Sitting of 31 July 1891

RANGES BILL.—(No. 309.)
Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 189.)
Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS FOUNDATIONS (ENGLAND).
Return ordered—
"Of Foundations in England, exclusive of the County of Monmouth, the Endowments or parts of the Endowments of which are, up to the 31st day of December, 1891, recorded in the books of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales as subject to the provisions of the Endowed Schools Acts, showing, in respect of

911
each Foundation, the name, place, county, gross income for the year 1890, date of any Scheme established under the Endowed Schools Acts, and of any amending Scheme established under those Acts or the Charitable Trusts Acts; and, if no Scheme has been established under the Endowed Schools Acts, whether any, and what, proceedings, and at what dates, have taken place with a view to a Scheme under those Acts."—(Mr. Roby.)

BANK OF ENGLAND (NOTE ISSUE AND SECURITIES, &c.)
Order [21st July], for a Return relative to Bank of England (Note Issue and Securities, &c.), read, and discharged.—(Mr. Samuel Hoare.)
BANK OF ENGLAND (NOTE ISSUE.)
Order [21st July], for a Return relative to Bank of England (Note Issue), read, and discharged.—(Mr. Samuel Hoare.)

"CONNOR v. RITSON," "GILSON v. LAWSON," AND "CURRAN v. TRELEAVEN."
Address for—
"Report of the Judgment delivered by the Lord Chief Justice of England, in the Queen's Bench Division, on the 14th day of July, 1891, in the three cases of Connor v. Ritson, Gilson v. Lawson, and Curran v. Treleaven."—(Mr. Fenwick.)

EXCISE LICENCES.
Copy ordered—
"Of that part of the General Order of the Board of Inland Revenue, dated 25th February, 1891, which relates to the issue of Excise Licences for premises not used exclusively for the sale of intoxicating liquors."—(Mr. Brunner.)

MINERALS (OUTPUT, 1860–90.)
Address for—
"Tabular Return showing the annual output of the principal Minerals produced in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, together with the Isle of Man, from the year 1860 to the year 1890."—(Mr. Stuart Worthy.)

RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Ordered, That there be laid before this House the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on the Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order Bills referred to them.—(Mr. Hanbury.)

MR. P. MAGAN, J.P.
MR. HAYDEN: I beg to move for a
"Return of the Correspondence between Mr. L. P, Hayden and the Irish Land Commission,
912
between Mr. Hayden and the Attorney General for Ireland, and between Mr. Percy Magan, J.P, and the Attorney General for Ireland and the Irish Land Commission, in reference to charges brought against Mr. Magan, of having fraudulently obtained money under the Arrears Act; and the Correspondence between Mr. Magan and the Lord Chancellor, in the same matter."
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I object.
MR. SPEAKER: Then the Return cannot be moved now.
MR. HAYDEN: I understood that it would be granted.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: So far as the Irish Government are concerned, it is an unopposed Return.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I shall not object if the opposition to my Return is withdrawn.
MR. HAYDEN: I have never opposed any Return that has been moved for.
The Return was not granted.

QUESTIONS.

  BOMBAY PRESIDENCY MAGISTRATES.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, according to the existing rules sanctioned by the Secretary of State, at least a proportion of the three appointments of Presidency Magistrate at Bombay ought to be conferred on natives of India, and that if a European, not being in the Covenanted Service, is appointed, he must have certain special qualifications, and his appointment is subject to the approval of the Secretary of State; whether two of these appointments are now held by Europeans, and the third is vacant; whether there are native gentlemen qualified to fill the vacancy; whether Mr. Webb, proposed by the Bombay Government, possesses the qualifications required by the rules; and whether the Secretary of State will decline to confirm the nomination, and insist on a native being appointed?
  *THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,(for Sir J. GORST): I have been requested by my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India to reply to this question. The answer to the first question of the hon. Gentleman is that there is no such rule

  913
  The appointment of these Presidency Magistrates is by Section 18 of the Criminal Procedure Code vested in the Local Government without any limitation whatever. The Secretary of State has placed no restriction on the powers of the Local Government, so far as concerns the appointment of the Chief Magistrate and one of the junior Magistrates. But as regards the other junior Magistracy, he has directed that, unless the person to be appointed belongs to the Covenanted Civil Service, or to the Staff Corps, no person other than a native of India shall be appointed without the previous sanction of the Secretary of State. The reply to the second question is that it is believed that two of the appointments are held by Europeans, and that the third is vacant. The Secretary of State says, in answer to the hon. Member's third question, that he has no information. The reply to the fourth question is that Mr. Webb is well qualified, and has already held the office of Chief Magistrate some seven times, and has fulfilled the duties of the office satisfactorily. Perhaps I may say that I remember his appointment on more than one occasion. The reply to the last question is that the Secretary of State is still in communication with the Government of India.
  *MR. D. CRAWFORD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there were not instructions by the Secretary of State, following upon the Report of the Public Service Commission, in which it was laid down that such appointments can be conferred on a European, not being a member of the Covenanted Service only, if he is a member of the Bar and acquainted with the language of the country; and whether Mr. Webb possesses either of those qualifications?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The hon. Member must remember that I do not represent the India Office, and that I can give no information as to matters of detail. There is no doubt that as regards a great number of the un-covenanted appointments in India they are restricted, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, but that is not the case in regard to the appointment of the Presidency Magistrates. I am not able to say in what vernacular language Mr. Webb can conduct the business which
  914
  comes before him; but I can say that he was recommended to me on more than one occasion as being competent for this appointment.

  THE MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
  MR. ROBY: I beg to put to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given the Under Secretary for India private notice, and which I believe the right hon. Gentleman is pre-pared to answer. I wish to ask whether, under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1889, it is a criminal offence, punishable with imprisonment or fine, for any person to sell, or expose for sale, sewing cotton with a false description of the number of yards applied thereto, unless he can prove his action to be innocent in the matter, and gives information as to the person from whom he obtained the goods; and whether, if so, the Government will take steps to make this known to dealers in India, and to give aid in the detection and punishment of offenders under this Act?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: My right hon. Friend has requested me to answer the question. It would be a criminal offence, under the Indian Merchandise Marks Act, punishable with fine and imprisonment, for any person to sell, or expose for sale, sewing cotton bearing a false description of the number of yards for sale, unless he can prove his action to be innocent, and gives information as to the person from whom he obtained the goods. The Government of India has taken every step to make the law known to all dealers, and there seems to be no necessity for further measures of publicity. The Government of India is always ready to give all the help it can in enforcing the provisions of the Act.

  THE BOARD OF TRADE JOURNAL.
  MR. E. SPENCER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the advertisement branch of the Board of Trade Journal is under the control of the Department; if not, under whose control it is, and what are the terms of the contract; whether he is aware that the advertisements in the Journal are said to realise over £5,000 per annum; whether any copies are supplied to the contractors; and, if so, on what terms; are the contractors per-

  915
  mitted to send copies free of postage when soliciting advertisements, and whether it is with the sanction of the Department that the Royal Arms are used on the envelopes and circulars soliciting advertisements; and does the Department place at the disposal of the contractors an unlimited number of pages in the Journal for advertisements?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: The control of the advertisement branch of the Board of Trade Journal rests in the main with the Stationery Office and the Treasury. The Board of Trade recommend, but do not make the final arrangements. I think it would be better if they did. I am not aware that the advertisements in the Journal are said to realise the large sum mentioned by the hon. Member. The contractor, under his contract, receives 25 copies free of charge, and has the privilege of purchasing from time to time 1,000 or more copies at the net cost of press work, paper and sewing, on the understanding that the copies thus purchased are not to be offered for sale. The contractor is not, so far as I am aware, permitted to send copies free of postage when soliciting advertisements, nor has the Department given any sanction for him to use the Royal Arms on envelopes or circulars soliciting advertisements. The maximum number of pages to contain advertisements is fixed by the contract at 100.

  THE DIAMOND-BACK MOTH CATERPILLAR.
  MR. S. HOARE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the serious damage done to the turnip and swede crops in the eastern counties during the last fortnight by the diamond-back moth caterpillar; and whether, as the appearance of this destructive caterpillar is very rare, he will cause immediate inquiries to be made with the view of issuing suggestions to farmers as to the best course to adopt to prevent the total destruction of their turnip and swede crops which in many places threatens them?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,: My attention has been called to the serious damage done by the caterpillar of the diamond-back
  916
  moth to turnip land other green crops during the last fortnight in the eastern counties and other parts of the United Kingdom. I have already directed inquiries to be made, and they are now in progress in those districts where the caterpillar is understood to be most prevalent—namely, Norfolk, Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, Northumberland, the Lothians, Fifeshire, and Forfarshire—and I hope to receive further Reports from those districts early next week. We have already distributed, in the form of a leaflet, all the information we possess upon the subject, but very little appears to be known at present either with regard to the origin of this pest or the most effectual means of coping with its ravages. I have therefore directed immediate experiments to be made in some of the districts which are most affected with the view of acquiring the best information that can be obtained. They will be commenced in Northumberland and in Norfolk, I hope, by to-morrow, in the latter county under the immediate supervision of Mr. Charles Whitehead, and in other districts subsequently if it should be necessary.

  SCHOOL INSPECTORS AND POLITICAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that Mr. W. C. G. Milman, Inspector of Schools, on July 22nd, at a grand fête of the Kineton and Ettington Habitations of the Primrose League, held in Chordshunt Park, in Mr. Milman's district, at which the Conservative candidate for the Division was present, took a prominent part in a pastoral operetta, and that after the operetta he attended a political meeting held in the grounds; and whether he will call Mr. Milman's attention to the Order of the Lord President of the Council of January, 1880, prohibiting the official staff of the Education Department from taking an active part at political meetings, and request him to refrain in the future from doing so?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: Even the ingenuity of the hon. Member might be taxed to discover political significance in a pastoral operetta, or whether the fact of Mr.

  917
  Milman singing in tune or out of tune can in any way affect the balance of Political Parties at the next General Election. The Department cannot prevent an Inspector attending a political meeting so long as he keeps within the terms of the Order to which I referred a day or two ago, and does not take an active part in the proceedings by speaking or otherwise.
  MR. COBB: May I ask, for the guidance of people in the future, whether it is to be understood that although these gentlemen may not attend or take an active part in political meetings, they may yet take an active part in the entertainments of the Primrose League?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: Of course, there must be limits to the active part taken in political meetings, but in this case I do not think that those limits have been exceeded.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I know from my own experience that there have been a good many precedents in this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman will look them up he will find that severe remonstrances have been addressed to Inspectors in times past for taking a more or less prominent part at political functions.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: The right hon. Gentleman was not, I think, present when I answered the question the other day—[Mr. MUNDELLA: Oh, yes, I heard it]—when I stated that an Instruction had been issued by the Lord President insisting that Inspectors should not take an active part in political meetings. Of course, there is a distinction between attending and taking an active part, such as speaking from the platform.

  TELEGRAMS AT OXFORD.
  MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will consent to make arrangements for the delivery of telegrams without charge within the present boundaries of the City of Oxford?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: I understand that what is desired is that the Receiving Office at St. Clements should be constituted an office for delivery as well as for collection of telegrams. I have had fresh inquiry made into this matter, and I am glad to say that I
  918
  think it will now be possible to meet the wishes of the inhabitants of Oxford.

  WESTMINSTER ABBEY.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will lay before the House the designs which Mr. Pearson, R.A., prepared for the Royal Commission on Westminster Abbey for a monumental chapel or annexe to the Abbey on the site of the houses in Old Palace Yard, and also the evidence which, from a recent statement in the Times by Sir Henry Layard, it appears that Mr. Pearson gave in support of them; so that a full comparison may be made between this scheme and that for a chapel on the refectory site, the design for which is given in the Appendix to the evidence?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,: Mr. Pearson's sketch designs, referred to in the question, were prepared by him for the Royal Commission on Westminster Abbey, on the understanding that they should be treated as confidential, and the evidence mentioned in the question was given in explanation of those designs at a time when the general evidence had been long closed, and the Commissioners were actually engaged in considering their final Report; and when, therefore, no reporter was present. Under these circumstances, we could not publish these designs or the evidence in explanation of them with our Report. I have, of course, no power whatever now to add anything to that Report. I need hardly say that I should have no objection to Mr. Pearson's publishing these sketch plans in any way, and with any explanations he chooses, should he wish to do so. As to the last part of the question, the only design in relation to the refectory site prepared by Mr. Pearson was one suggesting a possible treatment of the interior; no such design was made by Mr. Pearson for the proposed monumental chapel at the south-east corner of the Abbey.

  REFRESHMENTS AT THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury who are the parties to the contract for supplying refreshments

  919
  at the Royal Courts of Justice; whether he is aware that, although there are numerous refreshment bars in the building, there is only one, which is underground, where tea and coffee can be obtained; whether he is aware that there are numerous instances of members of the legal profession having acquired habits of intemperance in consequence of the facilities which are afforded in the building of obtaining alcoholic drinks, and of the difficulty in obtaining tea or coffee, and that this is especially marked among those who are obliged to wait outside the Courts and in chambers for appointments to come on; and whether he will communicate with those who make the arrangements with the refreshment contractors to induce them to cause tea and coffee, and other non-alcoholic drinks, to be served at all the bars?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: I am informed that the parties to the contract are the Permanent Secretary to the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Elliott, the contractor. I have no knowledge of the details of the arrangements in the Courts, and I should be inclined to doubt whether there are numerous members of the legal profession who have acquired habits of intemperance through any difficulty in obtaining tea or coffee in the Courts; but I will communicate with the Lord Chancellor's Department, if the hon. Member wishes it, or perhaps the hon. Member will do so himself.
  *MR. COBB: I do wish it, as a representation would come with greater weight from the right hon. Gentleman. I may inform the right hon. Gentleman that he is wrong about members of the legal profession and habits of intemperance.
  MR. JACKSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will furnish me with the names of the members of the Bar to whom he refers.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is aware that it has been found necessary to procure a licence from the Magistrates to sell intoxicating liquors in the refreshment rooms at the Royal Courts of Justice; and whether the consent of the Magistrates ought, in like manner, to be procured for the sale of intoxicating liquors at the refreshment bars within the precincts of the House of Commons?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: Licences are required at the Royal Courts of Justice because, being in several districts and refreshments being sold to the public, licences are necessary. I am informed that licences have never been considered necessary in the House of Commons on the ground that the buildings form part of a Royal palace.

  BRITISH HONDURAS.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has seen the statement in the Times of Monday, that in April, 1890 the five unofficial members of the Legislative Council of British Honduras resigned their offices as members of the Council owing to a resolution being carried in the Council by the casting vote of the then Governor, for the payment of upwards of £4,000 out of the Colonies Revenues to a Mr. Hunter; and whether these moneys were paid pursuant to an award made at an arbitration which took place privately in London, and at which the Colony was not represented either by witnesses or counsel; whether the opportunity of inspecting the evidence taken before the arbitrators, and the documents in relation to the arbitration offered in this House nearly 12 months ago, will be extended to the ex-members of the Legislative Council now in this country, or to their legal representative; whether he is aware that the Administrator of the colony, finding it impossible to induce men of respectability to accept seats in the Legislative Council as unofficial members acting under the instructions of the Secretary of State, appointed the colonial surgeon, the colonial engineer, and two District Magistrates to act as unofficial members; whether, in nominating salaried officials to be unofficial members of the Legislative Council, the Administrator has acted constitutionally; whether he is aware that increased impost duties, imposed by the Council so constituted, have been declared by the Supreme Court of the Colony illegal and unen-forcible; whether Her Majesty's Government intend to make any concession to the demands of the colonists for a return to Government by a popularly elected assembly, which obtained in

  921
  British Honduras for 200 years prior to 1870, when it became a Crown Colony, or a fuller measure of representation on the Legislative Council; and what instructions, if any, were given to the new Governor for dealing with the state of affairs at present existing in the Colony?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,: The statements in the first question are substantially correct; but with reference to one part of it I may state that Mr. Harris, of the Colonial Department, who was thoroughly acquainted with the case, was instructed by the Secretary of State to appear, and did appear, on behalf of the Colonial Government, and that the arbitrators did not think it necessary to hear witnesses. The award of the arbitrators cannot be re-opened, and the Secretary of State cannot undertake to submit the proceedings to persons not connected with the Government or Legislature. Questions 3, 4, and 5 were answered in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Oswestry Division yesterday. Her Majesty's Government are not able to entertain the suggestion that the Constitution, repealed for strong reasons in 1870, should now be revived, or that the present Constitution should be otherwise materially altered; but they are willing to consider whether in certain cases the unofficial members may not have an increased power of giving effect to their views, and the new Governor has been instructed accordingly.

  YARDLEY SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if it is the intention of the Department to sanction the election of a new School Board for Yardley, by the ratepayers of the parish, on or before the completion of the term of office of the present Board in September, 1892?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: It is not the intention of the Department to prolong the existence of the Yardley School Board beyond September. 1892.

  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can
  922
  state the intentions of the Government with regard to legislation on the question of "small holdings" of land?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: The hon. Member is aware that the intention of the Government to deal with this question was announced in the gracious Speech from the Throne. It has boon impossible to do so owing to the press of other business during the present Session, but the Government have in no way departed from that intention, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture will introduce a Bill on this subject next Session.

  THE SCOTTISH EDUCATION CODE.
  MR. MCDONALD CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate what is the gross amount of reductions of grant under Article 32 of the Scottish Code during the past three years; for what are these reductions made; whether they have been earned by teachers; whether it is proposed to claim these sums as a contribution to a superannuation fund for teachers; and whether a draft scheme to this end is now being prepared by the Department, and what precedent, if any, is there for such a course.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Sir C. PEARSON,: In the absence of my right hon. Friend I will reply to the question. The total deductions from the grants to day schools under the Scotch Code (all but a very small portion of which were made under one section or other of Article 32, for insufficiency of local income, defects in premises or instruction, or insufficient staff) amounted in 1888 to £5,735 7s. 10d.; 1889 to £5,840 19s. 1d.; 1890 to £4,859 4s. 5d. The deductions so made are from the grants paid to school managers, and the Department has no means of saying how far under any special arrangement any loss may fall upon the teachers. Any part of the Parliamentary grant not expended at the close of the financial year is annually surrendered to the Exchequer. No such claim as that referred to by the hon. Member is before the Department, nor is any such draft scheme as he indicates

  923
  —for which I am not aware of any precedent—being prepared by the Department.

  SCHOOL MASTERS IN CONVICT PRISONS.
  DR. TANKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the alleged grievances of schoolmasters employed in convict prisons as regards classification; whether many of these schoolmasters, who have served for from 15 to 18 years, will be compulsorily retired before reaching the maximum pay of £200 a year; whether many of these men came into the service with the same qualifications, and whether the proportion of first to second-class men as fixed by a Treasury Minute is ignored; and if any steps will be taken to remedy the grievances complained of?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: I received Petitions from schoolmasters employed in convict prisons. These were considered, and in 1890 I recommended to the Treasury, and they sanctioned, an improved scale of pay to take effect from April 1, 1890, and in order to meet the complaints of slowness of promotion due to the diminished prison population, two special promotions were made to the first-class. All the existing first-class schoolmasters will attain their maximum before reaching the age of compulsory retirement. There is every probability that the three second-class schoolmasters who have served 15 years or more, will, by promotion, be able to obtain the same maximum. The arrangement sanctioned by the Treasury in 1869—namely, that the number of first-class clerks should be two-fifths of the number of second-class clerks—has not been ignored, and is observed at present.

  POISONOUS LEMONADE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the great number of instances in which lemonade has been proved by analysis to have been poisonously contaminated by lead; and whether further steps will be taken to prevent danger to the public in this regard?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: My attention has not been directed to cases of poisonous contamination of lemonade by lead, but I shall be happy to consider carefully any representations which may be made to me on the subject.
  DR. TANNER: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen any Reports from Aberdeen calling attention to cases which have been tested, and which showed that in many instances the lemonade had been poisonously contaminated by lead?
  *MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir; I have not soon any such Reports, and I am afraid that an Aberdeen complaint would not be addressed to my Department.

