether one Order of the Day can be properly separated from the others, so as to give it precedence over Notices of Motion on Private Members' nights?
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes; that is the practice repeatedly sanctioned by the House for many years in the case of Money Bills
  1822
  and Bills of that nature. In 1876 and 1879, in one year on March 21, and in the other on March 25 (this very day), a Consolidated Fund Bill was so put down, in one case on Tuesday, and in the other on Friday.
  MR. BUCHANAN: May I ask whether this discretion on Tuesdays is limited to Consolidated Fund Bills and Money Bills?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is not limited to Money Bills. The practice extends to Bills for which urgency can be properly claimed.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Can a Bill so put down only be taken by consent?
  MR. SPEAKER: This Bill was put down for half-past 3, I must observe, by Order of the House. It was yesterday ordered to be taken at half-past 3 today.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Can it only be taken by consent?
  MR. SPEAKER: Oh, no.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the judgment of the Government conclusive as to urgency?
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes. It is on the ground of urgency that a Money Bill is so put down.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Do I understand your ruling to be that on Monday evening it is in the power of the Government to move that any Bill may be taken on the Tuesday before Motions because, it may be without any reason or without notice, it considers that Bill urgent?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the exercise of that right of making such a Motion would be watched by the House with great jealousy, but it has been the practice for many years to take the Consolidated Fund and other Money Bills, and the course now taken is, therefore, consistent with Parliamentary practice.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I assume that the judgment of the Chair would be exercised, and that no Bill would be put down which, in the judgment of the Chair, was not urgent?
  MR. SPEAKER: It does not rest with the Chair. The Order is made by the House. But it might be my duty to call the attention of the House to the circumstances, if I thought it necessary.
  Bill considered in Committee and reported.

QUESTIONS.

  IRELAND—THE SPECIAL COMMISSION REPORT.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: I beg to ask whether it has come under the notice of the Secretary to the Treasury that the price of the Special Commision Report has been reduced from 1s. 4d. to 9d., and whether such a change has ever previously taken place in the price of Papers on public sale; and whether the price of Public Papers are in the hands of the Treasury or under Parliamentary control?
  MR. JACKSON: It has come to my notice. The fact is that the first edition was absorbed, and it was necessary to issue a second. Following what I believe to have been the practice of the House, that Parliamentary Papers should be issued at the lowest possible price, it was found that the extra cost of printing the extra number of copies would permit the sale at 8d., and not at 9d., as the hon Member has said, but I am speaking from memory.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Has the attention of the First Lord of the Treasury been drawn to the fact that the Report is practically made up of extracts from the Irish World and from the speeches of Irish Members, and was it for the special purpose of circulating it among the members of the Primrose League that the price has been reduced?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: How many copies were there in the first edition, and is there a prescribed number for editions of these Public Papers.
  MR. JACKSON: I do not know the number of the first edition. I believe there was an unusually large number.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: May I ask whether the thanks of the House having been voted to the three Judges for their impartial judgment, that Resolution has been formally presented to them, and, if so, whether they have made any reply?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is no part of my duty to convey to anybody a Resolution of this House.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether you have formally conveyed the Resolution to the Judges,
  1824
  or whether it will be conveyed to them at all?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have received no directions on the subject.
  MR. CAUSTON: Can the hon. Gentleman quote any other instance of a similar reduction in price?
  MR. JACKSON: Several; one of them was the Report on the Housing of the Working Classes.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: Was it reduced, one half?
  MR. JACKSON: If the hon. Member will put the question down, I will obtain the information.
  MR. CLANCY: Has the reduction taken place since the adoption of the Report?
  MR. JACKSON: No, Sir.

MOTIONS.

  COUNTY COUNCILLORS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. James Stuart, Bill to enable Women to be elected and to act as County Councillors, ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Stuart, Baron Dimsdale, Mr. Channing, Mr. Walter M'Laren, and Mr. Sydney Buxton.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 202.]

  SALARIED SHOP ASSISTANTS' WEEKLY HALF-HOLIDAY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Blundell Maple, Bill to give Salaried Shop Assistants, male and female, one Half-Holiday in each week without closing the shop, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Blundell Maple, Mr. Baumann, Mr. Gainsford Bruce, Marquess of Carmarthen, Mr. Kimber, Mr. Lambert, Captain Penton, and Sir John Puleston.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 203.]

  METROPOLIS PAVEMENT ACT (1817) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Albert Rollit, Bill to amend "The General Paving (Metropolis) Act, 1817," ordered to be brought in by Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Bartley, Mr. Richard Chamberlain, and Mr. Lambert.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 204.]

  REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Albert Rollit, Bill to provide for the Registration of Firms, ordered to be brought in by Sir Albert Rollit, Sir Bernhard Samuelson, Mr. Lockwood, Mr. Forrest Fulton, Mr. Woodall, Mr. Maclure, and Mr. Barran.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 205.]

  SCHOOL SUPPLY (YORK AND SALISBURY}.
  MR. MUNDELLArose to call attention to the action of the Education Department in respect of the School Supply of York and Salisbury; and to move—
  "That this House is of opinion that the action of the Education Department in reference to the supply of public schools accommodation in the cities of York and Sahsbury is contrary to the spirit and intention of the Education Act of 1870, and injurious to the interests of education."
  The right hon. Gentleman said: I can assure the House that it is far from an agreeable task to me to find myself under the necessity of moving a Vote of Censure on a Department which I had the honour of representing in this House for a long period. I have always regarded the Act of 1870, notwithstanding its manifold defects, as one of the most valuable measures of our time. It was a compromise and an endeavour to reconcile conflicting views, and that compromise, when in office, I loyally endeavoured to carry out. It has, from time to time, been subjected to much criticism by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. When the Bill of 1876 was introduced, its rejection was moved by the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), who was supported by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, both the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman condemning almost as unsparingly as the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) the support out of public funds of denominational education. The noble Lord said—
  "There are many of us, and I do not scruple to say that I was one of them, who believe the principle of School Boards is the right and true principle in this matter. We believe that being the right and true principle, it will in the end prevail. We believe that when once the time has arrived for Parliament to declare that the education of the country is the business, not, as formerly, of one individual, but of the whole State itself, it will become inevitable that sooner or later State education must be in the hands, not of individuals, but of the representatives of the people."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the same occasion, said—
  "He believed in the long run that popular feeling would declare itself against the support of denominational schools by public money."
  1826
  No matter what Government may have been in office the administration of the Education Act has been watched for many years with great suspicion and jealousy, and of late a dead set has been made against the permanent officials of the Education Department. I claim for myself that I gave to Mr. Forster a loyal support, and that, during the whole time I have been in this House, I have never refused, but gratefully accepted, any advance on education which has been offered to us by any Government that has been in power. And when, in 1880, I was called upon to administer the Act, I strove to the utmost of my ability to administer it impartially. I think I can say the same of my predecessor, the noble Lord who is now the First Lord of the Admiralty, and another noble Lord, who is not now in the House (Lord Sandon), and, so far as I was personally concerned, I had the cordial assistance of two Lords President —Lord Spencer and Lord Carlingford. The Vice President has had occasion recently to point out that the permanent officials are not fairly treated by some hon. Gentlemen who sit behind him. While I was connected with this Department Sir Francis Saudford and Mr. Cumin were the Secretaries, and from my experience of those gentlemen I can speak to their judicial and impartial minds and their desire not to swerve by one inch from the perfectly fair administration of the Act. But some hon. Gentlemen opposite apparently take a different view of the matter. Their opinions have been expressed very courageously and frankly by the noble Lord the Member for the Darwen Division (Lord Cranborne), who a short time ago said—
  "We do not distrust the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President, but we have a profound distrust of the Education Department."
  And he went on to add the reason—
  "Because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield has left his spirit behind him, and though my right hon. Friend does his utmost to restrain it, yet it leaks out in every direction."
  The charge, therefore, is that the permanent officials are not fair to the denominational schools, but against that charge I am sure the Vice President will defend them. I desire to call attention to two instances in which I have had

  1827
  seriously to arraign the action of the Department, but in doing so I made no attack on the permanent officials, nor on the Vice President, who has shown himself to be fair-minded and courteous, and in sympathy with education. But while I believe that it has neither been the right hon. Gentleman, nor the permanent officials, I am afraid there has been a power behind them which has taken on itself to overrule them and set new precedents which will prove disastrous to the interests of education. Following up what I said about the action of the Conservative Party, I noticed that when Mr. Cumin died in January last, a remarkable article appeared in the Standard, calling upon the Government to be careful whom they appointed in Mr. Cumin's place, and warning the Government against appointing anyone who was not "unfettered by official traditions, and competent to look at the whole educational controversy from the outside." I congratulate the Government on the appointment of the present Secretary of the Education Department: I do not believe that any appointment could have given greater satisfaction. Though a Conservative and Churchman, I am sure Mr. Kekewich is not responsible for the policy which has been adopted. The Resolution which I have put upon the Paper calls attention to the action of the Department with respect to York and Salisbury. I will take Salisbury first, because it comes first in order of time. It is not the worst case, but it is a very bad case, and one which the right hon. Gentleman will find it difficult to defend. I am sorry to say I shall have to trouble the House with considerable details. In February, 1888, the Department complained to the School Board of Salisbury that there was a lack of school accommodation in the place. There has been a School Board in Salisbury for 17 years, and during the whole of that period efforts have been made, without success, to secure a Board school for Salisbury. In 1885 and 1886 the Department sent down an Inspector, who informed the managers of the Scotslane schools that the grant would be refused unless large structural alterations were made, and the school brought into harmony with modern requirements. Now Scotslane British school was one which had been improved out of an old
  1828
  chapel, and was held by the managers on a short tenancy, and they found that it would be impossible to make good and useful schools there without entire re-construction, and without incurring expense which the managers would be unable to meet. Further than that, it was found that the site was not suitable. The complaints of the Inspector were continuous down to 1888, and ultimately the Department notified that the grant would be refused. Upon that, the managers resolved that the school should be closed at Christmas, 1888. On the 15th of December, 1888, the Department wrote again to the School Board inviting their attention to the deficiency of school accommodation in the place, and adding that additional accommodation in a central position was urgently necessary, even irrespective of the closing of the British school. About this time the triennial election of the School Board was pending, and before the election came on there was an informal understanding arrived at by men of influence on both sides that if the Scotslane Schools were closed a School Board school should be opened. I do not say there was a compact or a written agreement, but there was an understanding as stated by men of high honour whose word is as good as that of the Bishop himself. The Bishop, however, forced this controversy upon different lines altogether, and was entirely opposed to a School Board school on any conditions whatever. He made personal appeals to the electors both in the Press and the pulpit, and the whole parochial agency and the whole organisation of the ecclesiastical party were put into operation to prevent a School Board school from being set up in Salisbury. There were 19,000 votes which might have been cast at the election, and of these 8,600 votes only supported the ecclesiastical part, and 6,300 were polled for a School Board school. The other electors remained neutral. I point out that to show that there was a large minority in favour of a School Board school. After the election of the new Board, the Department—on the 2nd March, 1882—called attention to its previous letters, and asked the Board to take into early consideration the question of the additional school accommodation required in the district. In the same month the managers of the Fisherton