  ENGLISH SAILORS ON BOARD CHILIAN VESSELS.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if information has been sent to the Government that a number of English sailors are detained against their will on board the Chilian vessel Presidente Errazuriz, at Lisbon; whether the French Consul has effected the liberation of all the French men on board; and if the English Consul has taken any steps in the same direction?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Inquiries have been made by Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Lisbon, who saw all the English alone on board the Presidente Errazuriz, including two engineers. Contracts for Valparaiso had been signed by all, and they had expressed their readiness to continue in the ship. We have no information as to what action has been taken by the French Consul at Lisbon.

  SAILORS DETAINED IN GOOD SUCCESS BAY.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any information has reached Her Majesty's Government in reference to the shipwrecked British sailors alleged to be detained in South America, and to investigate the truth of the report, or effect their release, a gunboat has been sent?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: H.M.S. Garnet has called at Good Success Bay to inquire

  925
  into the truth of the rumour, and the Commander's Report shows that the allegations were unfounded.

  CROWN QUARRIES IN CARNARVONSHIRE.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE&c.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in prosecuting the inquiry he has promised to make into the royalties charged upon Crown quarries in Carnarvonshire, he will give directions that Mr. Forster Brown shall investigate the grievances of the quarry owners by paying a visit to the quarries in question; and whether he will also give instructions that notice shall be given to the quarry owners interested in the inquiry of the date of such visit, in order to afford them an opportunity of laying their case before the Crown Surveyor?
  MR. JACKSON: A Memorial addressed to the Commissioners of Woods by the lessees of seven Crown slate quarries in Carnarvonshire was received at the Office of Woods yesterday. According to ordinary practice, this Memorial will be referred to Mr. Forster Brown to examine and report on. There will be no objection to giving the Memorialists an opportunity of representing their views to Mr. Forster Brown.

  AUSTIN BIDWKLL.
  MR. ROBY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can recommend Her Majesty to release Austin Bid well, who has spent 18 years in prison, having been convicted of forgery in 1873, and sentenced at the age of 25 to penal servitude for life?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I answered this question on the 14th inst., and I have nothing to add to the answer which I then gave.

  CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government propose to proceed further with the Clergy Discipline (Immorality) Bill, or any part of it, this Session?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have not altogether abandoned hope of being able to proceed with this Bill.

  ETIQUETTE OF THE BAR.
  MR. COBBhad upon the Paper the following Question:—To ask the Attorney General whether the custom of barristers practising in County Courts where their fathers are Judges, and having professional chambers in or adjoining the district of such Courts, is in accordance with the traditions and etiquette of the Bar; whether he is aware that Mr. T. E. Ellison, of the North Eastern Circuit, has his professional chambers at Sheffield, and practises in his father's Court, and that the Registrar and Deputy Registrar of the Court at Sheffield are uncle and cousin to Mr. Ellison; whether he is aware that Mr. D. M. Metcalfe, of the Western Circuit, has his professional chambers at Bristol, and practises in his father's Court; whether he is aware that Mr. Rupert E. C. Kettle, of the Oxford Circuit, has his professional chambers at Birming ham, and practises in his father's Court, and that the Registrar of the Court at Dndley is Mr. Kettle's brother, and the High Bailiff his brother-in-law; whether he is aware that Mr. Edgar Meynell, of the North Eastern Circuit, has his professional chambers at Newcastle-on-Tyne, and practises in his father's Court: whether he is aware that Mr. E. Honoratus Lloyd and Mr. T. Fitzroy Lloyd, of the North Wales and Chester Circuit, whose professional chambers are in London, practise in their father's Court at Chester; whether he is aware that in these districts there is a feeling among the public and the members of the legal profession that the custom of these barristers practising in their father's Court does not inspire confidence that justice is impartially administered; and whether he will call the attention of these gentlemen to the traditions and etiquette of the Bar, or call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the facts? The hon. Member said: Before I put this question I wish to withdraw paragraph three, which relates to Mr. Metcalfe, as, since I put the question down, I have been informed that he has not practised in his fathers Court for more than 10 years.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: In answer to the hon. Member, I beg to say that I have already expressed my opinion upon this matter in reply to a question put to me

  927
  in this House during the present Session, to which I would refer him. I must decline to enter into the merits of any-particular case, as I have no opportunity of knowing the circumstances, and no representation has been made to me in the matter. With reference to the withdrawal by the hon. Member of the third paragraph, I must express my regret that he should have made such statements without satisfying himself as to their accuracy. In a letter received to-day from Mr. Metcalfe, he says—
  "So far as I am personally concerned, Mr. Cobb must have framed his question either without any inquiry at all, or he must have been guided by some very unreliable and incorrect information, for, as a matter of fact, I have not practised in any of my father's courts for 11 years. It seems to me that I have a right to complain that Mr. Cobb has thus used my name in the House of Commons without having had the courtesy to ask me if his information (if any) was correct, and without having taken the trouble to make inquiries, either of my father or of any well-known firms of solicitors in Bristol."
  *MR. COBB: I regret very much having put down Mr. Metcalfe's name, but I may say that I received the information with regard to that gentleman from one of the leading Queen's Counsel on the Western Circuit. [Cries of "Name!"]
  MR. A. STAVELEY HILL: May I ask the Attorney General whether he has not received from a member of the Oxford Circuit, who was also named in the question, a denial of the accuracy of the statement?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: With regard to Mr. Kettle, I think it right to state that some time ago that learned gentleman did consult me upon the subject of practising in his father's Court, and, on my suggestion, that gentleman has also given up such practice. That information, also, the hon. Member might have obtained had he thought fit to make inquiry.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What is the hon. and learned Gentleman's information with regard to the other learned gentlemen named in the question?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I have no knowledge of the circumstances of those cases, and no representation of any kind has been made to me with regard to any of those gentlemen.

  PRISON UNIFORM IN IRELAND.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Irish prison officials are obliged to wear the prison uniform when off duty, under pain of dismissal; whether he can give the date of such rule or order by the Prisons Board, and the particular circumstance which called for it; whether, since the issue of this order, prison officers have been assaulted and maimed in the streets of Cork, Kilkenny, Tralee, Belfast, and Kilmainham; whether there is any evidence to show that these attacks were attributable to the fact of the officers being easily recognised by their assailants, in consequence of their uniforms; and whether it has come to the knowledge of the Prisons Board that the officers regard this order making the wearing of prison uniform off duty compulsory as a constant source of personal danger; and, if so, whether he will cause such order to be cancelled?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. Balfour,: The General Prisons Board report that Irish prison officers are obliged to wear their uniform when off duty, but not under the special penalty of dismissal. This order has been in existence since February, 1879, soon after the establishment of the General Prisons Board. There have been a few cases in which prison officers have come into collision with persons outside, but in no case have the results been at all serious; nor is there any evidence that they were due to the officers being in uniform, while it is manifest that any officer can be easily recognised in the locality to which he belongs, whether in or out of uniform. The Board do not believe that the wearing of uniform is a source of danger. They have always been ready to permit in individual cases, where reasonable grounds are assigned, officers to wear plain clothes, but from an administrative point of view they cannot recommend a rescission of the order.
  *MR. P. O'BRIEN: Is there any reason why the prison officials in Ireland should not be allowed the same privilege in regard to wearing their own clothes as those in England? What is the special reason for the change?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. There is a difference, and I will endeavour to find out what it is, and what is the reason for it?

  IRISH TEACHERS.
  MR. T. M. HEALT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has his attention been called to the resolution of the County Long ford National Teachers' Association, representing that the annual sum given by the Treasury towards retiring gratuities to Irish teachers before the establishment of the pension fund (which is entirely an Irish fund) should be given annually to the pension authorities, so as to enable them to shorten the period of service for pension; and what are the intentions of the Government on the subject?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My attention has not been called to the particular resolution mentioned, but I may say in regard to the matter generally that the old system referred to, whereby the Treasury sanctioned small sums as retiring allowances in particular cases of national school teachers, was superseded by the Act of 1879, which considerably improved the position of teachers with regard to pension, and provided for the fund a capital sum of £1,300,000 from the Irish Church surplus, the former Treasury contributions being thereupon abolished.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National education have yet considered the application for a retiring gratuity made by the late teacher of Derrycra National School, County Down, in November last, accompanied with the necessary medical certificate of permanent incapacity; and will it be further delayed in view of the rule of the Commissioners that, in the event of death before receiving the gratuity, payment will not be made to the teacher's family?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The ease of the teacher mentioned has been before the Commissioners of National Education, who, however, were precluded from coming to an early determination owing to circumstances adversely affecting the
  930
  teacher's claims. The Commissioners have now had a further Report in the matter, and the case will be disposed of by them forthwith.

  THE WICKLOW MAILS.
  MR. T. M. HEALT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the mail car, which has been plying for many years between Tinahely and Kiltegan, County Wicklow, is about to be discontinued; and has he received a Memorial from the chief inhabitants of the district, pointing out the inconvenience likely to arise by the contemplated change?
  *MR. RAIKES: It has been decided that the day mail car hitherto working from Tinahely to Kiltegan shall be replaced by a ear working from Baltinglass—the object in view being to effect a much desired improvement of postal service at Kiltegan—the distance from Baltinglass to Kiltegan being less than live miles, whereas the distance from Tinahely to Kiltegan is 10 miles. A Memorial against the change was received, but I think it did not originate with the chief residents of Kiltegan, and referred mainly to the question of passenger traffic. The balance of postal advantages was, in my opinion, clearly in favour of the change—the same interval for reply at Hackelstown as at present, namely, two hours live minutes, being maintained.

  INSPECTOR ROGERS, ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the attention of the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary has been called to the language used by District Inspector Rogers, Royal Irish Constabulary, Carrick-on-Shannon, to his men in the Petty Sessions Court, as reported in the Roscommon Herald of 25th July; and if his conduct was rebuked by the Bench?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have sent over to Ireland for a Report, but it has not yet been received, and until I get it I cannot answer the question.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will repeat the question on Monday.

  ORANGE DEMONSTRATION IN SOUTH DONEGAL.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report in the Donegal Independent of 24th July, that Mr. David C. Pearson, who is clerk of the union of Donegal, attended at, and presided over, an Orange demonstration at Raw Mill, South Donegal, on the 12th instant; and, if so, whether it is in accordance with the regulations of the Local Government Board that such officials should take part in political demonstrations?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My attention had not been called to this case until I received the report which the hon. Gentleman was good enough to forward to me. There is no rule of the Local Government Board of the nature indicated in the question.
  MR. SEXTON: This is the case of a gentleman who occupies a public position presiding at an Orange demonstration, and why does it not come within the rule laid down by the Education Department?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is quite true, and no doubt there is an order which prohibits servants of the Crown and Inspectors of Schools from taking part in political demonstrations. The hon. Gentleman will see, however, that the gentleman mentioned in the question is a servant not of the Crown but of the union, and I believe that no rule has been laid down in such a case. On the contrary, in all parts of Ireland these gentlemen have, from time to time, attended meetings of this kind.
  In reply to a further question by Mr. SEXTON,
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid: The clerks of some of the southern unions in Ireland have been very violent partizans.

  REGISTRATION OF TITLES (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. FLTNN: I had intended to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, under the Local Registration of Titles (Ireland) Bill, parties are bound to register all dealings relative to land with the Clerks of the Crown and
  932
  Peace; whether these officials are now bound to attend to all their official duties in person, including regular attendance at the Quarter Sessions, as also at the different Assizes held throughout the year; whether some of these officials (some 8 or 10), are now between the ages of 70 and 80; and, under all the circumstances connected with these offices, whether these officials are bound by Clause 10 of the Privy Council Order, which appeared in the London Gazette of 19th August last, which requires all Civil Servants to retire from the Public Service after they have attained the age of 65 years? At the request of the right hon. Gentleman I beg to postpone the question.

  RELIEF WORKS IN MAYO.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the works on the relief road Bohola, County Mayo, are stopped, or about to be stopped: and, in view of the fact that this necessary work is nearly completed, whether the Irish Government will authorise this work to be proceeded with for an additional week or two until it is fully completed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. Member to defer the question. I have not yet received a Report.
  MR. FLYNN: I will repeat it on Monday.

  H.M. GUNBOAT "SPANKER."
  MR. MORROGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has seen a paragraph in the Cork papers, with reference to the break down of Her Majesty's gunboat Spanker, of the "Western" Fleet, now engaged in the annual Naval Manœuvres; whether this gunboat has sailed, or is about to sail, to Plymouth or Portsmouth, to have the necessary repairs effected; and whether these repairs could be done at Haulbowline Docks?
  MR. CHAPLIN (for Lord G. HAMILTON): The report in question has not been brought to the notice of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The accident to the machinery of the Spanker occurred soon after she had left Torbay, and it was, therefore, the convenient and natural course to take her to Devonport. The defects to the Spanker have been

  933
  already made good, and she is now with the Western Fleet engaged in the manœuvres.

  CORK AND MUSKERRY LIGHT RAILWAY COMPANY.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether steps have been yet taken to admit the Cork and Muskerry Light Railway Company as a party under the arrangements of "The Post Office (Parcels) Act, 1882;" and, if not, will he state on what grounds?
  MR. RAIKES: The question is really one for the London Railway Clearing Committee, and not for the Post Office. The 9th section of the Post Office (Parcels) Act, 1882, prescribes that Railway Companies shall be parties thereto, and amongst them includes all railways authorised after the passing of the Act. I am informed that the Cork and Muskerry Company's undertaking was authorised by the Tramways Order in Council (Ireland) (Cork, Conchford, and Blarney) Confirmation Act, 1886. I have no knowledge whether the Company named has taken any steps to establish its right to share in the arrangements of the Post Office (Parcels) Act.
  DR. TANNER: May I ask why the reply to this question has been so long delayed, and whether there has been a correspondence between the Post Office and the Railway Clearing House on the subject?
  MR. RAIKES: No time has been wasted. No correspondence has reached me.
  DR. TANNER: As it is an important matter to the town of Macroom, will the right hon. Gentleman secure the advantages which the district wants?
  MR. RAIKES: I will look at the correspondence to which the hon. Member refers, and if I can find anything to justify further action it shall be taken.

  IRISH MESSENGERS AND PORTERS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Civil Service messengers and porters are now allowed extra pay for overtime work; and whether, in the case of the Irish messengers and porters, they will be allowed the maximum rate of pay per day from the date the seven hours' system came into force?
  MR. JACKSON: It is difficult to give an answer to such a general question. I should say that, as a rule, they are not paid for overtime.

  RELIEF WORKS AT FIRKALE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-land whether he has received a Memorial from the inhabitants of Glengarriffe, including two Justices of the Peace and the Protestant Rector, praying that the road now in course of construction at Firkale may be continued until it is connected with the Bocarna Road, a distance of 200 yards; and if on inquiry he is satisfied that this road will be a great boon to the people of Muera, Bocarna, and Firkale, he will grant the prayer of the memorialists?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the relief works referred to by the hon. Gentleman have been finished today, or will be finished to-morrow, up to the point to which it is thought necessary to finish it.

  COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES BY MILITIAMEN.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, in the case of Constable Courtney, who was recently awarded by the Grand Jury of County Cork £1,000 compensation for injuries inflicted on him by Militiamen, whether the cesspayers of the County of Cork were responsible at law for damage committed in an assault by members of Her Majesty's Forces; and whether the assault in question was committed by Militiamen belonging to another county?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: The Grand Jury of the County Cork, in making an award of compensation to Constable Courtney for injuries inflicted on him by Militiamen, were acting under their statutable powers. If any section of the ratepayers felt aggrieved it was open to them to traverse the presentment before the Assize Judge. I understand that, as a matter of fact, the Militiamen did belong to another county.
  MR. FLYNN: Was there not a representation made by the Irish Office to the Secretary for War suggesting the desirability of the War Office paying a portion of the money?
  MR. MADDEN: I can hardly answer that question.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether the cesspayers of a county in England could be obliged by law, by order of the County Grand Jury, to pay compensation to a constable or peace officer who had been maimed or received injuries while in prosecution of his duty from Militiamen members of Her Majesty's Forces, and belonging to another county?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: The powers of a County Grand Jury in England are limited to the making of presentments for offences and the inquiring into bills of indictment submitted to them, and do not extend to the making of a rate, as suggested in the hon. Member's question, for compensation to injured constables.

  CLONAKILTY AND ROSSCARBERY EXTENSION RAILWAY.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any Government assistance will be afforded the Clonakilty and Rosscarbery Extension Railway; whether a deputation from the district in question, who went to Dublin and had an interview with the Under Secretary, Sir W. Ridge way, were informed by him that their request would receive every consideration; whether a similar assurance was given by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at Skibbereen to another deputation on the same proposed railway; and whether, having regard to the benefit of the large fishing and agricultural interests in the district, the Government will give material assistance to the work?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Application for assistance has been received by the Government, but the Government have no money available, nor would they feel justified, at the present time, in making an advance.

  ORANGE PROCESSIONS.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Sunday, the 12th of July, Mr. D. Dunn, P.L.G., of Rostrevor, County Down, accompanied by another ratepayer of the same place, waited on Mr. Horner, J.P., to swear an informa
  936
  tion that if an Orange procession was permitted to pass through the village of Rostrevor on Monday, the 13th of July, a breach of the peace would most certainly follow, and that Mr. Horner, though bound as a Magistrate to receive this information, nevertheless refused, and declared his intention of leading the Orange procession in person; whether the information was subsequently sworn before Mr. Charles Leslie, J.P., and notice served on the police that the information had been laid; is he aware that these facts having been brought to the knowledge of Mr. Horner, he insisted on the procession passing through Rostrevor when he headed it himself, and that a disturbance actually took place as anticipated, and an Orangeman was sent for trial on a serious charge arising there from; and, if the facts of the case be as stated, whether the Lord Chancellor proposes to take notice of Mr. Horner's conduct?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the Magistrate mentioned did, in the exercise of his discretion, decline to take the information, but he at once communicated with the local constabulary officer, who took steps to increase the extra force of police already ordered. The Magistrate does not appear to have declared the intention attributed to him, nor did he, as a matter of fact, lead the procession. A disturbance did take place, in which it is represented the processionists were not the aggressors, but as the case is sub judice, I am precluded from entering into details.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is this gentleman a paid Resident Magistrate?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address a question to my right hon. Friend the Attorney General, or put it on the Paper. I cannot answer it off-hand.
  MR. CRILLY: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that, notwithstanding the reports in the public papers, this man was not at the head of the procession?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The statement that he led the procession does not accord with the information I have received.

  DR. CARR.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can

  937
  state what are the medical qualifications of Dr. Carr, who signed the certificate (lately presented to the House) as to the health of the hon. Member for East Belfast?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Dr. Carr, who signed the certificate as to the health of the hon. Member for East Belfast, is a member of the Royal College of Surgeons and a licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians. I am informed that he also holds a qualification for the practice of medicine in Prance.

  SCOTLAND'S EQUIVALENT FOR THE FEE GRANT.
  MR. JOSEPH C. BOLTON: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the announcement made last evening of his intention to postpone the allocation of Scotland's share in the fee grant is causing considerable dissatisfaction in some parts of Scotland; and if so, whether, considering that hon. Members for Scotland have acquiesced in the postponement of that payment under the idea that it was the general wish of the people of Scotland, he will allow Scotch Members to have an opportunity of reconsidering the matter?
  MR. HUNTER: Be-fore the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, I should like to ask him whether hon. Members who represent Scotland in this House have not cordially agreed in the proposal that the matter should be postponed until next Session?
  MR. GOSCHEN: A communication was made to me by a right hon. Gentleman opposite, who represents a Scotch constituency, to the effect that I might take it for granted, as far as he had been able to ascertain, that the Scotch Members were quite in accord with the policy of postponing this matter until next Session. I have, however, received a telegram from one town in Scotland expressing disappointment at the postponement, but I am not sure whether that disappointment does not rest upon a misapprehension. It is stated in the telegram to which I have referred that they are afraid that the payment of the grant which they had anticipated will be postponed until next year. The House will remember that, although postponed now, it is perfectly
  938
  certain that the money will be voted within the present financial year, and possibly that statement may clear up and allay the apprehensions of the constituencies in Scotland upon the point. I would also say that it has been put to me that action has already been taken upon the view that the particular class of ratepayers in Scotland will receive relief. If so, that, of course, is premature, because the mere opinion of a Minister that a certain course will be taken cannot be assumed to afford a basis for administrative action. With respect to the hon. Member's question, I think that, looking at the matter from the point of view pressed upon me by hon. Members for Scotland, I cannot depart from the arrangement to postpone the subject until next Session.
  MR. JOSEPH C. BOLTON: The telegram I have received speaks of the postponement of the Government grant until next year as a source of disappointment.