  1829
  School, in the outskirts of the city, announced their intention of closing it after the next inspection, for they had come to the conclusion—and I think wisely—that it was no use straggling on with an imperfect staff, and that a good Board school was required to raise the tone of education in the city. The result of that step would of course be, by the following Christmas, to cause a deficiency of school accommodation for 800 children. In April, 1889, the Department wrote again to the Board, calling attention to the deficiency of the existing school accommodation and to the increase of that deficiency by the closing of the Fisherton School, and they asked the Board in what way provision was to be made for the children. The School Board deferred the consideration of that communication for a month. That is the way in which the Board procrastinated and ignored its functions. At the next meeting of the Board on the 15th of May a letter was read from the managers of the Church Day Schools Association offering to provide additional accommodation, and a school which previously had been a free school was assigned by those managers to the Kilburn Sisters to rebuild and to maintain under their sole management. The Board resolved to accept the offer, they passed a resolution to that effect, and the resolution was communicated to the Department. Thus, nearly a year and a half had elapsed since the Department first called the attention of the Board to the necessity for additional school accommodation. On the 19th June, 1889, the Department again wrote calling the attention of the Board to the fact that they were charged with the duty of providing adequate and permanent public elementary school accommodation for the children of the city, and that before their Lordships would feel justified in withholding a requisition addressed to the Board under Section 18 of the Elementary Education Act, they must be satisfied that the schools proposed to be provided by voluntary exertions were suitable for the purpose. The Department further asked for plans of the site and proposed buildings and an undertaking to maintain the proposed school as a public elementary school. A month or two later the Department reminded the Board as follows:—
  1830
  "If their Lordships feel it their duty to make a formal requisition on the School Board to supply further accommodation. … it must be clearly understood that any school accommodation mentioned in the requisition must be supplied by your Board and not by other persons."
  On the 26th June the School Board replied—not very courteously, but rather in a shuffling and evasive way—and on the 30th. July the Department again wrote—
  "My Lords accept the accommodation proposed in the proposed plan for the Bishop's higher grade school, but they must be satisfied with respect to the subscriptions for building and carrying on the school."
  And so the negotiations went on until at last the Board got an extension of time to the close of October. As a, result of the negotiations Memorials, influentially signed, were sent up to the Department from Salisbury; and in November I had the honour of introducing a deputation of the ratepayers, who laid their views before the Department. I may mention that the contract was signed on the 16th August; but up to the end of the year I believe no guarantee had been given, except the personal guarantee of the Bishop, and the contract entered into was a conditional contract, providing that the schools should be completed within six months from the time when the contractor was called upon to begin. The payment of the subscriptions was spread over a period of 10 years. One school— the Bishop's school—was to be a select school, in which the fees were fixed at 9d., and was not to be recognised as supplying any part of the deficiency. The answer given by Lord Cranbrook to the deputation was that there was no legal obligation on the School Board to take up that which others would do.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): To secure a supply.
  MR. MUNDELLA: But in one of their letters the Department say it is the duty of the Board to provide adequate accommodation for elementary education. Well, the Board only provide it if other people do not. Why does the Department threaten the Board with a requisition if it does not do its duty? However generous the offer of the Bishop may be, his liability does not extend beyond the building of a school, for with a fee of 9d. a week and Government Grants a school

  1831
  can maintain itself, and 9d. is an absurd fee for an elementary school in Salisbury. Two new schools had been provided by the Board and accepted by the Department. They were built to provide nominally for 120 children in each department. Great was the astonishment when the Department would not certify for more than 98 in each; yet in a short time the same buildings were certified as affording accommodation for 146 in each department. That is the way in which the Department have met the demands for public school accommodation in Salisbury. Now, Sir, I have a word or two to say as to the interference of the Kilburn Sisters in the educational affairs of Salisbury. It is no part of my duty to complain of the practices or doctrines of that Sisterhood. But I may explain that it is an Anglican Sisterhood, known as the Church Extension Society, and as the Kilburn Sisters, who are active propagandists of doctrines not in accordance with the Articles and formularies of the Church of England, and opposed to the views of nine-tenths of the Protestants of this country; and to force children to attend schools taught by the Kilburn Sisters is an oppression of conscience of which no Member on either side of the House will approve. The result of the action of the Department is that the Kilburn Sisters and the Bishop of Salisbury are supplying the educational wants of the city, while the School Board escapes its obligations, and now there is no school in Salisbury which is not under the control of the Church of England, except one small Roman Catholic school, and 6,000 persons who are in favour of a School Board school are compelled to send their children to these schools. Now, Sir, Clause 7 of the Act of 1870 is, that the School Board shall maintain and keep efficient every school, and shall, from time to time, provide such efficient school accommodation as is, in their opinion, necessary, and if, at any time, they do not supply that accommodation, a requisition will follow. It is quite time that there is no obligation under this section to send a requisition; but on June 19th the Department threatened to send a requisition, unless their requirements were complied with. It was not obligatory; but they have the power,
  1832
  though not the duty, of doing it. These conditions were not complied, with four months after the date fixed, and one of them is not fulfilled at the present day. Yet no requisition has been sent. What are the facts of the case? That if the Bishop were to die, the whole scheme would break down. There would be no supply. The schools of Salisbury have been for many years in a poor and struggling condition, and the County of Wilts stands lowest in education of any county in England. I believe its Grants are 7 per cent. less than the next lowest county. The decision of the Department has placed it in this position: that practically the school supply is left to the Bishop and the Kilburn system. On the 19th October he said—
  "Now, as long as he was Bishop of Salisbury he would never allow a Board school to be introduced into that town, as long as he had a penny in his pocket."
  That is not the Act of 1870. On the same occasion the Bishop told the inhabitants of Salisbury what the great and terrible German nation had resolved with regard to religious instruction. The Bishop spoke with approval of the German system, which compels every man to make a confession of faith, and allows teachers of religion in German schools. If the Bishop had turned to Mr. Matthew Arnold's Report upon religious teaching in German schools, he would have found it stated that in the best educated and most Protestant parts of Germany two-thirds of the working classes were alienated from religion. I think anyone who knows Germany knows the mischief that has been done to religious teaching and to religion itself by compulsory religious teaching. But in dealing with this question there is something still more important—the relation of the Church to Nonconformists in Salisbury. The effect of what I have been commenting upon will be to enforce the attendance of a reluctant minority at these ultra-sectarian schools. What can come of this but heartburning and strife? Complaints are made as to the working of the Conscience Clause already. I believe there are some Liberal clergymen in Salisbury who are exceedingly anxious so to adapt their proceedings as to minimise the number of days on which the Catechism is taught. But that only applies to the few. Already

  1833
  I have received numbers of letters from working men, some complaining that time after time their children have been left in the cold and darkness of the outer lobbies, while the teaching has been going on inside. Others complain that the children have not been withdrawn from this teaching. The right hon. Gentleman has heard several of these complaints. A working man sent his daughter to the Fishburn School after the British School was closed. She was then received on the payment of 3d. per week. He claimed the Conscience Clause; and when they heard she was in the Seventh Standard, they said "You must pay 9d. a week to remain here." A penalty was placed on this child, either because the Conscience Clause was claimed or because she was in the Seventh Standard. How is this going to promote the education of Salisbury? What is the duty of the Department if it is not to promote education? Is it the duty of the Education Department to provide sectarian education? What will be the result of the action of the Education Department in Salisbury? The right hon. Gentleman knows that the schools of Salisbury are poor and struggling, and that many of them are, structurally, very bad. One has been condemned, I am told, since the Fishburn Schools were closed, by H.M. Inspector Green. And so encouraged are the Church Party in Salisbury by the action of the Department that they have been talking of petitioning for the removal of Mr. Green. There can be no better evidence of the poverty of the schools of Salisbury than that the free schools are obliged now to charge a fee. As a result, the School Board have to send working men to the Board of Guardians to get payment of their fees; the working-men are very unwilling to go, and the Board are very reluctant to prosecute them for not going. What would have been the result if the Department had taken a different line of action? Supposing the Department had met the thing promptly when it first arose, and established a School Board school to begin with. What would have been the result? A Board school would have raised the tone of education in Salisbury; it would have been a model and an example for the rest of the schools; it would not have been an advantage to Nonconformists; it would have been an
  1834
  advantage to education. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the School Board could then have remitted the fees of the working-classes. The result of better organisation of the Church schools has been that they have benefited by the increased Grant to the extent of from 2s. 6d. to 13s. per head. One good Board school would have raised the character of the whole education of Salisbury. It would have been of advantage to the Church schools if they had had the competition of one or two good Board schools, as it would not only have raised their tone, but have increased their earnings immensely. The right hon. Gentleman says that this was not the spirit of the Education Act. Let me remind him of what the late Mr. W. Forster said when that Act was passed. He said—
  "The education of the people's children by the people's officers chosen in their local assemblies, and controlled by the people's Representatives in Parliament—that is the principle on which the Bill is based, and it is the ultimate force which lies behind every clause."
  But where, I ask, are the people's schools in Salisbury managed by the people's officers, and managed for the people? There are no such schools. There are no schools into which anyone would care to send a child, unless it be the Church schools. In 1876 the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer appealed to the Vice President of the Council of that day, and asked if the school supply, which was referred to, consisted of Unitarian schools, would he dare to force the attendance of children in them? Suppose the Catholics had built those schools—because it means this if it means anything—would you have regarded them as suitable and have allowed the School Board to enforce attendance in them? No; you would have ordered other schools to have been built forthwith; but as it is, you are doing what is much more objectionable. This matter has been one of great controversy, and I myself was forced into a controversy with the Bishop in regard to it. I acknowledge the thorough honesty of purpose and the good intentions which animate the Bishop; but I am afraid he is an extremely narrow ecclesiastic, and has very little toleration for those who differ from him. I have armed myself with letters respecting this question of