  BUSINESS OF TUE HOUSE—THE ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that I should ask him to-day what fixtures the Government have been able to make with regard to Public Business in the future. I have also to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question of great importance as regards the privileges of this House. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what course he proposes to take with reference to the constitutional objection that was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler) last night in reference to one of the Lords Amendments to the Education Bill. That was an objection which affected not only the Lords Amendment to the Bill, but the rights of this House. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will feel that the House is entitled to know at once the course which the Government propose to take upon a question of such grave importance, which not only affects the Bill itself, but the rights of this House. He will feel that the question is one which should be maturely considered at a time when it can be properly discussed by the House.
  MR. GOSCHEN: With reference to the last question of the right hon. Gentle

  939
  men, I need hardly say that the Government frankly accept, as they are bound to do, the decision of Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker being the highest authority on these questions and the guardian of the privileges of this House, and he having expressed an opinion that a breach of privilege was involved in the Amendment of the Lords. The course we propose to take is to negative the Amendment of the Lords, and to substitute for it an Amendment which will in substance contain all that part of the Amendment to which no exception can be taken from the point of view of privilege. The Amendment we shall propose will guard the clause by enactments to the effect that the aggregate amount which the grouped schools will be able to earn under the clause shall not exceed that which they would have received under Section 19 of the Act of 1871. Of course, the House will not expect me at this moment to commit myself to any particular words, but we shall in that way guard the privileges of the House and, I trust, remove the objection which has been taken to the Amendment of the Lords. I think that in that way we shall best meet the ruling of Mr. Speaker and the views of even the most jealous guardians of the privileges of the House. With regard to the business of the House, the right hon. Gentleman asks me what fixtures are to be made. The fixtures must depend upon an hypothesis, and I will assume as a starting point that we shall finish Supply to-night. I assume that as the hypothesis, and, basing myself upon that, we should then take Bills to-morrow and the Report of Supply, and on Monday we shall take the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill and proceed with the consideration of the matters that may have to be discussed in reference to it. On Tuesday we shall take the Indian Budget, and on Wednesday various remanets which we have not had time to dispose of previously. In that case we should be able to adjourn the House from Thursday until Saturday, when the Prorogation will take place.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: In reference to the Lords' Amendment to the Free Education Bill, I do not quite under stand the course the right hon. Gentle
  940
  men proposes to take. The first, the fundamental, thing we have to do is to reject the Lords' Amendment. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will take care that there appears upon the Journal a record that this particular Amendment is au invasion of the privileges of this House. After having rejected that Amendment I do not know what course the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take. I can understand amending an Amendment; I do not know what will be done with respect to an Amendment that is absolutely rejected. There is no such thing as amending an Amendment of the Lords which is in breach of the privileges of this House. This is a grave matter affecting the rights of the House of Commons, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not make any proposal except that of rejecting the Amendment without giving due notice to this House so that we may consider it. Therefore it will be very important to know when a question of that importance will be discussed, and the words should be printed so that we may see the effect of any alteration the Government have to make, and how it will bear upon the education question and upon the rights of this House. The right hon. Gentleman has not said when, supposing matters to go on as he contemplates, he will take the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I thought I said that on Monday we shall take the Second Reading, on the hypothesis that we finish the Report of Supply on Saturday. That would be the first business, and then we should take the Lords' Amendments to several Bills. I hope we may be able on Monday to deal with the Lords' Amendment to the Education Bill; and I will endeavour to secure that due notice is given of the precise manner in which we shall propose to deal with it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Perhaps I may be allowed to submit that there is a precedent with regard to the method of dealing with the Lords' Amendment. It arose upon the Coroners (Ireland) Bill. The Clerk was then Sir Erskine May, and Mr. Brand, the Speaker, ruled that it was for this House to reject a Lords' Amendment absolutely, and to leave it to the Lords to make any subsequent Amendment; it was not for this House

  941
  to amend an Amendment which was in its essence bad.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I quite understand that we cannot amend the Lords' Amendment but must negative the whole clause. The question is whether, having negatived it, we can send up to the Lords an alternative clause. ["No, no," from the Opposition.] I have been advised that that was the course open to us. There is another course, which is simply to negative the clause. It is a question of convenience which of the two courses is to be preferred at this juncture. I simply say I have been advised on good authority that we might send back another clause. If we do not do so, if the House thinks it the better course to negative it simply, we should do so.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I venture to think that the last named course most comports with the dignity and privileges of this House. A clause which is an invasion of the privileges of this House has been sent down by the Lords; what we have to do is to reject it; it is for the Lords to amend it, or to substitute another proposal which shall not be open to that objection. Therefore I hope we may take it for granted that that will be the course suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that we need waste no further time over it, but that will be the end of the question so far as we are concerned.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I had hoped to speak upon the Amendment, but if it is for the convenience of the House I will not take advantage of the opportunity.
  *MR. TALBOT: May I ask what business will be proceeded with to-morrow?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I presume that the Report of Supply will be taken first, and if an announcement to that effect is made, I think it may facilitate the discussion of Supply to-night. I am afraid that the Post Office Vote cannot come on until very late.
  MR. SEXTON: What do the Government propose to do in reference to the Training Colleges (Ireland) Bill?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Is it intended that the Amendments to the Factories and Workshops Bill shall be taken as the first Order on Monday?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am afraid that I cannot answer the last question; I must
  942
  reserve the point. Of course, we are all agreed that the financial business, on which the termination of the Session depends, must have precedence. On Saturday the first business will be Report of Supply, and then the Training Colleges (Ireland) Bill, the Clergy Discipline Bill, and other small Bills.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say at what hour the House will meet tomorrow, and if any hour will be named for the Adjournment?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The House will meet at 12 o'clock, but I am afraid that I cannot fix an hour for the termination of the business. Sometimes it does not facilitate early business if an hour is fixed for rising.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.—MR. STOREY AND LORD LONDONDERRY.
  MR. STOREY: I am extremely sorry to obtrude a personal matter upon the House again, but I have consulted you, Sir, and with your leave I wish to make a brief explanation. In another place the Marquess of Londonderry made a few days ago an allusion to a statement which I felt it my duty to make in this House. Of course, I do not intend to discuss the remarks of Lord Londonderry. I have no right and no inclination to do so. That statement stands for what it is worth. The noble Lord, however, made one observation in reply to my statement which I am compelled to notice. I had myself stated that the money for the bogus prosecution against me was not taken, or meant to be taken, out of the public funds, as it ought to have been if it were an honest prosecution. I stated, further, that Lord Londonderry must have found the money. To these statements, under cover of a joke and a play upon my name which is not particularly original, and which if it had been uttered here would have been thought a trifle vulgar, that noble Lord gives a distinct contradiction. I therefore, propose, with the permission of the House, to state, with the utmost brevity, the authority upon which I made them. On the 29th of May or thereabouts, there was a meeting of the Joint Committee of the Durham County Council, who have charge of the police. The Clerk of the Peace reported that an

  943
  application had been made for money to defend the civil actions for damages brought against the police, and that demand was acceded to. Thereupon a member of the Joint Committee said to the Clerk of the Peace, "Where did the money come from for the summons cases?" and the Clerk of the Peace replied, "I do not know; we have no application about them." The member then said, "What I should like to know is, who found the money in the summons cases—Mr. Storey's and the others?" On this Colonel White, the Chief Constable of the county, said, "The colliery owner found the money." Upon which Mr. Briggs, the Magistrate who has been sufficiently prominent in these transactions, touched Colonel White upon the arm, and whispered something to him which my friends could not hear. But the effect of it was that Colonel White said, "Yes; I don't care; the owners did, and they paid Strachan, the counsel's, fees." That is what passed on the 29th May. In the early days of June a Magistrate of the county, who is also a Member of this House, wrote to Colonel White and asked, "Have you authorised this charge against Mr. Storey?" and "Are the county funds being used for the purpose?" In his reply Colonel White said, "Mr. Storey has taken much pains to instigate a civil action against the police for damages," and he concluded, "The costs of counsel in the summons case were defrayed by the colliery owner, but the County Authorities have decided to pay the expenses and damages arising out of the baton charge." I do not know whether Lord Londonderry has any knowledge of the fact or not; I do not know whether Lord Londonderry or Colonel White is speaking the fact; but I think it due to the House to state the authority on which I made my statement. I do not suppose this money will now be paid by the colliery owner, or in any way of which I can take legal hold; but, attaching belief to the utterances in May and June of a person who ought to have known the facts, I must say I cannot accept Lord Londonderry's disclaimer as either accurate or sufficient.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he considers
  944
  that the general despatch of business will be facilitated by putting Report of Supply down before the Training Colleges (Ireland) Bill?
  MR. LEA: Are we to understand that the Training Colleges Bill will not be taken to-night?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No; it will not be taken to-night. In reply to the hon. Member for West Belfast I may point out that Report of Supply does not usually take much time, and it is essential we should get it this week, if the Prorogation is to take place next week.
  MR. SEXTON: Has it not occurred to the right hon. Gentleman as an old Parliamentary hand that advantage might be taken to discuss Report of Supply at great length, simply to prevent the Training Colleges Bill being reached?
  MR. GOSCHEN: It has occurred to me that there might be a lengthy discussion under such circumstances, but on the other hand, if the Training Colleges Bill were taken first, Report of Supply might be thrown over to next week, and there would be some reason to complain that the Session is being unduly prolonged.
  MR. LEA: Is there any intention of taking the Coinage Bill to-morrow?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, Sir; if there is time. It will come on after the Training Colleges Bill.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Does the President of the Board of Agriculture intend to take the Markets and Fairs Bill?
  MR. CHAPLIN: If possible.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Turbary (Ireland) Bill; Metalliferous Mines (Isle of Man) Bill; Post Office Acts Amendment Bill. Amendment to Amendments to—Public Health (Scotland) Acts Amendment Bill, without Amendment; That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for codifying the Law relating to the Sale of Goods." [Sale of Goods Bill [Lords.]

  CHILDREN'S LIFE INSURANCE BILL.
  That they do communicate a Copy of Report, &c., of the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships in the

  945
  present Session of Parliament on the Children's Life Insurance Bill, as desired by this House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1891–92.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1891–92.

    CLASS IV.
    1. £327,067, to complete the sum for Public Education, Scotland.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: There is an increase in the Vote as compared with last year of £25,486, due almost entirely to the larger amount given for day and evening scholars. This increase arises in the first place from the higher rate of pay for each scholar, and in the second, from the increase in the aggregate attendance. During the year the rate of pay for each scholar has been 19s. 3¼d., which is the highest point yet reached, and the estimate for next year is no less than 20s. 2d. The progressive advance of the amount earned per scholar since 1873 is striking. In that year it was only 9s. 10¾d., and any stoppage in the increase has been due entirely to the anxiety of the Department in insisting that for each increase in the rate there shall be a corresponding high degree of efficiency. There is an increase in the aggregate attendance from 503,100 to 512,690, and at the present time out of every 100 children of school age in Scotland, 82 are on the register and 63 in daily attendance. The average attendance has been steadily increasing over a course of years. Since 1881, while the population has increased by 8 per cent., the attendance of school children has increased by 25 per cent. The total number of children presented in the higher standards has been smaller this year than in former years, and this is due to the fact that there are now more children who are working to improve themselves in the lower standards, and fewer who are forced up, although unfit, into the higher standards. The total number of presentations, including those under the Third Standard, is 474,873, against 469,518 last year. This increase is largely in the lower standards.
    946
    8,908 being children in Standard III. There is this year a percentage of passes in all subjects of 80·54, while last year the percentage was 79·9. There has been a steady increase in the percentage of passes. The actual number passing in Standards V. and VI. has increased by more than 1,000; but there is a decrease of passes in the Third Standard. The conclusion to be drawn from that is that the decrease of presentations is due, not to the falling off in the upper standards, but to the fact that children who, under the system of individual examination, would have been presented in Standard III., now drop into standards under Standard III. The figures show that there is no falling off in the amount of the sound education in the higher standards, but the diminution is due to the school authorities keeping the children in the lower standards because they think they are better employed there instead of being mechanically raced through the higher standards. The results as regards class subjects are improving, and the record there is quite satisfactory. There are two rates of payment—one of 2s. for a good pass, and the other of 1s. for a fair pass. At the former rate the payments are increasing, while at the latter rate they are decreasing. As regards special subjects, there is a somewhat ambiguous result. There is an advance here in presentations, but the results are less satisfactory. It would seem to be worthy of consideration whether too much attention may not be given in some instances to special subjects, and this again suggests whether a concentration of special subjects might not he bettor than the diffusion of them over a large number of schools. The Committee are aware that a novelty of some importance was introduced recently by the Scotch Education Department in the shape of a merit certificate for proficiency in purely elementary branches as an encouragement for sound work, and in the hope that it would be, if not an introduction to, at all events a recommendation in, seeking service. After conference with the Local Educational Authorities the scheme has practically received their unanimous approval. With regard to the education of the blind and of deaf mutes, it is too early to predict what will be the work

    947
    ing of the new system, but it is satisfactory to see that it has been started and is in progress. I present the Vote to the House in the belief that there is ground for reasonable satisfaction, and that, despite the uncertainty of recent changes in the working of the educational system, the main current of education is steadily flowing in the right direction; and I trust that the changes already made and others which are in contemplation will go in the same direction in regard to this main element of national prosperity.
    MR. CALDWELL: We have in former years had the advantage of a whole sitting for the discussion of the Scotch Educational Estimate, but during the last two years if has been hurried through at the end of the Session without much consideration. I think it is very unfair it the Reports of the Inspectors are not made public at an earlier date. The country ought to have an opportunity of considering those Reports as well as the Report of the Department. The latter Report professes to give a correct idea of the progress of education in Scotland since 1872. The average attendance is given as 213,549 in 1872 and as 512,690 in 1890. The apparent increase is most remarkable, and undoubtedly it is the intention of the Department to convey to the people of Scotland the idea that the attendance has practically increased by 140 per cent. since 1872. But the fact, as pointed out recently in a letter to the Glasgow Herald, is that the average attendance has not really increased more than 10 per cent. The explanation is simple. The Department are comparing the present state of things with a state to which it is in no way comparable. In 1872 only one-half of the children were in State-aided schools. In 1871 there were 542,000 children in school attendance in Scotland. That was before the Education Act came into operation, and in those days there was no inducement to return as at school children not in attendance. The percentage of children in attendance was 70; in 1881 it had increased to 80 per cent., and since then it has remained practically stationary. In order properly to compare the attendance in 1872 with that of 1890, we ought to take the aggregate attendance of children both in the
    948
    State-aided and in the non-State-aided schools. The curious fact is, that although a School Board is entitled to see that every child is attending school, and has the most ample means of information, up to this moment the Department cannot give us any information regarding the total number of children in State-aided and non-State-aided schools. That is information which we ought to possess. If we had it the utter hollowness of this pretended progress in education would be apparent. In 1872 more than half the children attended non-State-aided schools. The effect of the School Board system has been to shut up these private schools, and to transfer some 200,000 children from them to the Board schools. We want to know, for the purpose of comparison, what is the number of children in State-aided schools to-day. I do not suppose that as long as the present Government is in power we shall get this information. I asked the question in 1877, and the answer I got was that the Department had the information for 1872 but not for later years. Why have they not got it for later years? Because they have wilfully shut their eyes to it. The information could be got within a fortnight or three weeks. Table B of the Report of the Commission assumes that one-seventh of the children are attending higher-class schools. It is well known that most of these higher-class schools have been closed, and that not a fourth of the children are attending them now. The table proves too much, because it shows that there are 24,000 more children attending these schools than there are in Scotland at the present time. After I had put a question on this point, a foot-note was added to the table stating that the number to be deducted as attending higher schools is not nearly as high as one-seventh. I maintain that the only object of putting this table in is to mislead. I find from the Return that the accommodation in the schools was for 723,840, and the Education Department gives an elaborate calculation to show that the school accommodation in Scotland exceeds the number of children who ought to be at school by about 30,000 places. That is a pure arithmetical exercise. The school supply is based upon the average attendance. There are 723,840 places and an average

    949
    attendance of 512,690, so that the real excess of accommodation is 211,150. To conceal the fact that there are 211,000 places vacant at a cost of about £2,000,000, the Department gives this elaborate calculation. I object altogether to a series of arithmetical calculations which are true in themselves, but are calculated to mislead and have no bearing on the exact state of affairs. During the past year the number of children under 7 years of age has increased by about 12,000, the number between 7 and 13 years by 4,000, and the number between 13 and 14 by 112, whilst the number above 14 has decreased by 229. The increase in the schools is an increase of children under seven years of age, and above seven years of ago the increase has not been equal to the increase of population. In England the presentations to Inspectors amount to 90 per cent. of the school register, whereas in Scotland they are only 81 per cent. of the school register. Of course, if you keep your duffers away from the Inspectors and have all the bright children present, the percentage of passes will be higher than would otherwise have been the case. I know of a teacher who out of his own pocket paid the expenses of children who had left the district in order that they might attend the inspection. We ought to know whether there will be a greater number of children presented in Scotland than there are now. In Standards III., IV., and V. there is a total decrease of 4,553 in the presentations, without taking into consideration the increase of population. Now we come to the question of the passes of children between three and six. In the year 1888 the progress of education was such that the number of passes increased by 10,704. In 1889 the increase was 8,433, but in 1890 there was a decrease of 233. The decrease of passes in Standard III. this year was: in reading 3,623, in writing 3,111, and in arithmetic 1,376. Such a state of matters never existed in the educational history of Scotland before. As to specific subjects, we find that this year there were presented to the Inspectors 556 more children than were presented the year before. We find, however, a decrease in the passes of 256. In 1889 the increase in the passes in specific subjects, as compared with the previous
    950
    year, was 2,931. Then, in Standard VI. we find that in 1889 there was an increase of 959, whilst this year there is a positive decrease of 67. The Lord Advocate told us that the Government Grant last year was 19s. 3½d., which he said was the highest there had ever been. The Report says, however, that the grant has decreased from 19s. 3¼d. to 18s. 11¼d. for each scholar in average attendance. I think we are entitled to an explanation why we are told from the Treasury Bench that there is an increase, whilst the Report says there is a decrease. The Report attributes the decrease in the number of children attending school above 14 years of age—
    "In large measure to the increased attendance of infants and to the earlier age at which the standard of exemption from attendance is reached."
    The increased attendance of infants has, however, only taken place during the last two years; and how is it possible that the standard of exemption can have affected the attendance of children of over 14? I do not see any connection. I can quite understand that if a child is sent to school earlier he will be withdrawn earlier, but why on earth should A's child of 14 be withdrawn because B's infant child is sent to school earlier? Certainly there has been a considerable increase in Standard V., but a child of over 14 years of age is not bound to attend school at all. One would have thought that the Department would have made some inquiry to ascertain how the decrease in the higher standards was brought about. We do not hear of any inquiry having been made on the subject. The speech of the Lord Advocate would make it appear that education is going on satisfactorily in every respect, and I feel bound to refer to facts with which the Department ought to be acquainted, and ignorance of which would prove them to be utterly incompetent for their position. I shall endeavour to point out the causes of the decline in education. Some may say that the abolition of fees in the lower standards has influenced the attendance in the higher standards. That is a matter for inquiry. The Department ought to have inquired in what schools the decrease has taken place, and whether fees are charged in