  1835
  the Salisbury schools from all parts of England, from beneficed clergymen not only in Salisbury but all over the country, and also from the laity on a much more extensive scale. I should like to read one letter I have received from a beneficed clergyman in Salisbury, as I think it will give the House a fair picture of what is going on in that city. [Cries of"Name !"] I will give names where I think it necessary, but I cannot undertake to give the names in every case I quote, because there are some men whose names it would not be fair to read, as it might interfere with their personal comfort considering that they have to look to ecclesiastics for the position they maintain. One letter is from Edmund's rectory, in which the clergyman says that, as the only beneficed clergyman in Salisbury who is conscientiously opposed to the action of the Bishop, he thought it necessary to protest that the Bishop's policy was most lamentable in its results and was doing much harm to the cause of the Church of England and of religion. This is a letter from an excellent man who does honour to the Church by his learning and ability, and of whom all who know him speak with admiration and effect. I am afraid I have detained the House too long in reference to the question of Salisbury. I will now briefly touch on the case of York, which I think the House will find is even worse than that of Salisbury, from the point of view of neglect on the part of the Education Department. In the Salisbury case, the Department were empowered to do certain statutory things, and ought to have exercised the discretion they possessed; but in the case of York, they had to perform a statutory duty, and this duty they have undoubtedly neglected. There are numerous Reports in the Education Department showing that many of the schools in York were, structurally, unsuitable, while the fees were exceptionally high. The right hon. Gentleman will not dispute this, as the Department declined to recognise All Saints' school in 1886. There was a large deficiency of school places, and, after a long correspondence, the final notice was issued in 1888. Instead of creating the necessary places the School Board accepted the offer of the Church Extension Association to create 600 places, in spite of strong protests from
  1836
  many denominations. I contend that it is not in the power of the School Board to allow any one else to do the work which they are bound to do. On the acceptance of the offer, protests were immediately raised from Public Bodies of many denominations, and Petitions were sent to the Department. A copy of the Board's resolution of October 4, accepting the offer, was sent to the Department, and on the 31st January, 1890, the Department replied, informing the Board that they were advised that it was not the duty of the Department to send a requisition—so that the Department gave up the requisition—and asked that the plans of the school which was proposed to be built should be forwarded to the Department without delay for their approval. Now, I am curious to hear what the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Hart Dyke) has to say in defence of this action, because it has ever been held as a canon in the Education Department, and indeed it was decided in the famous Willesden case by Lord Herschell, that when a School Board has been set up for the purpose of supplying a deficiency, no other Body but the School Board can afterwards supply that deficiency. I should like the right hon. Gentleman, if he has any precedent to the contrary, to show it to me. All I know is, that when I was at the Education Department I was told that there was no such precedent. It appears to me that there was less excuse in the case of the City of York for the non-supply of accommodation than in any other case that I ever knew. The state of education in York, according to the statements of the present Chairman of the School Board, is disgraceful. In the first place, 2,100 children are at the present time in private adventure and dame schools—a state of things which I do not believe is equalled anywhere else. Some of these schools are held in the ordinary living rooms of private houses and in other unsuitable premises. Another difficulty they have in York which has given much trouble is connected with the school fees. The fees are exceedingly high, averaging 14s. 7½d., and the Chairman says that even men who are in regular work, but who have small wages, cannot afford to pay these fees, and consequently they are brought into contact with the degrading machinery

  1837
  of pauperism. I take shame to myself that I did not find out when I was at the Department that York was in so bad a condition. Then there is the system of raising the fees as the child rises in the school, which prevents parents from sending their children regularly to school, and induces them to take them away as soon as they are old enough to earn money. This state of things is being perpetuated by the Government, and it not only reflects discredit upon the Government, but does the greatest possible harm to education. I know that nothing has been so beneficial to the voluntary schools as the competition of the School Board schools. All through Yorkshire I can find towns where the average earnings are 3s. per head higher than in York. In fact, it is a misfortune for a child to be born in the City of York, for he is worse off in the matter of education than any other child. Why is this? This is done in the name of religious education. If there is one thing more than another that was impressed upon this House by the late Mr. Forster, it was that parents should have free choice of schools. There is no free choice of schools in York, and there is not going to be any so far as the Education Department is concerned. I say that if the Education Department had taken into consideration not only that the supply should be sufficient, but that it should be efficient, such a decision as this could never have been come to. I am of opinion that the Government has neglected to use the powers conferred upon it by the Education Act, and distinctly failed in the performance of its statutory duty in respect of these schools. I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House is of opinion that the action of the Education Department in reference to the supply of public school accommodation in the Cities of York and Salisbury is contrary to the spirit and intention of the Education Act of 1870, and injurious to the interests of Education."—(Mr. Mundella.)
  MR. HULSE: As representing one of the two constituencies referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, I hope the House will bear with me for a few moments whilst I endeavour to place hon.
  1838
  Members in possession of the real facts of the education controversy, so far as Salisbury is concerned. I cannot presume to enter into a discussion with the right hon. Gentleman as to the scope or even the merits of the Education Act of 1870, or the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presided for so many years, but I think I can speak with some confidence and authority as to the wishes and desires of my constituents in this matter. Hon. Members are no doubt aware that Salisbury and its Bishop have been the subject of articles and leaders in the public organs of the Metropolis for some time, owing, no doubt, to the prominent part the right hon. Gentleman has taken in this controversy. The right hon. Gentleman was correct in more than one statement he has made, but, so far as the population of Salisbury is concerned, he is incorrect in saying that the population of the Salisbury school district is 19,000.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I said, I think, that the number of votes cast at the School Board election was 19,000.
  MR. HULSE: The population is 18,000, and evenly balanced as have been its many political conflicts, and narrow as have been the majorities of those who have been privileged to represent it in this House, I think Salisbury is practically determined to uphold the voluntary system in its schools, and, if possible, to promote and continue the modus vivendi both for Church and Dissent. This is no mere sectarian struggle to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of this House. Every honest effort has been made by the City of Salisbury to meet the educational wants of the population. The deficiency which the right hon. Gentleman complains of was not caused by the speedy growth of the population, but rather by what I might venture to call the very mistaken action of the members and supporters of the British and Foreign Schools Society, of which the right hon. Gentleman is President, and whose mouthpiece in this matter he has declared himself throughout his speech to be. The educational controversy in Salisbury dates back as far as 1871 and 1872, when, for a short time, there was a recognised deficiency of accommodation, which was met by the building of the free school to which the right hon.

  1839
  Gentleman has referred. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the deputation which he introduced to Lord Cranbrook, I think in November last. Well, according to the statement of the working man member of the present School Board, whom the right hon. Gentleman introduced with a deputation to Lord Cranbrook, there was no contest for nine years after the establishment of this free school for the School Board. The School Board of Salisbury then, as now, had a majority in favour of the voluntary system, and against the erection of Board schools, at the expense of the ratepayers. Only 12 months ago, at the instigation of the Board school party, the question was threshed out as to whether there should be Board schools and a continuation and extension of the existing system, and the present Board was returned by a large majority in favour of the voluntary system. So far as I am able to judge, as representing Salisbury, I am confident that a majority of my constituents are in favour of the voluntary system, and I have no fear that the Bishop will, in his new technical school, only admit the sons of Churchmen, or that the Conscience Clause will be abrogated, or that the Catechism or other formularies of the Church will be inflicted on unwilling hearers. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to one or two cases of working men objecting to the teaching in these schools, but I would remind him that in two of the particular instances, although the parents took advantage of the Conscience Clause, they sent their children to the Sunday schools, and that in another case a parent who took advantage of the clause removed his child to a Roman Catholic school. Well, Sir, as a matter of fact, the Catechism is taught in the Salisbury schools only once a week, on Friday morning's. The Nonconformist parents know very well that they can either send their children to school at 9.45 on Fridays, when the Catechism is over, or, as many have done, they can send their children at 9 o'clock on the understanding that for three quarters of an hour, whilst the Catechism is being taught, their children shall be provided with secular training. The right hon. Gentleman has been unceasing in his arguments elsewhere that
  1840
  the object of the Act of 1870 was to give to the parent a choice of schools. I do not take that view. I have always thought, on the contrary, that the grievance of the Radical Party was that the object of Mr. Forster's Act was only to supply existing deficiences; but if the object of the Act is what the right hon. Gentleman contends there would be, or ought to be, a couple of rival schools not only in every urban but in every rural parish throughout England. So far as I in my humble way can judge this is not a working man's grievance in Salisbury, but a sectarian grievance, fostered and encouraged by certain reverend gentlemen who are anxious to make political capital out of it. The closing of the British schools was, in the opinion of many, only a piece of political strategy, and wholly unnecessary. To use the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) in his published correspondence with the Bishop of Salisbury, if the supporters of these schools wished only to rate themselves they might have done so; they might have saved them from extinction, and have prevented all this grievance. The truth is that the supporters of these British schools wish to rate Churchmen, Roman Catholics, Wesleyans, and other Nonconformists for the purpose of erecting and maintaining schools which they had not the public spirit to maintain and keep going themselves. But, even before this, the Church Day Schools' Association was started to prevent the abandonment of the existing schools, and also to supply the future educational needs of the city. Nearly 18 months ago many of the leading citizens subscribed to the British schools, as well as to the parochial schools, and, so far from the Bishop having been intolerant—he may have been on one occasion somewhat injudicious, a point the right hon. Gentleman has made the most of—at a meeting at the Palace, when the probability of closing the schools was first announced, he offered the assistance of the friends of the voluntary system to keep the British schools going, and also to satisfy the requirements of the Department respecting them. I am extremely sorry to have to weary the House with figures, but I should like to state what the school accommodation is. The population of the school district of Salisbury is