    951
    the higher standards in those schools. Do the Government want to promote Scotch education? If so, and they find the numbers decreasing after the age of 14, why are they doing nothing to help education after that age? There are only 14,000 children who would be affected by the abolition of fees after the age of 14, and yet the Government stood out against extending free education to those children. Has the change in the examination had anything to do with the matter? The Lord Advocate said the School Boards probably kept the children longer in the infant department before sending them to the upper departments. But the result of that would be that the children would be better trained in the infant department, and one would consequently expect better results in the higher departments. I have no hesitation in saying that the result of the introduction of the collective examinations has been to lower the standard of instruction generally in the schools. There is another cause, which is, I believe, largely in operation. Why, for a great many years, has the attendance in the higher standards been increasing in Scotland? Because you have been gradually killing the middle-class schools. The children imported from those schools have been running up your educational results. Having killed the middle-class schools practically, as far as you can kill them, you now find a decrease in your higher standards. When we take the results of secondary education in Scotland as a whole, what do we find? My hon. Friends who sat on the Departmental Committee will bear me out when I say that the result of their inquiry was to show that secondary education in Scotland was in a state of decline. You have the Board school competing for the middle-class people against the private school and, with the aid of the grants, killing the private school. The Education Act of 1876 provided that in order to obtain the grant a school should not charge more than 9d. a week in fees; but the School Boards have been put up to a dodge whereby they can really charge more than 9d. a week and return their schools as not charging more than 9d. I will not, however, go into that question now. What I say is that you cannot have secondary education without also having
    952
    an Elementary Department as a feeder, the profit made on the elementary education helping to pay the enormous cost of the secondary education. You have taken away the younger children from the elementary schools and have thus to a large extent killed private school enterprise. I find that the attendance at the Universities gradually went up in 1880, but since then the increase has been arrested and there is a positive decline. This shows that secondary education has got a blow in Scotland, and that it is not able to work against the present undue and unfair competition of the Board schools. If you entirely killed private school enterprise the number of children who go in for secondary education would decrease, no matter how much money was spent on the Board schools, because the teachers would know that they had no competition to face. I come now to the Highland schools. The grant given this year for those schools is £5,972. We are told that the object of this special grant is to increase the attendance, and I think we are entitled to ask what has been the effect upon the attendance. There is a, special grant for 210 passes. We want to get a list of the schools where those passes have taken place, and to know how far there has been an increase to account for those passes. You have taken over the management of certain schools, and I want to know what was the attendance before you took them over, and what it is now. The Highland grants altogether come to about £10,000, and I should like to know what have been the general results of those grants. The Accountant General's Report shows what have been the results from a ratepayer's point of view. I think that in the Island of Barra a rate of 4s. in the £1 has been reduced to 1s., and in another parish there has been a reduction from 2s. 6d. to 6d., so that the proprietors are getting 3s. in the £1 off their rates in one case, and 2s. in the other. We want to know whether the £10,000 is granted for the benefit of the people, or for the purpose of reducing the taxation of the landlords. In conclusion, I have only to say that I think on the present lines the education of Scotland will go down whatever money is spent. Apart altogether from the question of money, you

    953
    are preventing the people having any interest in education. You have not got interest and enthusiasm on your side. You are killing them in the private schools, and you will reap the result of your policy. You are spending £1,196,340, in addition to the Science and Art grant, on your schools, and yet the number of children who are being educated has only increased by 10 per cent., and you are getting poor educational results.
    MR. CRAWFORD: I think the Report of the Department, and the exposition of it by the Lord Advocate, have been most satisfactory. We are accustomed to have satisfactory statements on this subject, and I think the Scottish nation regard the experiment that they have made in the way of national education as one that has borne, and continues to bear, a rich fruit. It may be that there is anxiety as to the early age at which children are withdrawn, but I have no doubt that some effort will be made to meet that. The point to which I wish to draw the Lord Advocate's attention refers to technical and intermediate education. I think the State, so far as it can exercise its function, is now called upon to frame a policy with regard to intermediate education. It appears from the Report that, as regards technical instruction, not very much has yet been done by the School Boards, who are the agents for disseminating it under the Act of 1887. That Act does not place us so favourably as England is placed by the English Act passed two years later, when County Councils were established, and which enabled the framers of the English Act to take advantage of those bodies for the administration of technical education. With regard to secondary education, the Report points out that it is in many respects weak, and that such schools as exist have many difficulties to struggle with, and that the struggle is not maintained with particular success. Everyone who knows anything of Scotland will confirm that view. As a link between the elementary school and the University, secondary education lacks vitality and energy. We shall have a large sum at the disposal of the country next year, and there will be many claims upon it.
    954
    Any money given in relief of rates should not be dribbled away in minute sums to individual ratepayers; and so long as that evil is avoided, I acknowledge that the claim of the ratepayers is a strong claim. I trust that the amount at disposal will be such as to encourage the Government to consider also the claims of inter mediate education. I do not believe, in my conscience, that the Lord Advocate, the Secretary for Scotland, and the Government would be in the least disinclined, if they have the means, to take that subject into their favourable con sideration. I should be the first to protest against any expenditure of public money which took a fanciful and luxurious aspect. But I very much mistake my fellow-countrymen if they would not warmly welcome a well-considered plan of intermediate education, as beneficial to the industrial classes as it is to the classes above them in the social scale. It would enable the hewers of wood and drawers of water to take part in developing the higher branches of the occupations in which they are engaged. This is an object which, if carefully and prudently worked, will commend itself to the approbation of the people of Scot land. I think that such an application of public money would be approved of under two conditions—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going outside the Vote.
    MR. CRAWFORD: The Report of the Department divides the subject into technical and intermediate education, and, differing from England, the Department has power to inspect the secondary schools. Under these conditions, may I ask whether I am out of order?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is entering into the question of the appropriation of additional grants, which is outside the Vote.
    MR. CRAWFORD: I know that there are other points to be discussed by hon. Members around me, and I will not pursue the matter further.
    MR. HUNTER: I hope the Government will give us some information, if possible in the form of a Return, as to the number of schools in which fees are charged in any, or all, standards, the number of scholars in each parish or School Board district who pay these fees, and the number of schools. What I

    955
    wish to know is to what extent, under the grants to Scotland, education is already free. I do not think it would be desirable to take these figures until after the holidays, because I think the Minute of the Department came into effect only about June. If the Government would be good enough to obtain the statistics in some week of September, the information would be extremely useful when we come to consider the appropriation of the sum of money which falls to Scotland. As to the result of abolishing fees, the Inspectors bear testimony that it has had the effect of largely adding to the number of infant children in schools. On the other hand, all the Inspectors are equally unanimous that the result of limiting free education to the Fifth Standard is a diminution in the number of children in the higher standards. I am sure that this is a matter which must engage the most serious attention of the Government. There can be no question about the feeling which exists as to the early withdrawal of children. I know the right hon. Gentleman will say that the School Boards of Scotland are not bound to charge fees for children between three and five years, or over the age of 14. That is quite true. And one point I wish to learn is to what extent the School Boards of Scotland avail themselves of the power which they have of making education entirely free for the children of the elementary schools. The opinions of School Boards must not be taken without qualification. The School Boards are elected on a peculiar principle. They represent sects, interests, coteries, cliques, and associations, but they do not represent the bulk of the people of Scotland. The School Boards of Scotland are remarkably shrewd about keeping down the rates, and the question of children between three and live is likely to be determined by them rather upon considerations of economy than considerations affecting the interests of the children, or the education of the working classes. I trust, therefore, the Government will not be solely governed by the representations which no doubt they will receive from the School Boards, for I am perfectly confident that their views are not the views entertained by the people of Scotland. The Government must take
    956
    a broad view of the question, and I hope they will see the great impropriety of holding up to the School Boards a false standard, because the fact of the Government saying that they are not bound to pay the fees under a certain age, although technically legal, would have a damaging effect.
    MR. J. PARKER SMITH: In Scotland we have now had a few years' experience of" free education, and I think it is almost time that the Lord Advocate should say here what effect it is having on attendance and so forth. I hope he will be able to give us in the pages of the Report some account of what is happening in this matter. "We are also entitled to ask how the new Code, which has been in operation for half a year, is working. As to free education, while it is increasing the number of infant children attending the schools, there is an unfortunate diminution in the higher standards. In England the number of children under five years in attendance is 10 per cent. of the whole number of children attending. In Scotland it is less than 2 per cent. That shows a very different state of circumstances. The larger number of children in attendance in Scotland are-between the ages of five and seven—an age when they are capable of admirable discipline, as evidenced in the great schools of Glasgow. But it seems to me a very doubtful expedient to get these children to school between the ages of three and five years. Certainly the unsatisfactory feature of the Report is the diminution in the higher standards. The Inspectors speak of the difficulty of keeping the children at school up to the higher standards. I should like very much to see this point elucidated by figures, and I should like to know whether the Lord Advocate would be willing to give a Return on this point, giving the percentage of children under the age of 10, 12, 14, and 15 who pass the examinations? I believe that a means of checking this diminution in the higher standards would be to give greater elasticity to the new Code, and the Government might: do something to encourage the children to stay longer at school. We have heard that all compulsory education should be free. I do not know whether anybody is pre-

    957
    pared to enunciate the converse, that all free education should be compulsory; but certainly free education gives a Justification or opportunity for going in the direction of securing that the children pass the higher standards before they are exempted altogether. As to the secondary schools, they are at present very hard pressed by the higher class of public schools, which tread upon their heels very closely. Parliament has done all it can in the matter; money is needed, and money, I hope, will come. I can only say that while I would be exceedingly sorry to make the secondary schools the slaves of the Education Department, still I think a great deal could be done by putting them under its control. I am glad to see by the Report that during the Recess the Department will spare no pains in gathering information with regard to the present condition of secondary schools and endowments in Scotland. It is a wider promise than that given by the Lord Advocate in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow. I suppose we may take it to mean that the inquiry will be into the whole question of these secondary schools, and that we shall have the full information before us. I hope the Department will also give information as to any change in the destination of the funds, which hitherto have been devoted to primary education, and which are now set free from secondary education. There is one point on which I should like an explanation. We have lately crossed the 9d. limit, and it was recently laid down by the Public Accounts Committee that we have acted upon an interpretation of the law which, in their opinion, is a wrong interpretation. As this involves some hardship to the schools which acted on the former interpretation of the law, I should like to hear some explanation on the subject from the Lord Advocate. In conclusion, I beg to join with the hon. Member for Lanark in congratulating the Lord Advocate and the Government on the satisfactory condition of education in Scotland.
    MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I have not the enthusiasm for private schools possessed by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox. I do not suppose they are animated by the disinterested motives which my hon.
    958
    Friend has attributed to them. All I can say is, that they have shown a greater zeal in many cases for the reduction of the rates than for the education of the people. I think some means ought to be taken by the Education Department to ensure that the money that accrues to them in excess shall go to increase the quality of the education rather than to reduce the fees. I have spoken to members of School Boards as to the teaching, and they have said that they satisfy the Department. On inquiry, I have found that satisfaction was caused by merely meeting the minimum requirements of the Department. That is not a gratifying state of matters. As to the subject of collective teaching, I am bound to say that, when I introduced it before, the Lord Advocate met me in a fair spirit; and on looking to the Report, I am glad to see that the Board are, on the whole, satisfied with the system. I would like the Government to consider whether that system could not be extended, knowing as I do that it would give greater elasticity to the arrangements of schools, and also that it would make more rational the work of the Inspectors if the Standard Codes were included in this system. Another point is, that no encouragement is given by the Department to teaching beyond Standard VI. The School Boards do not want any grants; all they desire is that subjects shall be given them for examination beyond Standard VI., and they are prepared to meet the expense. As regards secondary schools, I think that the Department should have the power to introduce among them higher standards than those now existing. They should provide a more efficient and more numerous staff of teachers. I think that is the only way in which any rational steps can be taken to meet the requirements of intermediate or secondary education, in the rural districts of Scotland particularly. In the case of towns, they have more income and more favourable circumstances. I think the interest taken by this House lately in educational questions, and the grants made by the Department; should encourage local School Boards to keep children longer at school where there is a desire in that direction on the part of the parents.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: I wish to call attention to the question of the training colleges of Scotland. It has been my custom for some years past to take a Division upon this question; but I shall not upon this occasion, in the absence of so many Members for Scotland, put the House to the trouble of a Division, which would afford no true indication of the real opinion of the Scottish people on this subject. The Report of the Committee of Council, as usual, contains an allusion to this subject, which is in the nature of an excuse, and, therefore, being an excuse, is a condemnation of the system of management. It says that, although these colleges are denominational, it is but little more than in name, and that they are conducted with the utmost care, so as to respect any differences in religious views. We depend upon these Colleges for the supply of schoolmasters in Scotland; and even though they are denominational but in name, still that very fact is evidence of the necessity for some reform. I wish the Lord Advocate and the Department to take heart of grace, and declare that these institutions, which almost entirely depend upon public support, should cease to be denominational, even in name. Many of us object to the training of public schoolmasters being divorced from the more liberal culture of the Universities. We hold that the benefit of the Universities should be extended to the rising generation of schoolmasters. I do not know what is the exact position of this question, and whether or not it is in the hands of the Commission. The subject has been before the Government in one shape or other for a very considerable time, and I suppose you have, at all events, some University institution to which a portion of the rising generation of schoolmasters might be drafted. Possibly, the University of Aberdeen and other Universities might be invited to take charge of part of the work of training the schoolmasters of the public elementary schools of Scotland. I hope the Lord Advocate will give us what information he possesses upon the subject, because I feel sure it is a matter of the greatest interest to the people of Scotland and to all who are concerned in the work of education.
    MR. C. S. PARKER: I think the Government may be congratulated on the Debate on the Education Estimates. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not consider it a left-handed compliment to his speech if I say that it seemed to me as good an education speech as even the people of Scotland could have expected to have compressed into the space of ten minutes. In these matters Scotland, from her history, has perhaps given the lead to England. As regards free education, we know, of course, that it has been so; but on this question of free education in Scotland, I could have wished that the Report had given us a little more light and leading than I find in it. My hon. Friend mentioned the number of 38,000 as the number of school seats in excess of the demands of the population, but he also pointed to a table which seems to show that a very different result might be obtained—Table 9 in the Report. That Table shews that the average attendance is 517,738 out of a population of 728,340, leaving a difference of about 150,000. We have an additional £300,000 of expenditure in Scotland, and we naturally look for some educational results there from, and certainly the chief result appears to have been the increased attendance of children. There has been a complaint that Scotland does not equal England in the attendance of infant children, and I certainly think that if the former country is beginning to get hold of the neglected classes at an earlier age, thus being able to subject them to a salutary and beneficent discipline, a real and distinct gain will accrue to the community. Then we have the fact of the falling off in the higher standards. I do not think the School Boards are altogether responsible in this matter; but, on the other hand, I do not think it well that the whole responsibility should be thrown upon the Central Department. I think there are ways in which the Department could encourage the attendance in the higher standards. The Department might say that if the pupils passed before the age of 13, they should not be allowed to go to work, and so lost to the school at the most profitable age; the Department might say that

    961
    they should go on to the Sixth Standard. Whether or not that proposition would excite the opposition of the people is very difficult to say; but the Department might do something in the way of giving pecuniary recognition of work in the higher standards, and work towards the University. In reference to what the hon. Member for Dundee has said, I agree that it is necessary we should have an improvement and an extension of the teaching staff. Parents will not need compulsion to send their children where good teaching is to be obtained. I trust the Lord Advocate will consider the point, and be able to give us some assurance with regard to it. At present there is a great strain upon teachers, from which it is desirable that they should be to some extent relieved. If the Department would give some encouragement to the teachers in the higher grades out of this extra money, then the children would be able to receive sufficient education to start them in University studies. The case of the training colleges is important and urgent. I think I know, from recent information, how this matter stands, for it is but a few hours since I attended a deputation to Dover House on the subject of training colleges. Here is the difficulty that arises: We have given all this for free education, but the practising schools in connection with training colleges have lost considerably in their finances. They were receiving 9d. a week, or say 30s. a year, for each pupil in the practising schools, and that enabled us to give them all the advantages of the schools at Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen, without any charge on the Estimates. 30s. from the parents paid the expenses, the staff of teachers being provided from the masters in training. But now the difficulty has arisen thus: These schools will get only the new grant—11s. to 13s.—instead of 30s. The question raised to-day was whether these practising schools should be treated as national rather than as denominational schools, whether they have not a fair claim to some of this public money. They are an essential part of the system for training teachers. I do not suppose the Lord Advocate can give us an answer yet, but it is a matter of serious consideration how these practising schools are to be kept alive. It was recommended by the Departmental
    962
    Committee that there should be required from teachers a rather longer discipline in connection with practising schools—that the present period of 12 weeks should be considerably increased. The Member for Dundee has raised in a practical form, in connection with the question of training colleges, a point which is important and urgent. All I wish and say is this: that it seems to me the Education Department has an excellent opportunity of experimentally trying a new system by favouring the demand made by the hon. Member (Mr. Robertson) on behalf of the Universities of Dundee and St. Andrews—that they may be allowed to train teachers. In some form or other the special training of teachers must be continued, and it might be done by the application of the same principle of a grant for their training at the Universities as at the Colleges. I am quite willing that the training of teachers should be transferred to hands entirely unconnected with churches, provided that it is a special training, and perhaps the first step in that direction would be to give the Dundee and St. Andrews Universities the power asked for, while the practising schools might also be nationalised. If Church Bodies no longer find it to the interest of their denominations to support these schools, then we might relieve the denominations of those practising schools and organise them as national institutions. Individuals, of course, could be retained on the staff under the new management, though changes may he made in the system of training. Without developing the subject, I merely express the hope that more attention will be paid by the Department to evening schools both in town and in rural districts.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I acknowledge with pleasure the great moderation which hon. Gentlemen have exercised in discussing this Vote, in which they take great interest, and the manner in which they have accommodated the length of their speeches to the time at the disposal of the House. I am sorry my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Lanark should have found that this is not the occasion for entering on a subject in which he takes an especial interest; and I do not think I shall go wrong if I say

    963
    that his speech—or so much of it as was delivered—has been noted, and shall receive attention in proportion to the importance of the subject discussed. I will do my best to answer the questions put to me, taking the subjects in order. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) has asked for further information regarding schools in which fees are paid, and he wishes to have a statement as to the number and condition of these schools. In relation to the important and interesting subject he has discussed, my impression is that the hon. Member for North Aberdeen will find most, if not all, the information he desires in the present Report; but if not, I shall be prepared to consider whether any further information with regard to schools in which fees are charged, and the number of scholars paying them, can be given. As to the number of children who are paying fees over the Fifth Standard under the Minute recently abrogated, about one-half of the children were paying fees; but the result of the Minute of the 11th June will be that that proportion will practically disappear, and only the small number of children over 14 still in that standard will pay fees. I think it would be premature to make a statement, as desired by the hon. Member for Partick (Mr. Parker Smith), on the general effect of the remission of fees on attendance. I must wait for more matured experience to be able to speak as to actual results. In the opinion of the Department, the system of collective examinations works well. At first it was confined to the lower standards, but under the Code of 1890 it is applied to all the standards.
    MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: There are certain grants given on the results of individual examinations in Standard VI.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I do not think that is for examinations under the standard; the system has been extended to all the standards. I think the hon. Member for Sutherland is in error in his criticisms as to teaching above the Sixth Standard, but grants are paid for specific subjects. With regard to the question which came before the Public Accounts Committee, payment will be allowed, after due inquiry, in all cases where the rules that are this year for the first
    964
    time definitely laid down by the Public Accounts Committee have been contravened. In future not only must the average fee not exceed 9d., but not more than one-third of the scholars must be paying more than 9d., and deductions must be made in the fees returned only for subjects (1) that are optional; (2) that are outside the necessary two hours of secular instruction; and (3) for which no grant is claimed. In each case the Department will ascertain the exact facts. I acknowledge the good sense and forbearance shown by the hon. Member for Dundee in abstaining, under present circumstances, from his time-honoured Division on the subject of training colleges. The subject of University training of teachers has been for some time under the consideration of the Department, and now the University Commission has it under consideration. The Department has submitted to the Commission proposals which have been made by some of the Universities, and I do not doubt that St. Andrews and Dundee Universities will have a special claim on the attention of the Commissioners. It is obvious that in this matter the action of the Department must, to a considerable extent, depend upon the new University arrangements. The present moment is not opportune for dwelling on the subject. The hon. Member for Perth has raised another point regarding the table of attendances given in the Report of the Scotch Education Dapartment. I can not say that I am a great partisan of the table, but the note that is added I consider to be sufficiently explanatory. The substance of the statement to which the table is applied will be found in the body of the Report. I trust I shall not again incur the somewhat kindly censure of the hon. Member for Perth for undue brevity. I do not undervalue the importance of the subjects he has touched upon, but I think it will be in accordance with the general wish if I follow the example of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have treated this as a business matter, realising the conditions under which the Session is now closing.
    MR. CALDWELL: I think the Committee will acknowledge that the criticisms I ventured to offer on the Report of the Education Department showed that I had made some