  1841
  18,000, and, taking the children of school age at the very liberal estimate required by the Department of one-sixth of the population, they will number 3,000. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the school accommodation of Salisbury in February, 1888. There was then provision in the existing schools for 3,086 children. The actual number on the register was 2,534, and the actual daily average attendance was 2,264. The two British schools that were closed provided accommodation for 310 and 340 children respectively, whilst the Roman Catholics, who never neglect their children, provided accommodation for between 90 and 100. When the Bishop's Higher Grade School is open, as it shortly will be, there will be accommodation for 4,119 children, reckoned on the basis approved by the Education Department. Hon. Members will ask what is the reason for this greatly extended accommodation? It is due to the fact that on the Report of the School Inspector the Education Department required that the City of Salisbury should be divided into certain districts, in each of which the necessary school accommodation should be provided without allowing a superfluity of places in one part of the city to be set off against the deficiencies elsewhere. This has been done at the sole expense of the Church party. I would further point out that since the British schools were closed there have been 1,653 places provided to make up for the loss of the 650 places which were so unduly and wantonly sacrificed by the closing of the British schools. We have, therefore, an excess of accommodation for 1,585 children, which, I believe, is sufficient to provide for the growth of population for at least another generation. If every child of school age from three to 13 attended an elementary school in Salisbury there would still be an excess of accommodation for 1,119 children, all requirements of the Department having been fulfilled. I think the Bishop has done everything in his power to promote and foster Christian feeling between the various Religious Bodies in the city. In the higher grade school, which has been erected at the entire cost of his Lordship, I believe there will be found some of the best and cleverest boys in the city, no matter
  1842
  what be their creed, and whether their parents go to chapel, or, unfortunately, to no place of worship at all. There will be 20 Free Scholarships open annually to all the other elementary schools in the neighbourhood. This controversy has been fomented by appeals to the Liberation Society for resolutions of sympathy, and also by the most violent attacks on the Kilburn Sisters. Of course it does not come within my province to take up the cudgels on behalf of the Kilburn Sisters. It may be that their great zeal has somewhat outrun their discretion. I would, however, point out that they came to Salisbury by invitation, and by an arrangement with the managers of the free school. It was arranged that if, at the end of a year, the work of the Kilburn Sisters was not appreciated and satisfactory, the managers of the free school could take over the premises at a valuation. The treatment which the Education Department has meted out to the supporters of the existing schools has not been especially favourable. The educational wants of the city have been met in the promptest and most liberal manner. Out of the £14,000 required to place Salisbury on an efficient educational basis, £13,000 has already been subscribed. The contracts for building new schools were made in such a way that actions could be brought against the contracting parties if the work was not proceeded with or the money not forthcoming. I have myself inspected the new schools, in company with others who are far better able to judge. We found they were built in an admirable way, and that they met in every respect the requirements of the Department. If hon. Members will take the trouble to look at the map of Salisbury, in the Library, they will find the schools so situated that no child in Salisbury has to walk as much as one mile, or anything approaching it, to attend his or her school. I think that in the city there is a perfect choice of schools, and perfect liberty of conscience, and I would submit to the House that on no ground, either educational or sentimental, ought any censure to be passed upon the action of the Department, or upon the wishes of the citizens. In my humble opinion, the time of this House is being wasted

  1843
  upon a local dispute, into which a great deal of sectarian bitterness has been interposed, and where I have no hesitation in saying that the law, both in its letter and in its spirit, has been fairly and justly administered, and, so far from the Educational Department having specially favoured Salisbury, I would go so far as to say that in some of its demands it has been almost arbitrary and exacting. I cannot see any legal or moral reason why the School Board should be called upon to spend thousands of the ratepayers' money when the cost of providing for the education of the children is readily, willingly, and cheerfully supplied from private sources.
  MR. CHANNING: The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hulse) has spoken of the debate as the airing of a local dispute in the House of Commons. I venture to say that anyone acquainted with the history of the educational controversy is aware that the debate which my right hon. Friend has started, not only raises points of importance to the two places to which it relates, but also involves the most important principles. I will not go into the details of the matter, as they have been exhaustively dealt with by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella), but I would point out that one practical result of the action which has been taken at Salisbury is that the building arrangements of the new schools will be carried out on the eight feet principle of the voluntary schools instead of on the ten foot principle of the Board schools. The hon. Member (Mr. Hulse) claims to act on the principle of a bare majority on this question of religious education. That brings us exactly to the point of this debate. The result of the action of the Education Department is that in a place which actually has a School Board the state of affairs is pushed back to what it was in 1870, when Mr. Forster's first proposals were put before the House, and before the discussions which finally resulted in the adoption of the Cowper-Temple Clause. But it is even worse than that, because the principle of compulsion has now been introduced, so that the children of Nonconformists are forced to go to schools where the religious education
  1844
  given is contrary to their principles. The noble Lord the Member for Rossen-dale (the Marquess of Hartington), in the notable speech he delivered when Lord Sandon's Bill was before the House said—
  "What is the position of Nonconformists under the Bill? They were forced, for the first time, to send their children to schools of the character of which they did not altogether approve. …"
  "They were called upon to submit to these disadvantages in the name of educational progress, and as the logical consequence of the legislation of 1870."
  "Who are the persons to whom I have been thus referring/? Are they persons of whose feelings, sympathies, and prejudices the House ought to he negligent?"
  They had done much for religion and morality. They had done much for the Constitutional liberties of this country.
  "These are men whose feelings and prejudices cannot be safely neglected by either side of the House. I should have thought if not justice, at all events, generosity, would have led those having at their command a powerful majority to consider carefully the feelings, and even the prejudices, of these men."
  The hon. Member for Salisbury says there is no intolerance in Salisbury, but that the Bishop has been most anxious to foster a Christian spirit. I challenge that statement most emphatically. I say there is intolerance when you deny to the Nonconformists an opportunity of having a school where they can receive that simple Bible teaching and training which Nonconformists are accustomed to, and which they demand; and when you force the children of Nonconformists to go to a school such as that started under the auspices of the Kilburn Sisters, at which the children have either to listen to religious teaching which is based on the doctrine of transubstantiation, the doctrine of auricular confession, and in any other doctrines of that kind, or to protect themselves by putting in operation the Conscience Clause. I have not one word to say against the work of the Kilburn Sisters in general. I know something of it, and I believe these Sisters are doing noble and good work in the country amongst the poor; and, that being so, I ask why should they leave this good work and enter on this miserable battle of sectarianism and attempt to obtain a monopoly of the whole religious teaching of a city? Why

  1845
  should they look with such jealousy on the wishes of the Nonconformists to have a simple Bible teaching? I might quote from the books and pamphlets issued under the auspices of the Church Extension Association to show the lengths that association will go to misrepresent the action of the School Boards in regard to religion. We have always supposed that the Act of 1870 placed a great engine at the disposal of the Education Department, in order to maintain religious equality, in order to give a fair chance in these matters to every section of the community. We have a right to challenge the action of the Education Department when we see they are throwing the whole weight of their official power into carrying out this bitter spirit of sectarian propagandism. What the Nonconformists wish is excellently explained by Cardinal Newman, in the following words:—
  "These are only denominations, parties, schools, compared with the National Religion of England in its length and breadth. 'Bible religion' is both the recognised title and the best description of English religion. It consists not in rites and creeds, but mainly in having the Bible read in Church, in the family, and in private. Now, I am far indeed from undervaluing that mere knowledge of Scripture, which is imparted thus promiscuously. At least, in England it has to a certain point made up for great and grievous losses in it Christianity. The reiteration again and again in fixed course, in the Public Service, of the words of inspired teachers under both covenants, and that in grave, majestic English, has, in matter of fact, been to our people a vast benefit. It has attuned their minds to religious thoughts and has given them a high moral standard. It has served thorn in associating religion with compositions which, even humanly considered, are among the most sublime and beautiful ever written; especially it has impressed upon them the series of Divine Providences in behalf of man from his creation to his end; and, above all, the words, deeds, and sacred offerings of Him in whom all the Providences of God centre. It has been comparatively careless of creed and catechism, and has, in consequence, shown little sense of the need of consistency. What Scripture illustrates from its first page to its last, is God's Providence, and that is nearly the only doctrine held with a real assent by the mass of religious Englishmen. Hence, the Bible is so great a solace and refuge to them in trouble. I am not speaking of particular schools and parties … but of the mass of piously-minded and well-living people in all ranks of the community."
  The result of the action of the Department has been, in Salisbury and York, to deprive the children of Nonconformists of just that simple Bible teaching, the
  1846
  value of which that distinguished English Roman Catholic, whose words I have quoted, recognises. We are asked to allow a simple majority on a School Board to decide what the religious teaching is to be. I must say in defence of the Dissenters of the country that they never have been intolerant, and they are not intolerant now. They have rather been too tolerant in their action in regard to education. They have consented to compromise after compromise. In 1870 they were satisfied with compromises which experience has amply proved had no real basis, and afforded no protection of their rights. Now, with regard to Salisbury, I am free to admit that the actual letter of the law is on the side of the Education Department. I only charge the Department with breaking the real spirit of the education proposals of 1870, the spirit of fair play and a generous interpretation of the rights of the different sects in the community. As to York, I assert that the letter which has been quoted in full by my right hon. Friend must be interpreted as a legitimate requisition sent to the York School Board. We not only have the opinion of two of the most eminent lawyers in the country that under Clause 10 of the Education Act, where a Board is constituted to supply deficiency of school accommodation, it is absolutely the duty of the Education Department to issue a requisition in due course. We not only have that contention supported by the opinion of Lord Herschell and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James), but we have the letter of the Department. I challenge the Vice President of the Council to state how that letter can be explained except as giving the actual directions, which are equivalent to a requisition. It seems to me as absurd to challenge the description of that as a legitimate requisition to the York School Board as it would be for anyone to challenge the form of a notice to quit so long as the intention was manifest, and because it was not given on the usual printed form of the estate, or because it was written in a less formal manner than usual. But the cases of York and Salisbury do not stand alone. Even in the last few weeks there has been an extension of the war to Notting-

  1847
  ham. The people of Nottingham re turned a Church majority of one upon the School Board, and the other day the majority passed a resolution asking the Education Department to sanction the giving of grants to a school belonging to the Kilburn Sisterhood, or the Church Extension Association, which school is in a district where it is perfectly notorious there is an immense surplus of School places already. There are no less than 850 places vacant in Church schools in the immediate neighbourhood of the proposed Kilburn Sisters School. Taking into calculation a small school erected by the School Board there are 1,150 vacant places. That shows the real spirit with which we have to deal. This is a war carried on against the School Board system, against religious equality, against the rights it may be in some places, as in Salisbury, of a minority of the community. I heartily support the Motion.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: The lion. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr.Charming) and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mun-della) who introduced the Motion, spoke of what they called a bare majority. Let me remind them that when certain Members of the House put down a Motion about a bare majority, it was said that no such thing existed.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I did not say a bare majority; I quoted the exact figures.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Now, four to three is a very large majority; indeed, it is a larger majority than that which governs the country at the present time. Moreover, the minority in the case of Salisbury is very much smaller than the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe. It is fair to suppose that when the Nonconformists of Salisbury prepared the petition which they put into the right hon Gentleman's hands, they endeavoured to get every vote they possibly could. How many did they get? They got 3,000. But how did they collect the 3,000? They went to the ministers of the Nonconformist chapels, and each minister signed for the whole of his congregation. In the same way the Dean of St. Paul's signature may be taken to represent 10,000 signatures. Such is the way in which
  1848
  figures are cooked in Salisbury. It must be understood that the majority is not a' casual majority, but a majority of people who have voted on this question for the last 20 years, and have always outvoted the Nonconformists. They have done that because there is ample school supply, and because they do not want additional burdens to be thrown on the ratepayers. I think the right hon. Gentleman and his friends should trust the people a little more. Surely the people of Salisbury are worthy of the confidence which is placed in them by the Education Law which declares that they shall have the responsibility of supplying the education required by them. At all events, this new idea is quite contrary to the opinion of the society over which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) presides— the British and Foreign School Society— for that society protests against the notion that Local Bodies can throw on the Department responsibilities which attach to themselves. I do not propose to say much with regard to the law of this question, because the hon. Member for Northamptonshire declared that the law was against the contention of the right hon. Member for Sheffield.
  MR. CHANNING: Only as regards Salisbury.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I am speaking of Salisbury. For a long time all precedents have been against the right hon. Gentleman. Almost in every case where School Boards have desired that educational provision shall be made by Voluntary Bodies, it has been made by such Bodies, and so strongly has this been asserted in the practice of the Educational Department that in Yorkshire a Board school has been suppressed and a Voluntary school allowed to take its place. That, I believe, has been done in other places; at all events in many towns in England besides Salisbury, and where there are no School Boards whatever. Why are we to over-ride the wishes of the majority in the locality? The British and foreign schools were supported by the society, and why was the support withdrawn? Why were they disestablished in Salisbury? Other religious denominations were quite willing to supply the managers with all the money necessary to keep on the