    965
    inquiry into the subjects I dealt with, and, as this is the first occasion of the kind I remember, I think I may be allowed to express some surprise that after criticising the Report of the Department, as I have found it my duty to do, the Lord Advocate has not said one single word in reply to that criticism. It is not a matter in which personally I have any feeling whatever, and no doubt everything I said of importance will be reported in the Scotch newspapers, I gave facts capable of proof on inquiry, and those facts in my speech will appear before the people of Scotland. It is a personal slight which I consider unworthy of the Lord Advocate, and it is utterly without precedent for a Member of the Government, after listening to a Debate on an important subject like this, to reply to every individual Member who spoke on the subject, but not to say one single word in answer to the criticisms offered by myself. If the Lord Advocate thinks it is a clever and convenient way of treating a speech pointing out defects in the Education Report, he is welcome to think so, but perhaps the real reason is that the Lord Advocate cannot reply to the facts which I brought forward. I did not make assertions merely; I stated facts which carry their own conclusions. Perhaps the Lord Advocate found that on those facts no reply is possible. We all know that it is more prudent when you have no reply for your opponent not to attempt one, and so I will not deny the prudence of the Lord Advocate. No doubt considerable time has been taken up in attacking the Report of the Department, but let me point out that on former occasions the Ministerial statement on Scottish educational matters has occupied an hour and a half, and the whole evening has been given to the discussion, and it is necessary that even more time should be occupied now, because we have reached a condition of affairs in Scotch education that is utterly unprecedented. For the first time in the history of Scotland there has been an arrestment of educational progress, if not an absolute decline. An important matter like this deserves serious treatment, and I think it would not have been right if I had made random charges against the Department without supporting my attack with facts. It was
    966
    necessary to lay the foundation and clear away the cobwebs in this Report of the Department, and having shown the actual state of facts, to inquire into the causes, and indicate how they should be dealt with in the future. I venture to say that, looking at the matter in a serious light, there are ample reasons for asking the attention of the House on the present occasion, and though the Government think it convenient to ignore the facts, the facts remain and demand attention. There has been no reply to what has been said by the hon. Member for Sutherland in regard to examinations. You have abolished individual examinations, as I predicted you would have to do, and this is the only opportunity we have of drawing a comparison and showing the effect of collective examinations versus individual examinations. The Department may think it convenient not to answer my speech, but I do not think that those who read that speech will think that the subject has been dealt with in a manner too extensive, or otherwise than in the interests of education. I am quite content to allow the Lord Advocate to do what the right hon. Gentleman knows no other Member of the Government has ever had the discourtesy to do in this House—namely, not to reply to criticisms made. This shows the difficulty under which we labour in not having the Secretary for Scotland in this House, and in having the Scottish business managed by the Lord Advocate, who replies to us with all the subtleties of legal acumen, but without those courtesies and amenities which we receive from every other Member of this or any other Government. We have had no reply, and I assume there is no reply to make. There are other matters we were prepared to discuss, but I will not take them up just now. It is evident that this subject is to be hurried through the House, and that no time is to be given to Scotch matters. They are left until the end of the Session, when nearly all the Scotch Members are away and discussion is not possible. Looking at the enormous sum we are giving from Imperial sources towards this object, at least one evening should be devoted to the discussion. Whatever boast the Government may make, and undoubtedly will

    967
    make, as to their legislative achievements this Session, the people of Scotland shall know that they were performed by the Scottish Estimates being hurried through at the end of the Session, when most of the Scottish Members were absent, by the Western Highlands Bill being taken early in the morning, and by the Education Vote itself being brought on at half-past two in the morning, sought to be taken without a word of explanation, and postponed by a species of bargaining unworthy of the Government and of the House.
    MR. MORTON: Whatever cause of complaint the hon. Member may have, I think the Scottish Members have been treated better than Members representing English constituencies were treated last night, when the English Education Vote was not commenced until after 12 o'clock. I am glad to think the Scottish people have been treated a little better, although not, perhaps, so well as they deserve. I am sorry that it should be necessary to go into these matters here. I am of opinion that it would be much better if all these local matters were dealt with in Scotland, and if the Imperial Parliament were not troubled with going into them at all. However, as we have to deal with them it is our duty to make a few inquiries. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he does not think that the office in London could be removed to Edinburgh in the interest of education in Scotland. I see that in the office in Edinburgh—under sub-head "K"—there are officials whose salaries amount to £640. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that this office could be transferred to London, and that office in London under sub-head "A" transferred to Edinburgh. That would be something in the way of Scottish Home Rule, and as I am in favour of Home Rule for Scotland as well as for Ireland, I should not object to it. Then, I would ask the Lord Advocate if properly qualified teachers have an opportunity in Scotland of obtaining the posts of Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors, and so on? I have seen somewhere a statement to the effect that they have that opportunity, but I wish to obtain precise information on the point—information which, pos-
    968
    sibly, at some future time may guide us in dealing with England. As to sectarian training colleges, something was said about them just now; bat I did not gather that the right hon. Gentleman gave any reply. Early this morning we had the courage to take a Division against sectarian training colleges in England, and I am sorry that hon. Gentlemen representing Scotch constituencies have not had the courage to do the same. At any rate, unless we can get an assurance from the Lord Advocate that changes have been considered in regard to this matter, I may feel it my duty to move a small reduction in the Vote as a matter of principle. I will not go into the accounts, as I fully and frankly admit that Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom where something like economy is considered in connection with the public offices.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSONIn reply to the hon. Member I have to say that it would be impossible to disturb the Scotch Education Department to the extent of removing the office from London to Edinburgh. The Minister responsible for Education in Scotland must be in his place in Parliament, and moreover, the whole system of education in Scotland must be very much in touch with Parliament. The Department in Edinburgh is an accountant's office. It is found convenient to maintain this office, but I can assure the hon. Member that it is not a separate establishment performing double work or anything of that kind. As regards the appointments to Scotch Inspectorships, teachers are under no disqualification. The Department choose for these positions men of experience in educational work, and so long as they get efficient teachers the whole field is open.
    MR. MORTON: Does the Department appoint teachers?
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Certainly appointments have been made amongst gentlemen engaged in educational work of some kind or other. The Department, however, make it a rule to take the best man wherever he is found. As to the question of training colleges, I do not know whether the hon. Member is fully acquainted with the point raised by the hon. Member for Dundee. The hon. Member adverted to the question of training colleges, but is he alive to the

    969
    fact that at present the question of supplying educational training to teachers in the Universities is mooted, and effectually mooted, before the University Committee? The Universities would be in competition with the training colleges, and the hon. Member has acknowledged that the Universities would be formidable competitors to the training colleges were they to enter the field.
    MR. MORTON: I am not quite satisfied with the answer I have got—especially having regard to the way in which the Lord Advocate finished up. I will not now deal with the question of the Universities however, as they will come under another Vote. I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's statement in regard to the Education Office, and it does not appear to me to convey a very good reason for the Vote. I do not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, but I must say I very much regret that on the sectarian question the Scotch Members have not had the courage to follow the example set them by the English and Irish Members last night. I hope they will yet have the courage to move the reduction of the Vote—and if they do I shall be happy to vote with them. I hope the day is not far distant when Scotland will have Home Rule, and when all these local affairs will be managed in Scotland, for the benefit of Scotsmen. I am sure that they will be much better managed than they are at present by South Kensington Scotsmen.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL&c.): I have some doubts as to whether the training colleges are the best colleges for training teachers. You want training colleges where you can get teaching of a particular character. My objection is not to the colleges, but to their sectarian character. I object to enormous endowments being given over to the Churches. It is not right that they should be given over in this way, and you cannot expect under such a system the same efficiency that you would have if you had a national system.
    MR. CALDWELL: I do not intend to discuss the matter further on this Vote, but when the proper Vote comes on I shall certainly refer to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate—as I should to the conduct of any Member of the Government who
    970
    acted as he has done in this Debate. I shall take the opportunity then, if I see fit, to go into this subject at as great a length as the necessities of the case require. I say that without any feeling or temper. Discourtesy is a thing which the Lord Advocate can monopolise. I will not say one single word which could be interpreted as in any way rude or in any way angry. I shall bear myself with dignity and state my case with prudence and great patience when we come to the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.
    MR. MORTON: Before the Vote is taken I desire to put a question to the Lord Advocate which I promised the hon. Member for Haggerston to put. I desire to ask what are the hours of work in the Scotch Education Office in London?
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Seven hours.
    MR. CALDWELL: Again I would refer to the conduct of the Lord Advocate. While he will not say a word in reply to me he has been kind and considerate to questions put by every other Member who has spoken on this side of the House, including the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Morton).
    Vote agreed to.
    2. £506,539, to complete the sum for Public Education, Ireland.
    MR. SEXTON: I desire to point out that, while there is an increase in the Education Votes in the case of England and Scotland, in the case of Ireland there is a decrease, from £933,000 last year to £927,000 this year. In spite of all our protests, some Irish Votes, for purposes which we consider useless, grow year after year, yet we find that a heavy reduction occurs in this Educational Vote. Moreover, we find that whilst the cost of administration and inspection, and the salaries of the higher officials, are maintained at an undiminished amount, the reduction—and it is a heavy one—takes place in the item for the salaries of the teachers. That is precisely the item which we should be glad to see increased. The result fees have fallen short this year by £18,000, and that, I have no doubt, means a considerable increase of hardship to a very hard-working and poorly-paid body of men. I think the time has

    971
    come when we may claim from the Chief Secretary some statement of a fundamental character as to his opinion about the continuance of this system of payment of teachers in Ireland, which has been abandoned in England. The system of payment by result fees, I say, has been abandoned in England, and 24 hours have not passed since the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council congratulated himself, the House, and the country on the fact. Still, we have heard nothing as to the system being brought to an end in Ireland. We hear of no intention of abandoning it. It exists in Ireland in a very aggravated form, because whilst you pay half the amount absolutely, the payment of the other half depends on an appropriation from local resources. This leads to very undesirable results in regard to the frankness and candour of the teachers, as it causes a tendency to paint the local receipts in too glowing colours. With regard to this Vote, the Irish Members stand in a very peculiar and very exceptional position. By the Customs and Excise Act, a sum of £78,000 was given last year to Ireland in aid of the salaries of teachers. We do not yet know how far that allocation has resulted in practical benefit. As a matter of fact, that money is still due, and the fact illustrates the Oriental manner in which the National Education Board in Dublin are pleased to discharge their functions. We have also yet to ascertain not only the mode of the distribution of the new grant to Ireland, but the principle upon which that distribution is to be based. Therefore it is difficult at present to discuss the Vote so far as it concerns the salaries of teachers. The operation and the principle of the Act of next year are hidden from us. The Chief Secretary will have next year not only a Local Government Bill for Ireland, but also a Bill for the allocation of the free education grant. I presume that in connection with the latter, he will make some proposal for securing the compulsory attendance of children at school. This is a question which, in regard to Ireland, would have to be approached with the greatest circumspection and with the greatest possible care. In a comparatively wealthy country, where the parents do not
    972
    depend on the labour of the children, it is an easy matter to direct that parents shall be obliged to send their children to school, but in Ireland the people are so exceedingly poor that the labour of the children, even at a tender age, in some parts of the country is essential to the family. We have carefully to consider to what extent and on what gradations we must oblige parents to send their children to school. There is the question of age and also that of distance—and the latter is an important matter in a country where the children are very poor, badly clothed, and sometimes shoeless. It is apparent that the principle of compulsion in regard to education in Ireland will have to be very carefully considered. The question will resolve itself very much more into one of detail than of principle. Then it appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman can hardly approach the drafting of his Bill—certainly he cannot submit it to the House—without obtaining some precise authoritative information as to the condition of the people of Ireland. I would suggest the appointment of a small Commission, not an ornamental one, but a working Commission, who will present a Report by the end of the present year. If such a Commission were appointed, the right hon. Gentleman might find it extremely useful even beyond the scope of the question indicated. The time, I think, has come when there must be an overhauling of the system of so-called national education in Ireland. It requires examination from beginning to end, and the right hon. Gentleman could not do better than choose the present time to inform himself and the House on other matters which have been and will be the subject of controversy. We are not willing any longer that this National Board should be wholly nominated by the Lord Lieutenant. That may have been all very well generations since, when the Irish people had not either by their own reflection or by following the example of this country, educated themselves up to a higher conception of their rights. Nowadays, when they have almost manhood suffrage, and the Ballot Act, you cannot expect the people, in a matter so deeply affecting their interests as the education of their children, to accept the

    973
    sort of administration that would have been accepted a generation ago. We cannot consent to this Board being nominated by the Lord Lieutenant. The result of the present arrangement is that the control of the system is thrown into the hands of one man—the salaried Commissioner. We, in Ireland, are not in the humour to stand one man dictation any longer. Then, again, there ought to be inquiry into the model schools, which cost £30,000, and are attended by 7,000 children. Each child costs over £4 a year; there is nothing like that in the civilised world, and, in regard to mixed education, these schools are really denominational institutions of the most sinister kind. The question of the school books used by the National Board also requires investigation. Teachers are obliged to sell and the children are obliged to use the books issued by permission of the National Board, and those books alone. The Commissioners, in fact, impose the teaching from their own books by founding on those books the questions which are put in the examinations. Is it too much to ask that in Ireland as in England there should be free trade in school books, provided, of course, that they are not of an objectionable character? I trust also that the condition of the assistant teachers will be taken into careful consideration this year. At present whatever may be the classification of an assistant teacher he only gets the pay of the third class. If all the assistant teachers were to get the highest salaries of their class the difference in the Vote would be only £10,000 a year. Then the pension scheme is not in a satisfactory condition. It is sometimes unjust that a person should not be entitled to a pension until he has reached a certain ago. Teachers ought to be entitled to pensions either on attaining a certain age or on completing a certain term of service. As for the question of teachers' residences, I fear it cannot be treated in a satisfactory manner until an Act is passed for the compulsory acquisition of sites. The next point I wish to refer to is in regard to the training colleges in Ireland, which are included in this Vote. I find an outline of the scheme for the future management of those institutions. It might interest the hon. Member for South Tyrone to
    974
    know that the college in which he feels such a profound interest (Marlborough Street College) will benefit by the changes made to the extent of £2,600. Last year the provision for Marlborough Street was £7,485, but the provision made this year for the College is £10,094. I noticed from the speech of the Vice President of the Council last night that the system of training colleges in England has been supplemented by a system of day colleges besides the resident colleges, and the Vice President has during the present year allocated out of the Education Vote as much money as is necessary for the working of his own scheme of day colleges, subject to approval by Parliament. What I would suggest to the Chief Secretary is that he should, in face of the obstruction that has been shown to his Bill, deal with the second part of his scheme in the same way as he dealt with the first—by the use of his Executive authority, and that he should this autumn make his valuation of the colleges as contemplated by the Bill, and out of the Education Vote, which always contains a sufficient surplus, should pay this year the first instalment towards cancelling that capital sum which is to be regarded as a debt to the colleges from the State. It would be quite in keeping with the action of the Vice President and in accordance with the scheme developed in this Estimate, and would be justified by Executive responsibility in financial matters of this kind.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: The first point raised by the hon. Gentleman relates to the salaries of the teachers in Ireland. That matter has often occupied the attention of the Irish Members, and successive Governments have endeavoured to deal with it. The great difficulty in dealing with it has always been as to the provision of more money to improve the position of the teachers, who already, however, get more in proportion than is given to the teachers of the same class in England and Scotland. But I am very glad to be able to say that the present Government were enabled to give a large sum of money last year for increasing the salaries of the teachers—£78,000. And the money

    975
    was given in such a way that the benefit is not to be measured by the sum of £78,000 only, because it is so distributed that it may be made to earn for the teachers a contribution from the Government almost corresponding in amount. Therefore we may say that the Government have directly added to the renumeration of the Irish teachers last year not merely £78,000, but also a large corresponding contribution, which the Exchequer is bound to give under the existing regulation. With regard to the Bill of next Session, I quite agree with the views expressed by the hon. Member for West Belfast, and admit that the question of compulsory education is a matter of great complexity and delicacy, and one that will have to be dealt with very carefully, for I can well understand that in remote districts compulsory education, in consequence of the habits of the people, the long distances they are from any school, and other reasons, would not only be ineffective, but would be very burdensome and repulsive to a large number of the people. Whether it is wise or not to appoint a Commission I will consider, but I do not think it will be possible in any Bill to parcel out the districts where compulsory education should or should not be enforced. We must proceed in the matter on some easy, intelligible principle, though such principles might be somewhat arbitrary. The hon. Member referred to the Education Board, and said he thought it should have some elective element in it; but I think the Board should be compared not with Town Councils or County Councils, or other bodies which are controlled by the elective element, but rather with the Education Offices in England and Scotland, and with such Councils as the India Council and bodies of that kind, in which, so far as I know, the elective principle has never been admitted. However, this a matter far too large for me to adequately grapple with at the present moment, and I cannot hold out any hope that I shall next year be in a position, even if I think it desirable on other grounds, to make any proposal to disturb the existing arrangements. On the next point referred to by the hon. Member—that of the model schools—I have to give a somewhat similar answer. If those schools are to be interfered with at all I think it
    976
    should be done on different principles to those which apply to other schools. I grant that it might be difficult to altogether defend the existing scheme or arrangements, but I must say that I think it would be most unwise for any Government to interfere with the model schools in Ulster, and, for my own part, I should never think of suggesting or recommending any such policy to the acceptance of the House. As to the alleged monopoly of the sale of books by the Education Department, it should be stated that the Department allow the schools to purchase their school books anywhere, provided only that they meet the necessary conditions. The fact simply is that the Department is able to supply the books at cost price, and, therefore, the school managers find it to their pecuniary advantage to purchase their books of the Department. The hon. Gentleman met that argument by remarking that, if the children were examined only by those books, the masters, being paid by results, were practically compelled to use them henceforth. All I can say is that I will make inquiries into this point, and if I find, as I am sure I shall not find, what I may describe as any failure of policy such as has been described in this matter, I will try to remedy the defect as far as possible. With regard to the question of the salaries of assistant teachers, the hon. Member says they are fixed at a rate far lower than the amount they earn by their classes. I do not gather he is prepared to say that the system is in essence wrong, and I take it he will be inclined to agree with me that to pay a man as much for undertaking the less onerous, less burdensome, and less responsible duties of assistant teachers as is paid to the man who runs the concern, simply because he is capable of passing the higher examination, would be absurd.
    MR. SEXTON: My point is that it is not fair to treat a man who has climbed to the top rung of the ladder of classification exactly as if he remained at the bottom.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The danger is this. There are many men quite capable of passing the examination and becoming teachers who will not take the trouble to do so unless the assistant teacherships are made very much less remunerative. I will, however, consult with my advisers

    977
    as to whether the difference between the assistant and the head masters in this respect is too wide, and, if so, I will do my best to devise a remedy. As to the question of sites for school buildings, the Treasury are prepared to make advances for the whole cost of the site. They are prepared to charge a very low rate of interest, and of the rate so charged they will pay half themselves. These, I think, are extremely generous terms, and one satisfactory result is that the number of applications made for sites has rapidly increased of late years. Complaints have been made about the difficulty of obtaining sites, but, having gone through the reports, I can find no such complaint coming from the Board. It may be true, as has been said, that nothing short of compulsory power will enable us to provide sites in all oases where they are required. That is a question for consideration, and if the result of the inquiry is to show that the efficiency of many schools is destroyed or impaired by the fact that a teacher has to live a great distance from the place where his business is carried on, some remedy will have to be provided by this House. I have no doubt a system of compulsion, carefully safeguarding the interests not so much of the owner as of the occupier, will be devised. With regard to providing the capital sum required for the training colleges, the view of the Government was that the best way of doing so was to proceed by Bill. It was in that view I asked the Treasury to frame the Bill which has been discussed at such great length, and I still think the course I proposed was the best in the abstract; but when I brought in the Bill I never contemplated that it would receive any opposition at all, still less that there would be any opposition of the kind and from the quarter of which we have had some experience. I frankly admit that the course which my hon. Friend opposite and one or two hon. Friends of mine on the Ministerial side thought it their duty to take last night—the course which I understand they propose to follow on any future occasion—renders it necessary, or at all events advisable, for me to consider whether the Government may not, departing somewhat from the original plan, be content with carrying out the practical object, even though that is attained in a less theoretically perfect
    978
    manner than we should desire. I certainly have come to the conclusion that that is the case. Under the circumstances, I think it will probably be more convenient to do that which the Government has a legal right to do. The Bill provides substantially for two things. It provides that a valuation shall be taken of the houses and appurtenances of the three denominational training colleges, and it provides also that the interest of the capital sum so estimated shall be paid out of the Votes. It is not at all necessary to obtain legal sanction for making a valuation, and I propose to give instructions immediately to Sir John Ball Greene to proceed with the work. When that is done, and when we are acquainted with the capital sum which will be required in order to provide the three denominational training colleges with what in these discussions has been called a free home, I shall then, as I understand I have a right to do, pay the interest on the money out of the Votes which are now being taken. I believe there will be ample money for the purpose, and, if not, I shall provide additional security in any case in next year's Estimate, and I shall provide a special head under which this particular item of charge can be most conveniently taken. That, I hope, will save my hon. Friend opposite a great deal of unnecessary trouble, and also carry out a policy pressed upon me, I repeat, in the main, not by the Diocesan Synods, but by the United Synod of the Church of Ireland, and not on one but on two occasions—a policy which I initiated as much for the purpose of saving the undenominational colleges from the fate which undoubtedly awaits them if some such policy is not carried as for aiding the denominational colleges—a policy which I do not admit to be in any sense inconsistent with the system of mixed education now prevailing in Ireland. It is largely because I desire that the interests of the Presbyterian colleges, which my hon. Friend opposite specially represents, should not be injured, that I brought forward the Bill which has caused so much trouble and anxiety, I will not say so much bad blood, but so much heated controversy. I shall still feel, if and when this policy is carried out, that the persons to be congratulated upon its consummation are not merely or principally those who

    979
    are interested in Protestant training colleges or in Roman Catholic training colleges, but those who think with my hon. Friend that the educational future of Ireland is bound up with the prosperity of the mixed system which has so long been established in that country. (8.45.)
    (9.19.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I listened with attention and interest to the speech the Chief Secretary has just delivered. In regard to the matter of training colleges in Ireland, I gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that he proposes to withdraw the Bill which has caused so much feeling within the last 48 hours, and to relieve the House of responsibility until he asks for a Vote next Session. He proposes to take upon himself the responsibility of providing the money, and, having done so, will afterwards come to Parliament for a Vote. So until then the responsibility of Members here will cease. To that course I have no objection, and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has seen his way to remove a bone of contention; but in parting with the measure I would give it a final kick, though the fundamental objection I have will, of course, arise on the Vote for Training Colleges in the Estimates.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The discussion of the Bill now is not permissible.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) and the Chief Secretary have discussed the whole question—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The intention of the Government has been stated, but it would not be in order to discuss the question.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I do not intend to discuss the Bill.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It would not be in order to discuss the question at all.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I will reserve what I have to say until the Motion for the withdrawal of the Bill, and I will remain in town for that purpose, merely remarking now that without a Bill the Chief Secretary cannot touch the Irish Church surplus at all. Judging from the speech of the hon. Member for
    980
    West Belfast, the model schools are the next educational institutions to be attacked. There are 29 on the Vote. The Chief Secretary says he does not intend to allow any attack in the Province of Ulster, which contains 14 out of the 29, and these 14 are, therefore, safe as long as the right hon. Gentleman remains in his present state of mind. But there are model schools outside Ulster which have as good a right to be maintained as those within it. There is one in Dublin which is as great a success as that at Belfast, and ought equally to be maintained. The same is true of the schools at Cork and other large centres of population, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will think twice before laying his hands on schools which provide a first-class education. I admit that there are schools which are less successful, but that is because the Roman Catholic clergy will not allow children to attend them. Even these were successful while they had the support of the Roman Catholic clergy; but since these clergy have turned against them and do not allow Catholic children to attend they have been failures. Still, outside Ulster there are schools that deserve to be maintained if the cost is not too great. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] The Vote includes £10,000 for the Marlborough Street Training College, and £21,000 for the other three colleges. Marlborough Street College commenced training teachers in 1833, and has trained altogether 11,868, or an average of 201 a year. St. Patrick's, which received an endowment in 1883, in seven years has trained 593, or an average of 84. The Lady of Mercy College has trained 620, or an average of 88. There appears to be a disproportion between these averages and the grants voted. I coincide with what the hon. Member for West Belfast has said as to an Education Bill next year, and the Chief Secretary must not take me as hostile to that. I am quite prepared to discuss the Irish education question, but not at 3 o'clock in the morning, and I hope the House has seen the last of these efforts to get the Irish Estimates through by throwing a bone to the Irish Members.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. Member, as is usual with him when he wants to push a case, has not recited all the facts and figures that are relevant. The

    981
    hon. Member apparently has not noticed the explanation which is given in the foot-note.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I mentioned the average attendance in seven years.
    MR. SEXTON: There is no meaning in the hon. Member's allusions, unless he means it to be inferred that there is something unfair in the proportion awarded to Marlborough Street College. We find that the average attendance at Marlborough Street College is 99 men and 99 women, and in the others, 184 men and 214 women; that is the arithmetical explanation of the figures £10,000 and £21,000. The money for Marlborough Street College is calculated at the same rates as in the case of the other colleges—on the attendance.
    COLONEL NOLAN: The Chief Secretary has hinted at the course he might pursue; he has not positively stated that he will abandon the Training Colleges Bill, but has only said that he may do so. We have refrained from discussing Irish Votes in order to allow the Bill to come on, and that people might understand the tactics of the Ulster Members. If the right hon. Gentleman does not proceed with the Bill he will have got a good many Irish Votes on false pretences.
    THE CHAIRMAN: This discussion is quite irregular.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Well, I suppose we who are not on the Treasury Bench are not in order, but I submit if the Chief Secretary makes a statement we should be allowed reference to it. I have myself refrained from making a good many speeches during the last few days in the hope that the Bill would be brought on. But, of course, if it is not brought on we have no longer any responsibility, and the hon. Member for South Tyrone will have his way. Next year we do not know what new arrangement or combination of Parties may arise.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must confine himself to matters pertinent to the Vote.
    COLONEL NOLAN: The Commissioners of Education have reported upon the training colleges, and I wish to point out how few there are in Ireland for denominational education, whereas in England out of 41 training colleges something like 38 are conducted on denominational principles. Such is the
    982
    existing state of facts as indicated by the Commissioners, a state of facts so bad that I think we would be justified in moving a reduction of the Vote for the salary of the Commissioners. Still,. I admit the Commissioners are painstaking men, and I see no advantage in taking that course now. Now, as to model schools. The hon. Member has spoken in praise of model schools, and I am willing to let him have his way with the model schools in some districts; there is a large portion of Ulster as to which I would raise no question. I would raise no question whatever about model schools in localities where Protestants are in the majority, but I am opposed to them in other parts of the country, because they are so very expensive. They cost a great deal more for each child educated than the ordinary national schools, and why should this additional expense be incurred? Why should you insist on paying more for children being educated in a certain way—that is, alongside other children of a different religious persuasion and against the wish of the parents? It is positively unfair towards the parents of children who wish to have religious and secular education combined. This is the state of the case outside Ulster. In some of the schools the teaching is well done, but this is a fresh injustice in this way: it swells the statistics of the highly-paid teachers for ordinary national schools. When you look at the scales of payment you find that a few are moderately well paid, and the greater number of these belong to the model schools, so that it appears as if the ordinary school teachers are slightly better paid than they actually are. But the principal object for which I rose was to call attention to what I consider the leading feature in Irish education. One of its greatest, most fatal imperfections is the low rate of payment to national school teachers. The Chief Secretary has taken credit to the Government for having given £78,000 towards the payment of Irish teachers, but really that is not a concession to Irish teachers; it is only a recognition of a tribute to the spirit of the age. The English Commissioners point out that the average rate of pay in 1870 was £94 2s. 1d. and that now it is £119 18s, 3d. Look at that enormous rise in England. I will not

    983
    say it has been so all over the world. I believe in America schoolmasters have been well paid for the last 20 or 30 years; but Irish teachers have shared in the rise to a very small extent, and they are not now anything like so well paid as the English teachers. It is said by some people that it is cheaper to live in Ireland, but that is a mistake so far as the class of people to which teachers belong are concerned. To a man who keeps servants and horses living may be cheaper than in the same position in England. But that does not apply to the schoolmaster, who finds all the articles of consumption as dear as in England. I doubt if house rent is much cheaper; and while a third of the teachers in England get houses rent free, not more than a sixth of the teachers in Ireland have houses supplied by the managers of schools. It is extremely difficult for a national schoolmaster to get a residence. The average pay of the immense bulk of the teachers in Ireland is only £78, whilst it is £119 in England, and a great deal more in Scotland. Two-thirds of the teachers in England get over £100, while only one-fourth of the masters in Ireland receive that amount. It is evident that the Irish schoolmaster is very badly treated relatively to his brother teacher in this country. It is sometimes said the English teacher is a better educated man. Well, the Irish schoolmasters make no unreasonable claim. The Irish teachers declare that they are willing to pass the same examination as the English schoolmasters, and agree not to ask the same salaries unless they succeed; and I believe they would do so, for Irishmen hold their own in all competitive examinations. The Chief Secretary says that sufficient money is not given from local resources in Ireland. There is a misconception on this point. In consequence of Ireland being a Catholic country the contributions often take a different form from those given in England. Take, for example, the schools of the Christian Brothers. They only receive a very small contribution from the State under the Science and Art Vote, and they educate something like an average of 8,000 children. The contributions to these schools, and the money paid for the maintenance of convents belonging to the teaching Orders are really sub-
    984
    scriptions in aid of education, but these contributions are not taken into account as such. I admit that subscriptions in England are larger; there are old grants in England, and so there were once in Ireland, but they were confiscated a couple of centuries ago. You have a rich Established Church in England, and Churchmen, greatly to their honour, subscribe largely to education. The Catholic clergy make contributions, but their incomes are nothing like so solid or so large as the incomes of the clergy of the Established Church in England. Take these things into account when you reproach Ireland for the smallness of her local contributions towards education. My contention is this: That when the State has taken on itself the duty of educating the children of the people, then the State has taken on itself the duty of seeing that the social condition of the schoolmaster is a proper one. The social condition of the schoolmaster in Ireland is not sufficiently elevated, and that is chiefly due to the fact that he is underpaid, receiving only 75 per cent. of what is given to schoolmasters in a corresponding position in England. This I consider a very great grievance, and it is at the root of all the faults of Irish education. The Irish people value education quite as much as do the people of England; and considering the difficulties of getting their children to school, their poverty, and the sparseness of population in rural districts, the long distances that children have to be sent, the attendances show that the people value education. Though the position of the English schoolmaster is so much better, though the Irish schoolmaster is underpaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to give a very large sum to the English schoolmaster directly, and not a penny is going this year to the Irish schoolmaster. That is to be the state of facts for the next six months, and I do not know that it is going to be better afterwards. [Mr. GOSCHEN: Why?] If the right hon. Gentleman imagines that any large portion of the grant will find its way into the teachers pockets he underestimates the intercepting powers of management in Ireland. I shall be glad if it should be otherwise. In England the school pence are paid tolerably well; in Ireland the payment is very irregular,

    985
    and managers, I think, have been in the habit of returning accounts that represent more than they actually receive. You are not going to give them money for the next six months; you are going to improve the position of the better-paid English schoolmaster—I do not say he is paid too well—and you leave the Irish schoolmaster in his present impoverished condition. Of course, the question of obtaining sites for teachers residences is an important one. I agree that very often there is as much difficulty with the occupier as with the owner. I think Irish Members have done their duty in this respect. We have exhausted all our powers. Many Bills have we moved the Second Reading of on Wednesday afternoons; we have done all we could, but it seems to be a task beyond the powers of private Members. The present Chief Secretary, who is a friend to education in Ireland, should draft a Bill for compulsory acquisition of land; and if it offers reasonable compensation to landlord and tenant, I do not think any portion of the community will object. On another point raised by the hon. Member for West Belfast, I cannot speak so boldly as he did. Compulsory education in Ireland will be a very dangerous experiment. There is a strong feeling against it—I do not say among the majority; but there is a strong outcry against the prospect of members of the Irish Constabulary running after little children and bringing them before the Magistrate for not attending school. Much ill-feeling will be engendered by such prosecutions, and I doubt if the remedy will not be worse than the disease. Nearly all the children do go to school; and where attendance is irregular—for instance, in mountainous districts—the Chief Secretary says there will be exemption.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; but the worst attendance is in towns.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Well, I speak from experience in small towns, where I know that, simply from the influence of public opinion, children do attend extremely well; but, of course, in large towns the effect of the feeling among the community is lost. On the whole, I do not see that there is any great necessity for compulsion. Certainly
    986
    you cannot have compulsion unless you take the greatest care in the arrangement of the denominational system. Prosecutions will arouse strong religious feelings, and much trouble will ensue. The great grievance is not the unsatisfactory attendance of scholars, but the inadequate pay of the teachers and the bad placing of the schools. Of course, if you could map out the country into educational districts, you could place schools according to the configuration of the country and to the population. In Ireland the position of the school is generally determined by the position of the church—a convenient arrangement if the church stood in the midst of the population; but in most cases the difficulty of getting land has been such that the priest has put the church not where it would be most convenient, but upon the only piece of ground he could get. If the Chief Secretary should adopt the suggestion of a Commission of Inquiry into matters relating to education in Ireland, I hope there will be upon it a strong minority representing popular principles in Ireland. There is another long standing grievance which I hope will receive the attention of the Chief Secretary. There are some Religious Orders whose schools come under the Department and get assistance, but that is not the case with the schools of the Christian Brothers—a most useful body of men, who educate some 8,000 children.
    MR. FLYNN: More than that—30,000.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I believe I am under-estimating. It is a standing grievance that the Christian Brothers, who give the best education to a very large number of children in the South and West of Ireland, do not receive any assistance from the State, except, to a small extent, through the Science and Art Department. I do not say that it is worth while the Christian Brothers insisting on the objection which prevents this assistance being given; but I do think that an arrangement might be arrived at. The Christian Brothers have no objection to receive Protestant children into their schools, and do not insist on their receiving religious education, but they consider it necessary to keep in their schoolrooms certain

    987
    symbols of their faith, a crucifix and a few pictures. Surely the difficulty ought to be overcome in some way, and the State might afford assistance to the education of the poorest children in the country. Those Brothers are most useful servants of the State, and I say unhesitatingly that either the Government or the Christian Brothers ought to change their rules. I would as soon offer my advice to the Christian Brothers as to the Government in this respect, although I do not know that either side would receive it. I believe it is only a technical matter which prevents this teaching body from receiving assistance, and it is an absurd thing not to bring it under the rules. It must be borne in mind that by refusing contributions to this body you are punishing not merely the Christian Brothers but also the children who are going to the schools, who ought to have better accommodation, and the people of the towns in which they live, because they have to contribute largely towards the support of the Brothers. The Brothers have a little money of their own and they live very frugally, but really they have to be maintained by the congregations. I look upon this as a most important point, and I should like to have some explanation of it. If we have some expression of opinion from the right hon. Gentleman it may turn out that the reasons they do not get State allowances are not of such real consequence, and that some way may be found out of the difficulty. There are more than 30,000 children in Ireland receiving a solid education from the Brothers, and I think some recognition should be given of that education by the State. We now have a unique opportunity of doing it—now that a very large sum of money is being given to education. I am anxious to see the whole of this £200,000 given to Ireland, devoted to primary education, and I think that a fair share of it should go to the Christian Brothers.
    MR. KNOX: One matter referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is worthy of serious consideration—that of the Christian Brothers. There is no Religious Order in the world which commends itself so much to every class as the Christian Brothers, especially those in Ireland.
    988
    They have had some gifted Irishmen among them, such as Gerald Griffin; they give their lives to the teaching of the poor, and it does seem to be an anomaly that these self-sacrificing men should be deprived of any share in the grant owing to the rule of the Education Department as to religious symbols. I do not believe there is anybody in Ireland—not even Protestants—who would consider it a grievance if the rule in this respect were relaxed. I cannot say whether or not the point is a merely technical one, but it does seem to me that as the Christian Brothers have adhered to it so long, it is hardly fair to expect them to change the whole system and form of their schools. The Christian Brothers being excluded from all the benefits of primary education have applied themselves to compete with other schools in secondary education, and that is not always good for the pupils, as it leads to some children being forced, and to their receiving an education not suited to their course of life. It leads to inspiring children with ambition, which they have not afterwards the means of satisfying. To come to another point. I think we understood the right hon. Gentleman, in replying to the hon. Member for West Belfast, to say that he would take into favourable consideration the proposal that a School Commission should be appointed to inquire into certain questions connected with the system of education in Ireland—especially with a view to seeing how far and in what way compulsory education can best be adopted in that country. With regard to the introduction of compulsory education, the great difficulty will be in finding an authority to enforce compulsory attendance rather than in laying down rules. In some parts of Ireland the difficulties will be very great. The right hon. Gentleman is inclined to confine the experiment to the towns, and it is in the small towns that compulsion is most required. The attendance in some of the smaller towns is not at all what it should be, and in these cases especially something is wanted; but the great difficulty would be to arrange how compulsion is to be enforced. I am very much afraid that unless care is taken in framing the measure we shall have another outburst of those peculiar ideas

    989
    of religious toleration which were exemplified last night by those antiquated bigots—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    *MR. KNOX: Then, I will say we shall have further speeches from gentlemen who expressed views of antiquated bigotry last night. I refer to such Members as the hon. Member for Camberwell (Mr. Kelly) and the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). It is understood that the reason why this action is to be taken, if possible, to enforce compulsory education in Ireland is that a certain sum will be available next year for the increase of the salaries of the national teachers corresponding to the decrease in their present income owing to the abolition of fees. Of course there are foes in the country districts as well as in the towns, and I should like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he does not intend the abolition of fees to apply only to districts where compulsion is enforced. It is in remote country districts that the teachers at present lead such a severe life. There are an extraordinary number of them who receive less than £1 a week, and who have to eke out their livelihood by getting their wives to keep shops and by occupying themselves with business outside the work of teaching which seriously interferes with their efficiency. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that it will be impossible next year to introduce the principle of election in the Education Board. That may be so, but the right hon. Gentleman might to a great extent improve its composition by making the Catholic portion of it more representative of the feelings of the majority of the people. At present the Catholic portion are not in accord with the views of the Representatives for Ireland in this House, and I cannot think that that is a natural state of things. Without introducing the principle of election, it would be possible, as vacancies arise, to make this Board more in accordance with the feelings of the people. With regard to the books used in the elementary schools in Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to understand how ridiculous the position is, and seemed to think that it was possible for the school managers to use what books they liked. That, as a matter of fact, is not the case. The rules of the
    990
    Board specify the reading books to be adopted, and they say that those books only shall be used which are prescribed and actually drawn up under the direction of the Commissioners of Education. The books absolutely prescribed in the schools are not only antiquated, but are about the most ludicrous things ever brought out in any country for the education of youth. They are dull; they teach nothing; they have no literary merit; they are selected from the worst authors in point of style. Then, is it too much to expect that some relaxation should be made in the rules which prevent the history of Ireland and any other history being taught in Irish primary schools? It is true that the history of the Jews may be taught—in an ordinary unsectarian way—but every other history is absolutely proscribed. It is true that a certain number of pupil teachers and training college pupils are examined in history, but I have looked through the papers that have been set for the examinations in history, and I must say that anything more out of date could hardly be imagined that the questions proposed. In one large batch of papers the only question I could find relating to the history of Ireland was a question dealing with the condition of things before the introduction of Christianity. I suppose that the examiners thought that at any period subsequent to the introduction of Christianity sectarian matters had been so introduced into the history of Ireland that it was dangerous to set a question. So far as the pupils in the elementary schools are concerned, they are not allowed to learn anything about history at all. In England it is entirely different, and I venture to suggest that the rules which are in force in England with regard to reading books may, with some little modification, be applied to schools in Ireland. The rule in England is to bring in history in two ways. In the first place, the history of England may be used as an alternative for reading books in the fourth and higher standards, these books not being prescribed, but being chosen by the school managers, and in the next place it is taught directly. I would suggest that reading books should be used in Ireland dealing with the history of that country