  1849
  admission conditions of the British and foreign schools. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had anything to do with the suppression of the schools of the society of which he is President. I think it was because the British and Foreign denominationalists thought they could get the religious teaching they desired propagated at the expanse of the ratepayers and not at their own expense. This is not a question between religious and secular education, it is a question between one sort of religious education propagated at the ratepayers' expense and whether those who support this particular form of religious teaching shall pay for it themselves. The British and Foreign Society for spreading religious education is founded on a religious basis, its efforts are directed to the promotion of religious education, the children in its schools are enjoined to attend religious worship, and the religious teaching it provides is a cardinal point pressed upon its supporters. But they think now that the School Board form of religious teaching is the same as that professed by the British and Foreign Society of which the right hon. Gentleman is the High Priest. Like all new sects they are propagandists, and wish to force their religion on unwilling receivers. The right hon. Gentleman has complained that outsiders have come in and filled up deficiencies at Salisbury. He has complained of the action of the Kilburn Sisters. I should have thought that they might have been spared. These are a society of philanthropic ladies, who have done great service in schools and orphanages, and I think they might have been spared this attack. Why does the right hon. Gentleman com plain of the action of outsiders? I should like to ask him are not he and his society outsiders sometimes? Why, this society of his have taken upon themselves the responsibility of providing schools all over England, in the colonies, and abroad, and are they not outsiders? How can he, their President, come here and complain of outsiders, who, he says, have no right to supply school accommodation? Why, his society have gone as far as Armenia. I should like to know whether the public opinion of Armenia is in favour of the schools he supports? They certainly do express a doubt
  1850
  whether their denominationalism is satisfactory to Jews and others, but this Denominational Society think it is very hard that any other denominationalism but themselves should support schools which they think are of a religious character and deserve support. I only wish the right hon. Gentleman could see himself as others see him. He complains of the Bishop of Salisbury who has come forward and built and endowed a school. He objects to that, and it certainly is very different from his own line of action, for, when I look over the list of subscribers to the British and Foreign Bible Society, I declare I can hardly find his own name amongst them. I daresay he complains of the liberality of other men who think they ought to support their own opinions not only by voice but by purse. The example of the Bishop of Salisbury is one that deserves great commendation, and I hope it will be followed throughout England to the advantage of education, religious and secular.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: The right hon. Gentleman who has brought this Motion under the notice of the House did, in doing so, range over a very wide field, touching incidentally on a vast number of topics, some of them, it seems to me, having little or no relation to the Motion. He referred to the compromise arrived at in the Act of 1870, and to the various criticisms to which that Act had been subjected. Well, there can be no doubt, as the right hon. gentleman argued, that a compromise such as that must meet with critics on both sides when it comes into operation; and, for myself, I am not quite sure that the adverse criticisms the Act has undergone from both sides has, during the last 20 years, been a disadvantage. The right hon. Gentleman has given us a historical survey of the Department over which I have the honour to preside, a Department which, like the Education Act, has its critics. It is right that this should be so, but when he seems to indicate in the faintest degree that the permanent officials of the Department are in any possible sense responsible or liable for any action I, or anyone in my position, may have taken, I am sure that that is not a proposition he would wish to state.
  MR. MUNDELLA: NO, I make no such suggestion. I entirely disclaim it.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the late Mr. Cumin, and I join in the expression of regret for the loss the public service sustained by his death. I am quite certain no more conscientious or laborious servant ever entered the Civil Service, and it may be said truly that he "died in harness." So much for the Department. And then the right hon. Gentleman dealt with other matters, which, if not exactly foreign to the Motion, were thoroughly extraneous in their nature; and it seemed to me that the points and difficulties urged were not so much in elucidation of his Motion before the House, which is in the nature of a Motion of Censure u ion the Department, as addressed against the root and principle of the Act of 1870. He spoke of the action of the majority, and though, as he said just now, he did not mention the exact figures of that majority, at any rate he did indicate in his speech that there was something of a grievance that might fairly be urged on behalf of the minority at Salisbury. Now, I do not say that I endorse every action taken by the majority at Salisbury; it is no part of my duty to do so; it is beside the question, and forms no part of the defence I have to make; but it seems to me that in regard to the position of majority and minority, we who sit in this House should be the last to complain of the working of the system. Why, do not the right hon. Gentleman and his friends daily, almost hourly, assure us that they only require an appeal to the country to be placed in a majority, and therefore in power? What would he say if, as he—I think wrongly —predicts, that that appeal should result in his favour—suppose by any accident he should find himself in a majority? How would he receive our complaint that we were not allowed the luxury of administrative and legislative functions? It is manifestly absurd, but I do not think it is an extravagant way of illustrating the position urged on behalf of the minority in the City of Salisbury. After all what is the grievance? The relative positions of majorities and minorities are the very essence of the Act. After all, the very worst that
  1852
  can be made of the grievance is that the majority of the School Board in the City of Salisbury—did what? They obeyed not only their own instincts, but the wishes of those who placed them in their representative position. The right hon. Gentleman has descanted on the action of the Kilburn Sisterhood, but that is very far a field of the question before us. If he can show me any section, any line in the Act of 1870, or of succeeding Acts, which indicates that the Department shall step in, on any possible occasion, at any instant, and say that when a deficiency is supplied by voluntary agencies, that it shall not be done by the action of external agencies, then he might have something to urge in this respect. I may come somewhat near the right hon. Gentleman in regard to his opinion of the tenets held by the Kilburn Sisterhood, but that is beside the question. If there is any grievance whatever in a school that is taught by the Kilburn Sisters being unfit for the children of Dissenters, those who feel the grievance should propose the Amendment of the Act of 1870, and of the protection therein provided, which has stood the test of 20 years. The criticism, of the right hon. Gentleman is far a field altogether from his Motion of Censure upon the Department. What is the Motion before us? It is practically a Motion of Censure on the Department with which I am connected, because in two instances, in two localities in supplying accommodation demanded the Department has availed itself of accommodation offered contrary to the spirit and intention of the Act of 1870, and in a manner prejudicial to the interests of education. The right hon. Gentleman has said something pointing to the delay he said had taken place in the operation of the Department in regard to these cases. I should like for a moment to recall to the House what is the guiding principle that Mr. Forster urged, and is still applied, to the Act of 1870, that the School Board system is to supplement and not to supplant voluntary effort. If hon. Members who have followed these discussions will refer to one or two clauses of the Act, they will find that the tendency is clearly shown. For instance, when the first notice is given that accommodation is to be found what is the

  1853
  month's notice for? And what is the further delay of six months after the final notice for—when Mr. Forster introduced the Act the period was 12 months? What does this mean? Simply to give voluntary effort the opportunity to till up the gap. It is only after this appeal to voluntary effort has been found to be fruitless that the Department is to step in and take the necessary means for supplying the deficiency through the agency of the School Board. That is the foundation and essential part of the Act the Department is called upon to administer. The right hon. Gentleman has gone over a long history, extending over an hour, of the Salisbury case;, but through that long history I do not need to follow him, and there is little to induce me to do so in support of my point that the action which has been taken in the present case by the Department is entirely within the spirit of the Act. I join issue with the right hon. Gentleman on the point that when notice had once been given, the deficiency was to he filled up, not by means of voluntary effort, but out of the rates. There was some indication of that view in the earlier part of his speech, though the contention absolutely broke down towards the close. I can show that by the action taken by the Department the deficiencies in this case were filled up in much less time than would have been the case had the whole action been left to the School Board, and that the Department, in allowing these vacancies to be filled up by voluntary effort, acted strictly within the meaning and intention of the Act. Here I may quote from the evidence given by Mr. Cumin before the Royal Commission. He, being asked whether after a School Board is established the School Board may accept voluntary support, replied—
  "The point has never been submitted to the Law Officers, but the practice of the Department has been to accept such voluntary provision."
  Therefore, so far as the Department is concerned with the case at Salisbury, I might sit down at this moment. The correspondence which has taken place on the subject shows that the steps taken prove that the Department carried out fairly and fully the provisions of the Act by seeing that the necessary accommoda-
  1854
  tion was supplied. The British School was closed in December, 1888, and thereupon there was an offer from the Church Day School Association in Salisbury, a most generous offer from the Church party to pay off the debts of the managers of the British Schools, to subscribe liberally towards any building that might be necessary, and subscribe annually towards their maintenance, while leaving the whole management in the hands of the Nonconformists. Anew School Board was elected, and the whole question of school efficiency was before the electors. The denominationalist party by their action in closing the schools tried to force the hands of the Church party. I do not stay to question the propriety of the proceeding, but it was done to provoke a crisis. In April, 1889, the Department required the School Board to take these matters into consideration, and after further correspondence on May 16 the School Board replied by a majority of four out of seven they had adopted the scheme of the Church Day School managers to supply the deficiency. The letter of the Department (June 19) the right hon. Gentleman has already quoted. Both the letter of the Department and the reply of the Board bear the strongest evidence of a determination that the deficiency in school accommodation should be filled up. The language in the letter of the Department has, indeed, been commented upon by some of our friends in Salisbury for its harshness, but the reply of the School Board fully indicates their sense of the responsibility of their position. The result was—and this is the reply to the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman on what he calls the inaction of the Department—that within 12 months of the election of the School Board the whole of the deficiencies were supplied. The right hon. Gentleman has said that it is the duty of the Department to—
  "Provide such accommodation as in the opinion of the Department is necessary to supply the deficiency in school accommodation."
  I venture to submit that the Department fully complied with that requisition, and have discharged their duties with due desspatch. In no case where a School Board has had to supply a deficiency has it ever been supplied in less than 12 months. I

  1855
  hold in my hand a list of some dozen cases taken at random, the smallest interval is 14 months, and the period has sometimes extended to three years. I do not think that the Department can be blamed, because they have paid due regard to the wishes of the locality in this matter. In that, again, the Department have acted within the spirit and also within the letter of the Act of 1870. Why were School Boards made elective bodies? I apprehend that they were set up by the Act of 1870 to give the localities free expression of their opinions with regard to their educational affairs; and to say at the present time, 20 years after the Act has been in operation, that the localities are not to be allowed to express their wishes in the matter is absurd. Further, I think we have acted on what is almost an axiom of the Department that every public elementary school (i.e., whose educational efficiency is recognised by the Department, and which is protected by the Conscience Clause) is ipso facto a suitable school. We have acted entirely within the meaning and intention of the Act and the principle of legislation it contains. I think I have established my case that the Department in no way acted outside the scope of the Act, and proceeded with all despatch to supply the necessary accommodation at Salisbury. And now I should like to refer to the other case mentioned, the importance of which I admit. Now, I am prepared to deny the accuracy of some of the observations with which the right lion. Gentleman prefaced his observations with regard to the educational condition of the City of York. He said that the education and the structural state of the schools there are bad; but I can assure the House that I have no evidence from the Inspectors— and that is the only evidence I have to to go upon in all these matters—that the education there is bad nor that the structural state of the schools is unsatisfactory. The question of the need for accommodation at York was first raised by the Department in 1887. A long inquiry ensued, and the first notice was issued on January 23, 1888, in which further accommodation was declared to be necessary for 600 scholars. After a long correspondence the final notice was issued by the Department on May 22,
  1856
  1888, the accommodation declared necessary now being raised from 600 to 1,000, this being on account of a threat of discontinuance held out by the managers of the Hope Street British School. Subsequently, on January 22, 1889, an order for the formation of a School Board was made. The whole of this case hinges upon the question whether it was or was not necessary that the Department should issue a requisition—that is, exercise the power by which it can compel a reluctant School Board to do its duty. If a School Board declines to do its duty then the Department can put in force a requisition and insist on the Board fulfilling its obligations. Now, at the time the final notice expired voluntary efforts had been made to fill up the deficiency; 248 places had already been supplied, but, beyond that directly the School Board was elected they set about supplying further vacancies, and later on they sent plans to the Department by which they proposed to supply places for no fewer than 659 scholars. There fore, the House will observe that at this very juncture when the right hon. Gentleman urges that the Department should have issued their requisition, all the school places except 93 had either been supplied or were in course of being supplied with due despatch, and there fore it becomes a very arguable point whether it was proper in these circum stances to issue the requisition or not. It is clear that efforts were being made to supply the deficiency by voluntary effort. The deficit of 93 places was, after all, only an apparent deficiency, because it was actually in process of being s applied at the very date when the Department had to decide whether it should issue the requisition. I am aware that Mr. Cumintook a different view from what some of us took on the point. It was decided to refer the matter to the Law Officers of the Crown, and the Law Officers held that as the deficiency mentioned in the final notice had either been fully supplied, or was in course of being supplied with due despatch, it was neither the duty nor within the power of the Department to issue a requisition. There I am content to rest this case as far as the House of Commons is concerned. The Willesden case to which the right hon. Gentleman

  1857
  has referred is not on all fours with the present one, because there the requisition was issued, and so the School Board were obliged to do their duty, notwithstanding that voluntary efforts were being made to fill up the deficiency. The crux of the question is, was it the duty of the Department to issue the requisition. I submit that it was not, because they were met at every turn by voluntary efforts to supply the small balance of the deficiency, which was not covered by the direct action of the Board. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the Department was acting without precedents. From all I can discover, I believe the right hon. Gentleman, when at the Education Office, dealt fairly and justly in regard to the voluntary school system. In the early days of his residence at Whitehall, however, the right hon. Gentleman might have had a chance—I believe it was not put before him—of showing his zeal in the way of dealing with the spirit and letter of the Act of Parliament. There was a school district in Wiltshire as to which a final notice was issued requiring additional accommodation for 100 children, and an order for the formation of a School Board followed. A letter was written afterwards by the Department saying it would be necessary for the Board to supply this accommodation. This matter was considered soon after the right hon. Gentleman was at the Education Office, and a Minute was written under the express sanction of one of the principal permanent officials accepting, with the concurrence of the School Board the enlargement of the national school as meeting all requirements.
  MR. MLNDELLA: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that that Minute came before me?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I have already made the reservation in favour of the right hon. Gentleman that it did not come before him. If it had, what a splendid chance it would have been for him! Hon. Members cry "Oh, Oh," but this quotation is my reply to the right hon. Gentleman's challenge that we have no precedent for our action. I say there are ample precedents. There was a case also at Todmorden where voluntary aid was accepted in a similar way, and the Department sanctioned the
  1858
  step. Each of those cases, I submit, forms a precedent for the action of the Department. I am grateful to the House for the patience with which it has listened to me. I do not wish to weary hon. Members, but I do venture to submit that when the House of Commons is gravely asked to censure the Department for dereliction of duty, better evidence and sounder material ought to be presented to it than is furnished in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I contend that the Department has acted within the spirit and letter of the Act of 1870, and has done its duty not only as regards the administration of the Act, but as regards the cause of education which it represents in the House.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I do not wish to intervene at any length between the House and the Division which hon. Members are anxious to take, but I should like to point out that this debate has thrown a very strong side-light upon the next step which we shall be called upon to take in the education question. What has happened at York, at Salisbury, and at Whitehall, will, I think, form powerful arguments when the question arises whether the system of the future is to be assisted education or free education. The right hon. Gentleman has defended his case with remarkable ability and remarkable fairness; but the point on which my right hon. Friend and myself are at issue with him is that the Department, in the case of Salisbury, had a discretion which they did not exercise in accordance with the spirit and intention of the Act or with a due regard to the rights and interests of minorities; and that, in the case of York, according to the opinion of the late Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury, a duty was imposed on the Department which was not discharged. In both cases the effect of the non-exercise of discretion and the refusal to discharge the duty has been to hand over the entire education of the children to one religious denomination. A good deal has been said about the voluntary schools; but hon. Members seem to have ignored the fact that, after all, the country pays the main cost of carrying on these schools. I have recently been looking into the Report of the Education Department, and I find that, at Salisbury,

  1859
  £1,300 is paid out of the Consolidated Fund. If to that the school fees are added of the 1,500 children in average attendance, it is clear that the voluntary contributions are exceedingly small. As to York, we have the figures. There £10,000 is received from public funds, and the entire voluntary contribution is less than £800. Remember, we are now dealing with a system of education under which, if people do not send their children to school, you can imprison them. Yet in a case where the public contribute £10,000 and a denomination not much more than £700, you are vesting the sole control of the schools in that one religious denomination. These are not the figures of York and Salisbury alone. The entire educational expenditure of the country is about £7,000,000, of which the voluntary contributions—the contributions from the Church of England, the Roman Catholics, the Wesleyans—in fact from every Dissenting body—only amount to £746,000. In Salisbury and in York the Department has had really to deal with public schools—schools that are public in the sense that parents can be compelled to send their children to them, and in the sense, too, that they are supported out of public funds. But the Department has disregarded the interest of the minority, and it has evaded its own responsibilities. Why is it that discretion is vested in the Department? It is to protect the minority, which in some cases might be the Church of England, in others the Roman Catholics. It was said that Mr. Forster's idea was to supplement and not to supplant voluntary effort. That was no doubt so, but Mr. Forster's Act was passed in 1870, and we are living in 1890. I object to stereotyping Mr. Forster's opinions of 1870, and making them permanently control the policy of the Education Department, just as much as I should have objected to stereotyping the Reform Bill of 1832, and so have prevented the passing of the Reform Bills of 1867 and 1884. You will have to go a long way beyond Mr. Forster's system. What is the meaning of all these delays in concluding contracts? What is the meaning of the action of those philanthropic and highly estimable ladies—the Kilburn Sisters? What is
  1860
  the real reason at the bottom of the action of the Bishop of Salisbury? The Bishop has said that he intended to oppose the erection of a School Board school at Salisbury because he objected to a colourless and unsectarian ratepayers' religion. One hon. Member who spoke in this debate said that what the Dissenters wanted was a sort of religion propagated at the ratepayers' expense. He called it a School Board religion, and spoke of my right hon. Friend as the high priest of this new denomination. I think that is one of the most lamentable features in this controversy. I am as strong an advocate of religious education as the Bishop himself, and I should be sorry to see a national system of education in this country divorced from religious teaching. I think that it is a great calamity that the clergy, of the Church of England have taken up so strong an attitude against the School Board system. I remember that I supported a resolution, moved by the First Lord of the Treasury when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the School Board, and that resolution forms the basis of the School Board religious teaching throughout the length and breadth of the land. I am sure that when the right hon. Gentleman approaches the close of his public life—and I hope that that day may be far distant— he will be able to recall no act upon which he can look back with greater satisfaction. Lord Harrow by got a Return presented to the House of Lords the other day on the question of religious teaching in Board Schools, and from it I find that out of 2,000 Board schools there are only 21 from which religion is excluded. But what Nonconformists object to is not the teaching of Church of England doctrine to Church of England children, but the propagation among Nonconformist children of the notion that Nonconformity is a wicked idolatrous sin. I have in my pocket a catechism in which that is taught.
  MR. F. S. POWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman name the Catechism?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Certainly. It is Mr. Carr's well-known book of Questions on the Church Catechism. But I am not going to trouble the House with extracts from it. I only want to make clear the