    991
    —so long, of course, as the books were not obviously unsuitable. There are many histories of Ireland of a comparatively simple kind that might be used in the higher standards. Take the well-known history of D'Arcey McGee. This, if revised by modern scholars, might very well be used without offending the political or religious susceptibilities of most people in Ireland. The effect of proscribing the history of Ireland is that in some parts of the country there is less known about the history of Ireland than about the history of almost any other country. In the City of Belfast it is only in the back streets that you can find in a bookshop any book dealing with the history of Ireland, and this is due in a great degree to the fact that the history of Ireland is proscribed in the Irish schools. I should not have the slightest objection to the use even of a history of Ireland which did not entirely accord with the political views which personally I hold. Whatever Irish history were taught would be better than none. I once met a person who having read Froude's History of the English in Ireland said that if all therein contained were true it would make her become a Home Ruler. I do believe that if the facts are given, however anti-Irish the spirit in which they are written, they would not have an anti-Irish effect. At present it is nothing less than a scandal that children in Irish schools are not allowed to read history in any form. Not only ought it to be introduced as an alternative reading book, but history should be introduced as an optional subject in which the teachers can earn the grant. In England the teacher can earn 4s. a head on this subject, and why should not the same rule prevail in Ireland? I would suggest that if a School Commission is appointed it should inquire generally into the present system of prescribing the books to be used by the pupils. I venture to think that a worse system could not be introduced. I believe it is 40 years since the books now in use were first drawn up, and the result is that the science lessons taught are absolutely nonsensical. I venture to think that if education in Ireland is to be put upon a sound basis these books should be abolished as soon as possible.
    MR. LEA: The hon. Gentleman has suggested that the Christian Brothers in Ireland should be relieved from some of the rules of the Education Board in Ireland; but that seems to me an absurd proposal. It is not for the State to lay down rules for a particular body. The State grants money and lays down general conditions on which that money can be received, and it is for the religious bodies who wish to obtain a share of it to conform to the conditions. I do not undervalue the work the Christian Brothers do; but, at the same time, it is quite impossible for the State to make an exception in their behalf. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) has to-night had an opportunity of letting off that steam which for two or three days has been accumulating, so much to his discomfort, but I doubt whether the Chief Secretary will thank him for having told us that he and his friends have held their tongues for three days in consequence of what has been given in the endowment of the training colleges. On that subject I would ask the Chief Secretary whether I have correctly understood him. I understand that he proposes not to obtain the money by means of a Bill, but to enlarge the Vote for Education next year. Well, he will do that on his own responsibility; and it will be open to those who have opposed him on this subject to move a reduction in the proposed Vote next Session. That policy is entirely on the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility, and I and my friends are relieved by the course he intends to pursue. I should be glad if the Chief Secretary can see his way to give £180,000 or £200,000 to the teachers, which they are entitled to under the arrangements of this year.
    MR. FLYNN: As to the Christian Brothers, the hon. Member is under a misconception. Let me inform him that they took up the work of primary education in Ireland 30 years before the National Board was established. The Christian Brothers have been in existence for 90 years, and have now over 78 establishments and between 30,000 and 35,000 pupils attending them. It is acknowledged that the primary education given by that body would be difficult to beat in any part of Great Britain. The

    993
    elementary, English, mathematical, and scientific education given by the Brothers is acknowledged by all experts in these matters to be superior to anything of the kind in England. We are justified in asking that something should be done to assist this most deserving body. I do not know whether the Christian Brothers, if they read a report of these proceedings, will be at all obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), who appears to think that the objection of the Order arises on a mere technicality. The Christian Brothers are perfectly willing to submit to all the reasonable requirements of the Board, but they will not remove those religious symbols that form the distinctive mark of their association. The Chief Secretary will remember that two years ago we called his attention to this matter, and claimed for the Christian Brothers some share in the primary education grant. The right hon. Gentleman gave a more or less favourable reply; but it was not essentially definite. We referred him to the Reports of various Committees on the subject. The real point of difference between the Christian Brothers and the Board is this: The Board give grants to schools that are practically denominational, to schools under the control of various orders of nuns for the teaching of girls; but the religious teaching is given at certain hours, and they obtain grants for primary education. The Christian Brothers are willing to submit their books for the approval of the Commissioners, they are prepared for the inspection of their schools, and for examinations, and are prepared to fulfil every reasonable requirement, and in view of what they are doing and have done for the cause of education, I do not think it is asking too much when we appeal for a relaxation of the rule in their favour, enabling them to get a little of the additional money to be devoted to primary education. I share the regret that the £78,000 provided by Parliament last year has not yet been divided among school teachers. Reference has been made to the books used in the National schools, and I agree they are a discredit to any educational system. They are out of date, as dry and uninteresting as
    994
    can be imagined. The Chief Secretary shuddered at the idea of reading through the books during the recess, and I would not suggest that such a punishment should be inflicted upon him; but such a task might be entrusted to a Lord of the Treasury, or, say, the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, whose duties are not very onerous, and I am quite sure that the report would be that they are the dullest and most absurd compilations ever put before children.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I will not go into the comparison presented by the amount devoted to national education and to other purposes in these Votes. Much has been said on the teachers' salaries, and much may be said on behalf of the children who are taught. The question of books was raised many years ago by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), when, I think, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Sir G. Trevelyan) was Chief Secretary; and now, when the present Chief Secretary contemplates a new departure in Irish education, it is fitting that we should say a few words on this topic, though the time and circumstances of the Session do not admit of full discussion. I desire to offer a general protest against the system of education in Ireland. If we are going to have compulsory attendance, then I say we must provide the children with some better instruction in the schools into which they are forced. The books contain the greatest nonsense imaginable. What is the advantage a child will get from reading Dr. Whateley's nonsense on political economy. Why are the children tortured with spelling and grammar and geography in the form presented in these books? What the children ought to be taught first is to read, but under the system of spelling it takes five years to teach a child to read, whereas in other countries a child can be taught to read in 12 months. If you take up the grammar in the Irish National schools, you will find that nothing more difficult could be put into the hands of children. What interest can be excited in the mind of a child by a "demonstrative adjective pronoun;" what is the use of burdening his memory with the height

    995
    of the Himalayas? Let the Commissioners turn their attention to the system pursued in France, and I believe also in Germany; let them teach the child something of the body he runs about in, the sky over him, the earth under him; something that will enlarge his mind and awaken his interest, and banish much of the nonsense of so-called education. If you are going to make education compulsory, we have a right to ask what you are going to teach the children. The least we can ask yon to do is to give them an education that will be of some good to the children. Especially with regard to a country where music was so much cultivated formerly, something ought to be done to sweeten the peoples' lives by bringing them up with a knowledge of the old melodies which prevailed in the country some years ago. There is in Ireland Dr. Joyce, a man of enormous range of knowledge, in thorough sympathy with the people, and whether the airs are Munster airs or Ulster airs, he has practically a knowledge of them all. Dr. Joyce has produced the Irish airs in a series of volumes, which must have cost him immense pains and labour. A man like Dr. Joyce ought to be put in the front of the educational system of Ireland.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I certainly agree with the spirit which has animated the hon. and learned Gentleman in the remarks he has just made, and I must express my hearty concurrence with the general sentiments he has expressed. For grammar I have a respectful toleration, and for spelling a hearty aversion. As far as music is concerned, my own opinion is that the more music is taught in the primary schools, not of Ireland only, but of England and Scotland too, the more brightness shall we introduce into the lives of the people. With regard to the books used in the primary schools, I desire to supply an omission in my earlier speech by stating that I understand the books are at this time undergoing careful revision—["By whom?"]—by the authorities of the Board; and I have no doubt that many of the defects that have been adverted to will be removed. The statement that Irish history ought to be more largely taught
    996
    I do not wish to traverse in any dogmatic way. But there would be some difficulty in getting Catholics and Protestants to accept the same version of certain historic events, such as the Revolution of 1641, the Rebellion of 1688, and the Union of 1800. I gladly recognise the service of the Christian Brothers to the cause of education, but it will hardly be held that because the Christian Brothers decline to make their rules consonant with those of the Department, therefore the Department must make its rules consonant with those of the Christian Brothers. It is not as if the rules of the Department are of so rigid a character that no Monastic Orders find it possible to come under them. The French Order of the Christian Brothers have come under them, and a great number of Monastic and Conventual Institutions have no difficulty in arranging their course of education so as to earn the Government grant. I think I have explained earlier that the Vote will be sufficient to meet the interest that will accrue upon the capital sum determined upon by the valuers in the case of the training colleges. If it is not, there will have to be a Supplementary Estimate next year; and, of course, the Vote will have to be introduced in the ordinary Estimates. The capital sum will not have to be provided at all. What will be provided is an amount of annuities which will pay the interest and repay the capital in 35 years. So far as this year is concerned, I am content to take on my shoulders the responsibility which hon. Members have thrown upon me.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the action on the part of the Christian Brothers that prevents them coming under the rules of the Department? I have some knowledge on the subject, but I think some official statement might possibly go a certain distance towards removing the objection.
    MR. FLYNN: I am in a position to say that the Christian Brothers are prepared to make very large concessions. They will submit, for instance, to an examination of books to show results, and everything of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman has said that convent schools have come under the National Board. Let me

    997
    point out that the Christian Brothers have been engaged in teaching in Ireland for 90 years, and that short of an absolute surrender on one particular question of principle they are prepared to comply with every reasonable requirement of the Commissioners of National Education.
    MR. LEA: In view of the desire to bring the Session to a close, I and my hon. Colleague (Mr. T. W. Russell) have no intention of continuing the discussion in respect to the training colleges. We will reserve anything we have got to say until next Session. May I ask, however, if we are to understand that when the Bill is reached to-night the Order will be discharged?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly; the Bill will not be proceeded with; but I am not sure whether the Motion will be made to-night for the discharge of the Order. As to the Christian Brothers, I believe I am right in saying that the essential point of difference—the around of separation—at this moment has relation to the use of symbols.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: With regard to the valuation which is to be made of the buildings, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the work is to be entrusted to the Board of Works, or are the Government going to proceed under the Public Works Loan Act, 1889?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The intention is to entrust the work to Sir J. B. Green.
    MR. MORTON: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to be good enough to explain how it is that the office in Dublin costs so much more than the Scotch Office.
    Vote agreed to.
    3. £3,028, to complete the sum for Queen's Colleges, Ireland.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I desire to ask what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the vacancies that must be created in the teaching staffs of these colleges under the Civil Service rules? As I hold that the Queen's Colleges will never meet with anything like approval, I do not feel entitled to make the same strong representation as if I were a supporter of them; at the same time, from the point of view of public policy, it is extremely desirable—
    998
    as at some time those colleges will have to be abolished—that in staffing them we should have men who will not necessarily be laid on the table, but can be used in the creation of another system by, say, a Home Rule Parliament. We could not depend on the existing staff if you are going to appoint gentlemen hostile to the feelings and religious convictions of the people.
    MR. SEXTON: I should like to ascertain whether the case of Professor Pye has been considered. He is a gentleman who, by the alteration of the University Act, has suffered considerable hardships, and I think the Government should consider the possibility of mitigating his position. The Queen's Colleges cost the country about £40,000 a year, and are regarded as institutions in which mixed education is maintained. I do not think the system can be called a success. The Queen's College, Belfast, is practically a Presbyterian college, and the staff of the college is, I believe, Presbyterian. I should not complain of that, if the colleges of Galway and Cork, both of which are in Roman Catholic districts, were officered by Catholics for Catholic students. I am disposed to think that the only way out of the difficulty will be to give Queen's College, Belfast, to the Presbyterians, possibly as the centre of a Presbyterian University, and in the same way to give the Galway and Cork Colleges to the Roman Catholics. As to Queen's College, Galway, it is situated in the heart of a Catholic province, and the intention of Parliament in founding the college was to afford the means of University education to the Catholic population. In that respect it is a total failure. The total number of students at the college is about 100, of whom not a dozen are Catholics. Of the staff, the President and the Standing Committee are all Protestants, and out of 15 professors only throe are Catholics. This college is maintained at a cost of £12,000 a year, and it is time for Parliament to consider whether it is any longer justified in spending this large sum to no purpose. The Cork and Galway Colleges have been rejected by the population of the districts in which they are situated, and consequently

    999
    their educational efficiency is low. The students at Belfast have acquitted themselves honourably; while the students at Blackrock have shown themselves, by the honours which they have won at the examinations, to be better students and better scholars, although they have to provide their own educational machinery and go for examination before the professors who educate their rivals. I object to these Queen's Colleges root and branch, and shall take every opportunity to end them.
    MR. RENTOUL: I wish to call attention to a grievance which has existed since the time of the abolition of Queen's University; and I am sure that my hon. Friend, although he objects to Queen's Colleges root and branch, will bear me out in the statement I am about to make. Queen's Colleges were first opened in the year 1849, and in 1852 they were formed into a University, the professors appointed to the Queen's College becoming professors of Queen's University and examiners for the Royal University. I think my hon. Friend rather understated his case when he complained of the Queen's College professors acting as University examiners. I wish, however, to refer to one particular case of hardship. The case came before the Dublin Courts. It is that of Professor Pye, of Queen's College, who, it so happens, labours under the great disadvantage of being both a Nationalist and a Roman Catholic. He is one of the ablest men in Ireland at the present time. It has been my good fortune, under the Irish system of mixed education, to enjoy his intimate acquaintance. I was a student at the time he took a high and distinguished degree in medicine; he secured a gold medal and first honours, and I believe is the only Doctor of Medicine who was specially complimented by the Lord Lieutenant. Shortly after he applied for and obtained the appointment of Professor of Anatomy at Queen's College, Galway, and although he might have started as a medical man in the town, and secured the first practice, he devoted himself solely to the duties of his professorship. His income ranged from £700 to £800 a year. In 1863 an arrangement was made under which the professors, whose classes were
    1000
    largely attended, should accept a smaller annual endowment from the College. In his case the endowment was fixed at £200, and the fees amounted to between £500 and £600. Last year, however, they fell to £130. Why has the number of students diminished so seriously? Professor Pye is still looked upon as being as able a man as when he was first appointed. The reason is, that up to 1882 every student who intended to graduate in Queen's University was compelled to attend the Queen's Colleges classes. The fees each student had to pay amounted to 12 guineas, and in addition there was a fee of £7 or £8 more for practical anatomy. But when the Royal University was established no such rule was laid down. Any student can graduate at that University, no matter at what college he attended; and since that year Professor Pye, through circumstances he could not control, has lost an aggregate sum of £2,900. His income is now under £400 a year, after having held his chair for 14 or 15 years. In order to try and put the matter right he went to the Law Courts. His petition was heard by Baron Dowse; but the Judgment was given for the Crown, although the Judge expressed an opinion that a scheme for compensating Mr. Pye should be submitted.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! It does not seem to me that this case has anything to do with the Vote.
    MR. RENTOUL: I mentioned the matter to the Attorney General for Ireland, and understood that I could bring the case forward. Professor Pye has failed in obtaining a legal remedy, and the only hope of redress lies in bringing the matter before the attention of the Government. I hope we shall hear from the Chief Secretary that he has done something to meet the hardships of this case.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The case to which the hon. Member (Mr. Rentoul) has drawn attention is acknowledged to be one of great hardship, but it is also acknowledged that it would be very difficult for any Government to deal with it. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) has raised certain questions about the appointment of professors to the Queen's Colleges. The

    1001
    practice adopted is this: The principal of a college sends the names of selected persons to the Lord Lieutenant for approval, and the Lord Lieutenant almost invariably appoints the candidates so selected. The present is not, in my opinion, an opportune time for raising the whole question of the constitution and position of the Queen's Colleges. I cannot hope to deal with the question during the remainder of the present Government's tenure of Office, but I shall watch my successor's efforts to deal with it with a benevolent interest.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I hope that with regard to the appointment of the staff of the colleges the Government will not allow the vices that now exist to be perpetuated. It is new to me that these appointments are made by a kind of co-optation: the longer we live the more we learn. My hon. Friend has pointed out that Protestant ascendancy in its most virulent form prevails in the colleges at Galway and Cork. Of course, as to the appointment of Professor Sullivan, it was a wonderful instance of the benevolence of the British Government to throw a few crumbs to a Catholic. We believe that any Government which succeeds the Government of the right hon. Gentleman must do something in this matter. It would not cost the State more to appoint a Catholic than a Protestant, but it would harmonise with the general feelings and prejudices, if I may use the word, of the population. Accordingly, I say the Lord Lieutenant ought in his appointments to have regard to the general colouring of the district in which these colleges exist. We do not object if in Belfast you appoint a gentleman of the religion which prevails in that city. You have, as regards Galway and Cork, such a state of things that we may fairly call upon you to bring the colleges into harmony with the religious opinions of the populations. If the Lord Lieutenant does his duty he may do something to render the appointments less obnoxious to the populations in the midst of which the colleges are. Such appointments will certainly be made when the Irish people have the management of their own affairs.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: If hon. Members from Ireland desire to promote Home Rule in their country they will do well to say as little as possible about their intention to govern the country in accordance with Roman Catholic views.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to inform the hon. Member that we shall say in this House just what we like, whether it pleases him or his friends or not.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS V.
    4. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £252,897 (including an additional sum of £5,040), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in coarse of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions abroad, and of the Consular Establishments Abroad and other Expenditure chargeable on the Consular Vote."
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: At this time of the night I do not propose to detain the Committee at any great length. I have put down a Motion to reduce the salary of the Agent General in Egypt, but I at once say I have not the least desire to reduce the salary of Sir Evelyn Baring; my Motion is purely formal. On a former occasion I asked certain questions in connection with the Foreign Office Vote—in connection with the Triple Alliance and the status quo in Egypt. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at that time confined himself to the larger question, and said he would not go into the Egyptian question. I then said I was much afraid that, in the eyes of Europe, we were establishing ourselves permanently in Egypt, and I think some things have since happened which have accentuated and emphasised the view I then took. I then said Sir Evelyn Baring's Report appeared to amount to this: "We have done little; we have a great deal more to do. If you will give us another term we will make a good thing of it." Since then there has been a pronouncement from a right hon. Gentleman who, to a considerable extent, pulls the strings of the Government—I mean the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). That right hon. Gentle-