  1861
  Nonconformists' position; they object to that sectarian exclusiveness which censures Nonconformity as such, and I believe if that sectarian element which is carried to extremes were swept out of the way we should hear little of these disputes. But whether I am right or wrong in that, I say that the Nonconformists of Salisbury had a right to have an unsectarian school; and we assert that if the Department had exercised the discretion vested in it, with a due regard to the rights of the minority, such a school would have been provided both at Salisbury and at York. In the case of Salisbury, no doubt the Church built the school, but I have shown that it was chiefly maintained out of the public purse and the fees of the children. I admit that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has proved his case technically in the case of Salisbury; but I cannot make that admission with regard to York, as to which the right hon. Gentleman was in conflict with the late Mr. Cumin and the Law Officers of the late Government.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir E. CLARKE,): No, no.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am at a disadvantage in dealing with the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he knows the rule of the House is not to lay such opinions on the Table of the House. I think that upon any principle of constructive evidence we may easily arrive at a conclusion as to what was the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. We take our stand on that opinion, which is clearly confirmed by the evidence of Mr. Cumin before the Royal Commission, and we say that this is a case in which this House ought to interfere, not by way of censuring the right hon. Gentleman personally, but by recording its judgment that the action of the Department was strained in the interests of one section of the community to the disadvantage of another.
  MR, PICTON: I am sorry to intervene between a hungry House and the pending Division. Nevertheless, I wish to say a word or two in reference to the case put forward by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hulse). I visited Salisbury last year at the request of a minority of the hon. Member's constituency, and I feel bound
  1862
  to say, that while he has stated the case with fairness and moderation, he left out some facts which ought to have been stated before the House was asked to come to any conclusion on the subject. He referred to the Liberation Society. The Liberation Society has had neither directly or indirectly any dealings with this matter. I was invited to go to Salisbury by a number of working men, who acted entirely on their own discretion, without advice, suggestion or interference on the part of anyone outside their own body. They paid all the expenses and asked me to address them. I found that those working men had organised on a good scale a Liberty of Conscience Defence Association, and this in the Nineteenth Century! The working men felt called upon to enter into this Organisation to protect themselves and their children from unfair treatment. I asked them "Why do you require to do this? Have you no votes? Did you not elect a School Board a short time ago, and allow to be put upon it a majority of those who were opposed to your views, whereas you might have carried a School Board entertaining your own views had you chosen to have done so?" They replied, "You do not know the difficulty we have in voting as we wish." [Cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Members say "Oh," hut I tell the tale as it was told to me, and they certainly proved their sincerity by the expense to which they had put themselves in organising and carrying on their Association. They said, "You cannot conceive the sort of pressure which is brought to bear upon the poor of this city." These men doubtless are poor, but they are honest, and when an honest man who is poor gives a promise he votes according to that promise, and I honour him for it. Of course they gave promises, and they voted according to them. I think their case is proved by the fact to which I will call attention. When the deputation which has been alluded to waited on the Lord President of the Council, he used these words, "The Conscience Clause is considered by the law to be an efficient guard against false doctrine." For my part, I never heard that the Conscience Clause was devised for such a purpose, but that is the statement made by a high authority. Well, Sir, the working men of Salisbury do not

  1863
  find it so; they do not like the catechisms taught by the Kilburn Sisters. However good those Sisters may be they have no right to affect the consciences of the poor by what they regard as false doctrine, and which I think would be so regarded by many Members of this House if I were permitted to go into the matter. Hon. Members opposite, as well as on this side of the House, ought to have some sympathy for these poor men, who declare they are obliged to organise a Liberty of Conscience Defence Association beneath the shadow of a Christian Church. If this Motion is not assented to, I, for one, shall be glad to divide the Houss upon it.
  (7.40.) The House divided:—Ayes 115; Noes 167.—(Div. List, No. 35.)

  AGRARIAN RETURNS (IRELAND).
  MR. CLANCY: I wish to call attention to the character of the Returns presented to this House regarding Agrarian Crime and Boycotting in Ireland; and to move—
  "That the Returns presented to this House regarding Agrarian Crime and Boycotting in Ireland are misleading, unreliable as has is of comparison, and in some instances false and fraudulent; and that this House is of opinion that, if those Returns should be further continued, the compilation of them by the police ought to be checked by one or more independent authorities, and that they ought to be accompanied by such details as would enable the people of the localities concerned to test their reliability."
  The subject, Sir, which I desire to bring under the notice of the House is to my mind of great importance. The Ministerial claim is not that the result of their policy has been to conciliate the Irish people. Recent events prevent such a claim being made. It is a remarkable fact that although several elections have taken place in various parts of Ireland since the introduction of the Coercion Act, yet at every one of these elections Nationalists have been returned without opposition. Similar results have attended Municipal elections, whether in Dublin or any other part of the country. These results show that the Government have not conciliated the Nationalist sentiment, and have not succeeded in any degree in winning
  1864
  over the Irish people to a belief in Unionist principles. The claim of the Government, however, is that they have won over a considerable proportion of the people of Ireland to their policy, and that they have sensibly diminished crime and especially boycotting—in fact, they claim that crime is diminishing to a vanishing point, and that boycotting has ceased almost altogether. If you deny that Ministerial claim, there is absolutely nothing left that the Government can claim as the result of their policy. It would not be much of a claim if it were admitted. It does not follow, because you have suppressed or prevented, that you have extirpated crime. Lord Cowper used the famous phrase that he had "driven crime beneath the surface." True, he did; but it was only to rise again in due season in rank and luxuriant growth. At the preliminary investigation into the Phoenix Park murders, the evidence of James Carey was that when crime had been driven beneath the surface by the arbitrary arrests of innocent persons all over the country, the Invincibles arose to right the wrongs of Ireland in their own way. The claim of the Government is founded on Returns presented to this House for the past 20 years. Now, those who have inquired into the forgeries question recently will remember that the main count in the indictment against the Land League was founded upon the supposed prevalence of crime as the result of agitation. There are various columns of figures in the Return which, if genuine, show a remarkable increase of crime at certain periods, and a decrease equally remarkable at other periods. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury made a great point of this a few nights ago, and he referred to the increase of crime after the establishment of the Land League and before the Coercion Act of 1882 was passed, and the decrease after the passing of the Coercion Act. Considering all these circumstances, I think no one will dispute the importance of the subject. With a brief interval, the administration of Irish affairs has been anti-national, anti-Irish, and Tory in character. No matter whether a Liberal or a Tory Government has occupied those Benches. The only int3rvals in which

  1865
  there has been a departure from that method of administration was during the administration of the Earl of Aberdeen and the right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Morley), who introduced a grateful and welcome change. But almost from the time of Lord Fitzwilliam's recall, or the time of Thomas Drummond, the administration of Ireland has been such as to suppress the national aspirations. I propose to go back very briefly over the last 20 years, and, ask in the first place, what happened in the year 1869? I base my remarks not on the ipse dixit of Liberal statesmen, but upon the unimpeachable authority of the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland —an authority which will not be disputed, at least on the other side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman in his Memorandum of the 9th May, 1887, said that after what had happened in 1869, special and new methods of enumerating certain offences were adopted, which greatly multiplied their number. I have to observe that when the Unionist speakers go through the country comparing the present time with '20 years ago, they do not experience the difficulties here mentioned. It comes to this, that what would be now described as two or three offences were then described as 60 offences. Accordingly, the House will he prepared for the information that the agrarian crimes of Ireland rose from a monthly average of 29 to one of 305 in five months of 1869–70. I call that a false and frudaulent statement of the agrarian crimes of Ireland. The explanation is perfectly simple. The noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Harrington) was the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He wanted a Coercion Act, and he wanted a case for a Coercion Act, and he got his case and he got his Act. With this Memorandum before me I say he got the Act by false pretences, put into his mouth by his subordinates in Dublin Castle. What happened then? It was necessary at first to make a ease for a Coercion Act, but when the Act was passed it was necessary to show that the Coercion Act had worked successfully and put down crime, and then every device that ingenuity could contrive was resorted to to decrease the number of crimes of violence. A device adopted was this—
  1866
  "In 1871, after the Coercion Act had been passed, the previous system was again brought into operation, namely, to regard similar cases as only one of that kind when the outrages were perpetrated by the same party on the one occasion."
  I call that another fraud on the public. First, when you want to make a case for a Coercion Act, yon introduce a new system by which three offences are changed to 60, and then, when you want to make a case for the success of the Coercion Act, you revert to the system you condemned and reduce the 60 down to three. By this fraudulent way of enumerating the offences, agrarian crime sinks down to its former level, as if by magic. The next notable operation of the police and the Castle statistician was in 1880–81–82. In 1881–82 another Coercion Act was wanted, and again the police in Ireland were equal to the task of making out a case for one. The average of 29 outrages per month in 1869, rose in 1880 to 306, and in 1881 the total in that year reached 1,439. This w is brought about by another series of frauds practised upon the British public and Parliament. I will try and set forth, as briefly as I can, the nature of these fraudulent transactions. The hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labou-chere), in 1881 delivered a very able speech criticising the Returns Mr. Forster presented to the House of Commons in that year. He pointed out that the pettiest offences, such as damaging a barrel of tar, and taking a gate oft' its hinges, were put down as separate crimes, just as whistling the air "Harvey Duff" was regarded as an offence against the public peace; and it is remarkable that one result of the criticism of the hon. Member for Northampton on that occasion, was that no more descriptive details were furnished to the House of Commons. It was found that one such Return, descriptive of details, and giving some means of testing the reliability of the statistics, was too much for the Government of Ireland. It has since been impossible to derive from Returns such facts as were gathered from the Returns of 1881. However, there are not wanting means to attain the same object This is the way the Government statistician and the police went to work. On the 28th June, 1880, one man, named Lynch, was charged with five different simul-

  1867
  taneous crimes. He was charged with an assault on John Hogan and Edmund Hogan, and with a robbery of arms from Edmund Hogan, with the administration of oaths to Edmund Hogan, and firing into the houses of Edmund Hogan and Thomas Hogau. The offence was committed on the same persons and on the same occasion, and out of this the police manufactured five different crimes. But that is not all. In connection with this case charges were brought against 12 men in all; they were all tried, and all were acquitted, but the five "crimes" remain on the list, and thus we have a double fraud practised on the British Legislature and the British people. We have, first of all, one offence multiplied into five, and then we find that the whole five were fictitious. On the 26th August, 1880, Michael Ryan was charged with an assault on two brothers, John and Amos. It has always been the custom to calculate several assaults perpetrated at the same time as one crime, but the police discriminated with a remarkable power of discrimination in this case, for they made two crimes of one offence. They first charged the man with an aggravated assault on John, and then charged him with intent to commit an indecent assault on. his brother Amos. And not only was one crime manufactured into two, but the man charged was acquitted. It was found that the offence was practically never committed at all; nevertheless we have two crimes recorded just as if there had been two convictions. There is another piece of evidence which I do not consider unimportant in this connection. The best possible test of the existence of crime is the proportion of convictions. Police reports, after all, are only mere assertions, but judicial convictions are proofs. I find that in 1881, for 11,915 crimes there are only 2,600 convictions, or 22 per cent. Out of 4,439 agrarian crimes in the following year there were only 204 convictions, or 4 per cent. If these tables are examined it will be found that such a percentage as this was never heard of previously, and it cannot be pretended that juries were loss hostile to British justice in such a year as 1867 or in 1870, or in 1874, when the Fenians were being tried in Ireland, than they were in 1880 and 1881. In those years
  1868
  the convictions reached 50 per emit., even though Lord O'Hagan's Act had not been amended. Since Lord O'Hagan's Act has been improved—that is to say, improved from the point of view of Dublin Castle—it has been as much in the power of the Castle to pack a jury as it ever was, and yet the percentage of convictions has become smaller and smaller. It seems to me that the police are on the horns of a dilemma in this matter. If they have been so unsuccessful in bringing about an improvement in crimes in 1880 and 1882 as to be 100 per cent, worse than previously, the conclusion we must arrive at is either that 100 per cent, of the crimes were imaginary or fabricated, or else they are on this other horn of the dilemma, that the police cannot detect crime and are useless as guardians of the peace. For my own part I incline to the former theory, especially when I find that 100 per cent., or a large percentage of crimes reported at Dublin Castle and transmitted to this House never took place at all; and I am all the more inclined to believe this when I know that in previous and subsequent periods crimes were undoubtedly fabricated for the purpose of passing Coercion Acts through this House. I have dealt in this matter not with information I have discovered for myself, but with information given by the right hon. Gentleman, which bears me out in what I say. The memorandum from which I have already quoted is most exquisite on this point. It says, amongst other things, that it would be an error to suppose that all outrages not returned as agrarian ought properly to be classified as agrarian, and that the Authorities in Ireland have been more and more strict in their requirements before they permitted any crime to be classified as agrarian. This is a, confession that the statistics given previously have been misleading, and I therefore, think I can claim from the Irish Attorney General approbation for at least one of the adjectives in my Amendment, namely, the word "misleading." The memorandum says that agrarian crime must be directly traceable to some specific motive connected with the land, and that cattle maiming, moonlighting, and such-like offences are not to be placed in the category. It says

  1869
  that the process of narrowing the meshes through which crime is admitted into the Agrarian Returns has been going on for sis years. This means that the principles on which crime is admitted into the Agrarian Returns varies from year to year. In face of an admission like that from a Gentleman mi the Treasury Bench no one can pretend to regard these agrarian statistics as in any degree a basis of comparison. I find that in the years 1880 to 1882 there were 102 homicides perpetrated, that in 1883–5 there were 56 and in 1886–8 there were 99. From these murders the Police Authorities have selected, on principles which vary from year to year, a certain number which they declare are agrarian. When they want to make a case for coercion they increase the number. Under these circumstances it is absolutely useless to talk of the Returns as furnishing any basis for comparison. But there is also absolute falsehood attaching to the comparisons. In 1883–5, although there were 56 homicides altogether, the police could only discover one agrarian murder. I am not in the habit of paying much attention to such publications as those of the Loyal and Patriotic Union, edited as they are by Mr. Houston, and copied regularly into England, but I want to show what absolute falsehood attaches to this process of enumerating crimes. The very year in which the police, desiring to show the success of the Coercion Act, could only find one agrarian crime the Loyal and Patriotic Union gave, with the names and dates, a list of no less than six agrarian murders which were perpetrated in Ireland. Again, I say that this is a fradulent return. A fraud has been perpetrated, in the first place, by increasing the number of crimes, in order to make a case for the Coercion Bill, and, in the second place, by decreasing crime, in order to show that the Coercion Act was necessary and had succeeded. There was a slight increase of crime in the year 1886. That is now put down to the National League, but the increase was so slight that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) in bringing in the Coercion Bill of 1887, did not lay any stress at all on it, but based his contention mainly on the return of boycotting and intimidation. If I am asked to give an explanation of the alleged increase of crime in 1888, I
  1870
  would unhesitatingly set it down to the desire of Dublin Castle to furnish a case for the coming Home Rule Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone). In 1887, as I have said, the last Coercion Bill was introduced, and the Chief Secretary based his case on the increase of boycotting and intimidation. But I say that from that time to the present the process of "narrowing the meshes" has continued to go on. Cases are still kept out of the Agrarian Returns which would in other years be included in them, the purpose being to make out that the Coercion Act has succeeded in putting down crime. If I am rightly informed the crimes of 1888 are put down at 660. But that number is arrived at by ex-eluding every single one of the offences tried in the Coercion Courts. As far as lean make cut there are 1,500 crimes of that sort. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is in this matter on the horns of a dilemma. Either the 1,500 offences are not crimes of any kind—in which case he is using the Coercion Act not to put down crime lint to suppress political action and tenants' combinations or they are crimes—in which ease the Return he has presented is false, in not having included them. I come now to the List Return which? indict as false and fraudulent, and that is the Return of Boycotting. It has for some time past been the habit of Unionist orators on every platform in the country to declare that whilst 4,000 persons were boycotted in 1887, there are only 150 boycotted now. I myself in 1887 challenged the accuracy of the Boycotting Returns, and indicted them as false. At that time we pointed out that boycotting was either not accompanied and enforced by outrage and intimidation, or it was so accompanied and enforced. We pointed out that in the former case it was simply exclusive dealing, and, consequently, no cases of the kind ought to have been returned as crimes. In the latter case we pointed out that the Returns were proved to be a mass of fraud by another Return which had been presented to the House. That Return showed, for instance, that in the July quarter of 1887 there were 1,700 people boycotted, and yet there were only 17 cases of intimidation all over Ireland

  1871
  whereas the cases of intimidation ought to have been numbered by thousands if 1,700 persons had been subjected to hourly and daily acts of intimidation. But what am I to say of the figures last presented to the House with regard to intimidation? Marvellous to relate, they have dropped down to 150. I declare that to be a most audacious fabrication. It is a fabrication within our own knowledge. Any of the hon. Members for the County of Cork will bear me out in saying that in that county alone there are 150 persons boycotted. In face of a fact like that I think the Government are called upon to afford us some means of testing the reliability of the Return. Neither in 1887 nor since have any names of persons or places been mentioned, and the reason given for withholding these means of testing the Return is, to my mind, conclusive proof of the fraudulent character of the figures. We are told that if the names of the boycotted persons were given they would be injured. I want to know how a person can be boycotted without its being known. The thing is absolutely ridiculous. The reason given is a miserable pretence and the merest humbug. I know it will be said that it is impossible to believe that the officials of the Government would engage in this work of fabrication, or that Ministers of the Crown could be found to sanction it. I myself find it difficult to believe that English gentlemen of either Party could be base enough to sanction acts of deliberate falsification and fraud. My explanation is this: Chief Secretaries go from time to time to Dublin Castle; they find the people on one side and the officials on the other, and, as they cannot or will not govern with the aid of the people, they are obliged to govern with the aid of the officials. Consequently, they throw themselves into the arms of the officials. They believe everything they tell them. They listen to the whispers of corrupt officials, and accept the statements of landlord magistrates. I believe the angels themselves would become tainted with the corruption which exists in Dublin Castle if the angels did not keep clear of the Castle. The Castle officials are bred in an atmosphere of corruption. I do not hesitate to say that some of the vilest blackguards that ever lived have found a resting place under the shadow of Dublin Castle.
  1872
  I doubt whether there is in the whole world an institution of as significant a character as what is known as "the Informer's Home" in Dublin. It is an established institution, kept up for the purpose of swearing away, if necessary,' the lives of innocent men. Promotion is offered for such things. We have heard in recent years of the famous motto invented by the late Captain Plunket— "Don't hesitate to shoot." This has lately been supplemented by another motto—"Don't hesitate to swear." During the last six months, I forget exactly— but I shall be able to inform the House if I am challenged on the point -how many policemen have been convicted in the Coercion Courts of the country of deliberate perjury. These creatures are no doubt all, or nearly all, Irishmen, but I think the disgrace rests not so much on Ireland as on England. It is one of the results of misgovernment, and the same tendency has been apparent in every country governed, as Ireland has been, against the will of the people. It may be said these creatures are loyal. I answer in the words of Grattan: "Loyalty without liberty is not loyalty, but corruption." These men are the creatures of corruption, and they are base enough to do any act which they think may prolong their own power or satisfy the dreams and expectations of their paymasters. I think it is high time to denounce their misdeeds, and it is as much in the interest of common morality as of justice to my unfortunate country that I now move the Motion which stands in my name.
  (8.40.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Returns presented to this House regarding Agrarian Grime and Boycotting in Ireland are misleading, unreliable as basis of comparison, and in some instances false and fraudulent; and that this House is of opinion that, if those Returns should be further continued, the compilation of them by the police ought to be checked by one or more independent authorities, and that they ought to be accompanied by such details as would enable the people of the localities concerned to test their reliability."—(Mr. Claney.)
  (9.10.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  The House was adjourned at a quarter after Nine o'clock till To-morrow.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
Lord Louth.—Petition of Randal Pilgrim Ralph Plunkett Baron of Louth in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
Earl Mount Cashell, Earl of Longford. Viscount Frankfort de Montmorency, Viscount Lifford, claims to vote for Representative Peers for Ireland— Ordered and directed, that Certificates lie sent by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, stating that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom has reported to the House of Lords that the right of the Earl Mount Cashell, the Earl of Longford, the Viscount Frankfort de Montmorency, and the Viscount Lifford, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of him the said Lord Chancellor; and that the House of Lords has Ordered such Reports to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland: And it is hereby also Ordered, that the said Reports of the said Lord Chancellor be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL.—(No. 19.)
Reported from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c. (on Second Re-commitment), with Amendments: The Report thereof received; and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 47.)

COUNTS COUNCILS ASSOCIATION EXPENSES BILL.—(No. 32.)
Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments and Commons Consequential Amendments and Commons Reason for disagreeing to certain other of the Lords Amendments considered (according to Order).
LORD NORTON: My Lords, I beg to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that these Amendments are not yet printed. We know nothing of them. For my own part, I protest strongly against the Bill itself. I think it is a must mischievous measure, and I wish there were still time to move its rejection. It is a Bill to authorise all County Councils to desert their proper duties and form themselves into a Consultative Association to discuss and interfere in matters which, though locally interesting, belong to Parliament. That is a very mischievous thing, and though the noble and learned Lord has stated that Municipal Councils have something similar, yet I think it is carrying the Municipal precedent too far that County Councils should imitate Municipal Councils in that respect. I think your Lordships will hold that it is a mischievous thing to turn these County Councils into a sort of Local Parliaments, to debate instead of to administer definite functions. I do hope the noble and learned' Lord will postpone his Motion. For aught I know the Commons' Amendments may have altered the character of the Bill materially, and have made it more presentable, but, at all events, he will agree that we should know what they are before we pass a measure of this kind which we are now asked to pass. It degrades this House to pass things in the dark.
LORD HERSCHELL: I think when I explain what these Amendments are for the noble Lord will see not only that they do no harm but that they are in the direction he desires. As the Bill left this House, it enabled subscriptions to be paid to any association for the purpose of consulting on matters of interest in common to County Councils. The President of the Local Government Board thought there might be, under that provision, power to the County Councils to subscribe to several such associations, not limiting it to one only. On his Motion in another place, the Bill has been altered in that respect, and it now recites that County Councils may only subscribe to one such association whereas previously, perhaps, it might have been thought that subscriptions might have been made to several. That

1803
is the only alteration that has been made in the Bill, and, as I have stated, it is strictly in the direction of limitation, not of extension.
Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, and Commons Consequential Amendments, agreed to; and the Lords Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed, not insisted on.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till to-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.