    1003
    men, in a speech which has been made public, said that—
    "We have managed to possess ourselves of every part of Africa which is of the slightest importance, and in Egypt we have the finest cotton-growing country in the world."
    I think that is a somewhat dangerous statement to make. It leads other countries to suppose that we are settling ourselves in Egypt. No less a person than the Sultan has taken alarm at that statement. I admit that the Sultan of Turkey is not so important a person as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham; still, I should be glad to know if there is any truth in the telegram published in the papers this morning stating that the Sultan proposes to depose the Khedive? It has been reported by Sir Evelyn Baring that reforms in the system of irrigation are to be carried out, and I think that one of the most useful reforms in Egypt would be the distributing of the rich fertilising flood waters of the Nile over the lands of Upper Egypt. The objection to the submerging of ancient inscriptions may be met by the removal of these inscriptions to the British Museum or elsewhere. The re-assessment of the Land Tax is undoubtedly a necessity; there has been no re-assessment since the days of Mehemet Ali. An attempt was made to carry out this reform by Nubar Pasha, but so much opposition was offered that the attempt was not persevered with. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us if these reforms are being undertaken.
    MR. POWELL J. WILLIAMS: Upon this Vote I desire to call attention to a matter of considerable commercial importance.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I rise to order. I did not move a reduction of the Vote, but I thought I should get an answer.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is quite in order.
    MR. POWELL J. WILLIAMS: I will not stand in the way if the right hon. Gentleman desires to answer.
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: I will answer all at once.
    MR. POWELL J. WILLIAMS: Though the subject I desire to raise may not be so seductive as the condition of Egypt, it has considerable practical importance. I desire to call attention to what I consider a considerable grievance, namely, the extraordinary disadvantages under which an Englishman taking out patents abroad labours as compared with the treatment of foreigners in this country who take out patents here. A German, for instance, taking out a patent in England, can make the articles in Germany and import them here without any injury whatever to his title and his patent; whereas an Englishman taking out a patent in Germany is subject to all kinds of restrictions, which render it almost impossible to carry on the trade under his patent unless the machines used for making the thing patented and the articles themselves are made in Germany. The fact is, I am afraid our Diplomatic Agents abroad have not received much culture in commerce; they are not selected for their commercial experience, and foreign Governments rather get the better of them in these matters. I understand the system to be this: that in relation to the Patent Laws, arrangements, which are called Conventions, between this country and foreign countries, are entered into, and on the face of these Conventions there is little to object to, but the Conventions always contain a clause that there shall be nothing therein contained contrary to the standing Patent Laws of the country which grants the Convention. Under these laws all sorts of conditions are exacted, greatly to the disadvantage of the patentee. When a man wishes to take out a patent in England, whether he is an Englishman or a foreigner, he is only required by our Patent Laws to lodge in the Patent Office sufficient specifications and drawings for showing the patent which he takes out; whereas in foreign countries he is required to provide large working drawings showing every detail in such a manner as enables the foreigner, if he chooses, to set to work and make the article itself. This is in itself a great disadvantage. There are other restrictions—as to time, as to the mode of working the patent, as to making the

    1005
    machinery, to which I have already alluded. These are all restrictions not exacted in this country, neither, indeed, are they in the United States; but they are exacted by almost every foreign country on the Continent. Let me state the conditions under which an Englishman takes out a patent in Belgium, and the right hon. Gentleman will see how greatly the Englishman is at a disadvantage as compared with the Belgian who may require to take out a patent in England, and which he gets on precisely the same conditions as the Englishman does. In Belgium all the real working of the patent must be done in Belgium; that is to say, if the patent article is made by machinery, then it must be made in Belgium, other wise in 12 months the patent lapses and becomes void. The same observation applies to France; the article must be made in France, and not imported. This is a state of things to which it is very desirable that those who represent this country abroad should have their attention called, and they should consider at the time Conventions are being arranged to what extent the Convention places Englishmen at a disadvantage as compared with foreigners. I wish to guard myself against the idea that I wish to say anything in favour of what I consider the pernicious economic nostrum called Fair Trade. I have no desire to support that theory, but I do say we have no business to allow the foreign workman to be protected to the disadvantage of the British workman, and when a Convention is entered into it should be represented to the Government of a foreign country that it is desirable and equitable that the conditions which apply to a patent taken out here by a foreigner should apply to a patent taken out by an Englishman in the foreign country. A practical method of doing some good in this matter would be that the Foreign Office should call the attention of our representatives abroad to the Patent Laws, and obtain through them an authoritative statement showing precisely the conditions, for they vary in different countries, under which patents are granted to foreigners in the countries where they act as our representatives. I am quite sure that such a statement would show that Englishmen are at an
    1006
    enormous disadvantage compared with the position of foreigners here. I have thought it my duty to call attention to this matter, and I have not, I think, done so at excessive length. It is a matter of great commercial interest, and it concerns many of the inhabitants of Birmingham.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I must protest against the subject of our rule in Egypt being mixed up with the Patent Laws, and, therefore, I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £500, part of the salary of the Agent and Consul General in Egypt.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The inconvenience of putting that Motion will be that it will be impossible to answer the second question, but the right hon. Gentleman may reply at once.
    *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am sure the hon. Member knows that the last thing I should desire would be to treat him with discourtesy or give an inadequate answer on any matter he brings before the House. The hon. Member must know, after many years' experience of these Debates, that, as a rule, when no Amendment is moved, it is usual for the representative of the Department to wait to hear what other members of the Committee may say, and then to make a somewhat multifarious speech, without unduly prolonging debate. I will endeavour, without doing any injustice to the hon. Member, to deal with the two subjects that have been brought forward. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has for a, long time devoted a great deal of attention to Egypt, and it is not unreasonable that he should, for the first time this year, call particular attention to the Reports submitted to the House upon the progress in the administration in Egypt. Though we interfere as little as possible in that administration, undoubtedly British influence has been much concerned in the reforms accomplished in that country during the last few years. I do not think I need discuss the question of whether the occupation of Egypt by our troops is to be short or not. I am sure that the

    1007
    years they Lave been there have not been wasted, and that giant strides have been made towards the restoration of the prosperity of that country, and the readjustment of its finances. The most satisfactory results submitted to the House in the Reports show really a revolution in the affairs of that country. Whereas only in 1885 there was a Conference of the six great Powers held in London, whereat a postponement was agreed upon of a portion of the interest on the Egyptian Debt, the finances of that country are now in such a solvent condition, with such a reserve, that no postponement of liabilities need for a moment be feared, and even the amount of interest temporarily suspended has been refunded to the bondholder. The mere fact that last year there was a surplus of £600,000, and that in the present year a surplus of half a million is anticipated, although the taxation has been decreased by £600,000, and the expenditure by £300,000, surely shows a satisfactory financial result. I really venture to deprecate the constant asking of questions on matters of undoubtedly immense moment upon mere newspaper reports. The hon. Member has asked me whether there is any truth in the report in the Times this morning, to the effect that the Sultan proposes to depose the Khedive. I can recollect in my time many such rumours. Like meteors across the sky, they come and go, and we do not pay much attention to them, and I would recommend the hon. Gentleman not to be disquieted by such sensational telegrams as those. We have no idea that the Sultan has expressed any such intention. As to the Constitutional government of Egypt, it is clearly shown in a recent Memorandum from Sir Evelyn Baring that it remains substantially what it was when we took it in charge. The number of European officials has been decreased, and every effort has been made to leave the Ministers of the Khedive free scope, while, at the same time, giving them every support. The only considerable change made in the government of the country is the recognition as a reality of the Legislative Council of the Khedive. It is most gratifying to observe how year by year the elected members take a more intelligent and
    1008
    practical view of matters submitted to them, and as education is extended it may be expected year by year the Council will more and more realise the functions of a representative institution. There is much to be desired in the improvement of the sanitary condition of Cairo; but the hon. Member knows the great difficulty in securing the consent of European Powers to the adequate taxation of their colonies in Egypt. As to the extension of irrigation in Egypt, undoubtedly the Government of Egypt is most desirous of dealing with the irrigation of Upper Egypt as they have dealt with that of Lower Egypt. There is an enormous improvement in the cultivated land in the Delta by reason of the admirable irrigation works that have been carried out, and undoubtedly considerable addition might be made to the cultivable area of Upper Egypt by a well-devised scheme of storage of water there. But many things have to be considered, and nothing is to be gained by precipitate action. Moreover, as yet the Government has not been in a position to spend the large sum necessary for works of that magnitude; but I have reason to believe that in a short time a scheme will be matured by which the same will be done for Upper Egypt as has been done for Lower Egypt. The hon. Member for South Birmingham has called attention to a very important question, but he does less than justice to Her Majesty's Representatives abroad. I do not think it can be justly imputed to thorn that they are unable to represent the interests of this country in commercial matters as well as diplomatic. It is not due to any failure of duty on their part that the commercial arrangements with other countries have not been more equitable to this country. In fact, in commercial arrangements we are to a great extent in the position of the Hebrews who had to make bricks without straw. We have thrown open our markets to the whole world, and having divested ourselves of the right to tax the produce of other countries, we have nothing to put against the heavy duties imposed on imports from this country. The Patent Laws in other countries are undoubtedly much less favourable to Englishmen than our laws are to foreigners, but that is only another

    1009
    illustration of the Free Trade policy which has opened our doors to every invention from all parts of the world. It is undoubtedly true that British inventors are under a great disadvantage in being compelled to manufacture in foreign countries the articles for which they have obtained patents. The matter was lately considered at the Industrial Conference at Madrid, and the Convention framed at that Conference is at this moment before the Governments represented. The terms of this Convention will go far to meet the grievance of which the hon. Member has complained.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: May I venture to mention another newspaper rumour, stating that the mission to Roumania is to be raised to a first-class mission, and that the salary of the Minister is to be raised from £2,500 to £5,000. I wish to know whether there is any truth in the rumour, and whether any Supplementary Estimate is to be presented. The right hon. Gentleman will, I think, have some difficulty in convincing the Committee of the necessity of this increased charge.
    *SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is intended to raise the class of the mission to Roumania, which has largely gained in importance. It is very necessary that Great Britain should be represented in Roumania by a man of ability and considerable diplomatic standing. The Minister is Sir H. Drummond Wolff, and it is intended to raise his salary by £1,000. Considering his eminent services and ability, I think this is only commensurate with the rank and importance of the mission. Of course, this does not appear in the present Estimate; it will be necessary to submit a Supplementary Estimate.
    MR. MORTON: It appears to me that the appointment of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff is what is known as a political job. I cannot understand why an Envoy, or an Ambassador, or whatever you like to call our Representative in Roumania, should have £4,000 or £5,000 a year, when our Representative in
    1010
    Switzerland, a much larger and more important country, is only paid £1,250. I am very much afraid the people of this country will regard the appointment as a job. Now, as to the occupation of Egypt. I gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, if I gather anything at all, that that occupation is practically understood, as far as the Government is concerned, as permanent, and that, therefore, the charge is to be a permanent one. That is very different from what we understood last year. If there had been time, I should have moved many reductions of the Vote, chiefly bearing upon salaries. I will not do so, though I am sorry we are required to neglect our duty because some hon. Members want a holiday. I cannot possibly understand on what system these salaries are founded. In the case of the United States, the largest and most important country we have to deal with, I see we pay our Representative £6,000 a year. Our Ambassador in Austria is paid £8,000. Our Representative in France is paid £9,000. I suppose that salary was fixed when there was an Imperial Government. £7,500 is paid in Germany. Why do we pay more in Austria than in Germany? Under other circumstances, I should move a reduction of each of these Votes, but I will content myself now with asking the right hon. Gentleman to be good enough to tell us on what system these salaries are fixed. Then, I see that the total charge in respect to China is £45,201. Has the carrying on of the opium trade anything to do with the largeness of the Vote? Our Ambassador in Japan is paid £4,000, and other charges in respect of that country amount to £15,542. I am sure the country will be glad to have an explanation of these heavy charges.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I think I have already pointed out, that although there is an increase in the salary of the Minister to Roumania, there will not be any increased charge to the public, because the Diplomatic Vote this year shows a reduction of £1,422. The hon. Gentleman has asked for information which is familiar to gentlemen who have been

    1011
    longer in the House than himself. Of course it is possible to ask a thousand questions on the Vote. If gentlemen who have lately come into the House require categorical answers in regard to every item, it is obvious there would be no end to the explanations. It has been often explained why the salary of our Representative at Washington is less than the salary paid in some places and more than that paid in other places: it is because our Representative ranks as a Minister instead of an Ambassador; it is because the United States chooses to be represented by an officer ranking as a Minister that we have not an Ambassador at Washington. The salary paid to our Representatives are regulated by a variety of questions—among others by the cost of residence. For instance, residence in the capital of the larger country is not always the most expensive. But the salaries paid have been carefully scrutinised, and within the last six years they have been considerably reduced. As to the charge in respect of China, it must be remembered that our commercial interests in that country are very large. Those who are concerned in commerce with that country know that the establishment is none too large.
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: As this is the only time one can obtain any information with regard to Egypt, I should be glad to hear the reason why the Domain Loan has not been converted on the same advantageous lines as the Egyptian Privilege Loan?
    MR. MORTON: I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman has given me the best answer he can. He tells me the reason why we pay less to our Representative at Washington than in some other countries is that the Government of that country have not agreed to call him an Ambassador. I, therefore, gather that the amount of salary does not depend upon the work to be done, or the ability of the Representative, but upon whether the Government of the country have agreed to call him by a particular name. The absurdity of the
    1012
    system is only equalled by its ridiculousness. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to give us more information with regard to what I have described as a political job, namely, the new appointment to Roumania. It is no explanation to say there would be a saving on the Vote. I trust that presently we shall be able to agree with all Governments to call our Representatives by the lowest possible name we can, and then we can reduce their salaries accordingly.
    *SIR J. FERGUSSON: In reply to my hon. Friend (Mr. Isaacson) I have to say that the reason why the Domain Loan has not been converted as profitably as the Privilege Loan is that it has not been found practicable to do so. The Conversion operation last year had the effect of reducing the capital of the debt from £8,587,000 to £7,300,000, which was a great advantage. No doubt the Egyptian Government will be glad to convert this debt to a smaller rate, if possible. I am sorry I cannot satisfy the hon. Member for Peterborough; but, perhaps, I need not try. Everyone, except himself, is aware that the expenses of an Ambassador are necessarily, much heavier than those of a Minister.
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: May I ask if the whole of these financial arrangements are really in the hands of Messrs. Rothschild?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: Yes.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    5. £3,480, to complete the sum for Slave Trade Services.
    6. £114,616, to complete the sum for Colonial Services, including South Africa.
    7. £5,000, to complete the sum for Cyprus, Grant in Aid.
    MR. MORTON: We opposed this item when we had the Vote on Account before us, and we should like to oppose it again. What we objected to then, and what we object to now, is not the amount of this Vote, but that in this

    1013
    way we are compelling the Cypriotes to pay a large tribute to Turkey. I shall resist the Vote, unless we have a satisfactory explanation with regard to it.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I think we ought to congratulate ourselves that this charge has been diminished. But we cannot get rid of the charge altogether until we get rid of the island, which we ought to try to do. The taking possession of it was a very improvident bargain.
    Vote agreed to.
    8. £25,400, to complete the sum for Subsidies to Telegraph Companies.

    CLASS VI.
    9. £9,447, to complete the sum for Hospitals and Charities, Ireland.
    MR. SEXTON: I would like, in a few words, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to state precisely the present condition of the public grants to hospitals in Dublin. The House allocates about £17,000 a year to this purpose, but when the Vote was first instituted, the circumstances of the hospitals were very different to what they are at present. Do the Government intend to deal next Session with the question of the apportionment of the grant? Is this grant of £17,000 to be administered for ever according to the circumstances which existed when it was originally given many years ago? The circumstances have largely changed, and the administration of the grants should be changed accordingly. A Bill to effect this was introduced two years ago, but was defeated at the instigation of a few interested medical men in Dublin who object to its provisions. It is very disappointing that the efforts which were made to bring about a better state of things should have been defeated by two or three individuals who thought that the compensation offered to them was not sufficient. I ask for a frank and definite undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman as to whether or not the Government will settle this question next year.
    COLONEL NOLAN: There is a considerable sum down here for
    1014
    several hospitals in Dublin, which are not merely Dublin hospitals, but Irish hospitals—for a good number of cases are sent up to Dublin from the country. It is, of course, necessary to have institutions of this kind in all countries, and I have no doubt the same state of things prevails in England. Cases are sent up from the country for special treatment, and it is very important that this system should exist, as there are classes of cases which require to be treated by experts, and which could not be dealt with in country hospitals or workhouse infirmaries. What I want the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to do is this—to alter the method by which patients are selected. There seems to be a systematic manner of making the selection. In Dublin itself there is a certain power of choice. The people there can go to the hospitals, and the Medical Authorities can choose from amongst them the cases to be treated. That, of course, cannot be done in the country districts. Then, in some cases, the Governors who subscribe 10 guineas a year, or even as low as two and three guineas, have the power of choosing patients. Well, I want the right hon. Gentleman to systematise the method of choosing the various patients. I think the hospitals should send to the Unions printed forms stating the number of beds vacant, the number of beds that each Union could fill, and the different classes of cases to be received. If the Unions had certain fixed powers of sending cases, they could interchange with each other, both as regards numbers and classes of cases. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will investigate this subject during the recess.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I would point out that the question is not quite so simple as the hon. Member for West Belfast seems to think. It is true the surgeons in Dublin were very active in opposing the Bill to which the hon. Member referred—and I think they made good their case—but I would point out that the opposition to the Bill affecting the Dublin hospitals is not confined to a few interested persons. The fact is, that if the Bill were carried

    1015
    several hospitals would be excluded from participating in the grant, and they not unnaturally object to that.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The question of the selection of country patients for treatment in the Dublin hospitals is not one with which the Chief Secretary can deal. The matter is in no way under his control. Possibly the Treasury might interfere, but I am not sure. The subject adverted to by the hon. Member for West Belfast calls unquestionably for attention, but it cannot be dealt with without exciting a great deal of controversy, as the interests involved are various and opposed. Until some agreement can be come to on the subject in Dublin itself, I fear that it will be useless for us to attempt to legislate with reference to it in this House. This may not be a satisfactory answer, but the hon. Member is as familiar as I am with Parliamentary Business, and he must see that legislation on such a subject as this would be impossible without a general concurrence.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I wish to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give any information as to the system under which country patients are selected for admission to Dublin hospitals?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: I will make inquiry into the matter, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be good enough to speak to me privately and explain exactly what his point, is.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS VII.
    10. £14,809, to complete the sum for Temporary Commissions.
    MR. MORTON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board a question as to the Royal Commission on Vaccination. I suppose that on this Vote the only question I should be entitled to ask on this subject is when we are likely to get the Report. When I brought forward the matter a few weeks back the right hon. Gentleman replied that the subject was before
    1016
    the Royal Commission, and that until they reported he could not see his way to do anything in the matter, no matter what might happen. What I want to know is whether he can give us any information as to the Commission which, I believe, has now been sitting for some years. There is a good deal depending on it as to the vaccine matter or lymph which is used for vaccination.
    *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE: I can assure the hon. Member that no one is more anxious than I am to receive the Report of the Commission. A great deal of evidence has been taken, and there is still much more to receive. The matter is a very large one, embracing points of great difficulty, and I can give no information as to when the Report will be made. That is a matter entirely in the hands of the Commission themselves.
    *MR. MORTON: Is it not possible, pending the receipt of the Report, to relax the prosecutions? The Government could advise those who have to deal with these cases to be as gentle as possible in their methods.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE&c.): I wish to ask whether the Historical Manuscripts Commission cannot investigate Welsh manuscripts as well as Irish and Scotch. The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to promise that if some of these MS. were brought to his notice he would lay the matter before the Commission. I understand that he gave the same promise to the hon. Member for Merioneth some years ago, I would press him to say whether he will not take steps to have these important Welsh MS. published?
    MR. JACKSON: I cannot call to mind the particular promise to which the hon. Member refers. I would point out, however, that I have no power to dictate or initiate any proceedings with regard to particular manuscripts. The matter rests entirely with the Commission, and not with the Treasury. All I can do is to convey to the Secretary to the Commission any questions the hon. Gentleman may

    1017
    desire to refer to them. And even that is quite within the competency of the hon. Member to do for himself.
    MR. SEXTON: I desire to ask the Minister for Agriculture a question in reference to the Tuberculosis Commission, which has been appointed for an unlimited period. At the time the Commission was appointed I pointed out that, although Ireland was supposed to be interested in the question of tuberculosis, there was no gentleman connected with Ireland on the Commission. The Minister for Agriculture at that time suggested to me that I should make inquiries as to what gentleman should be put on the Commission in the interest of Ireland. I referred the matter to competent persons in Dublin, and submitted the name of a gentleman who had distinguished himself in investigations on this subject.
    MR. RITCHIE: It is quite true that I did suggest to the hon. Member that in the course of the inquiry it would be necessary that Sub-Commissioners should be appointed, and that the name of the gentleman mentioned by the hon. Member should be submitted. Having found that that gentleman was, as the hon. Member has stated, a man of great ability, and well fitted to take a post such as that which was the subject of discussion, this gentleman's name was submitted, but I understand that no Sub-Commissioner has yet been appointed; and as far as the appointment of Sub-Commissioners is concerned, that is a matter which rests entirely with the Royal Commission, by whom the initiative has to be taken. I am afraid I cannot say more than this. What I did say at the time referred to was said in perfectly good faith, and anything I could do in the way of seeing that the name of the gentleman alluded to should be favourably put forward has been done, but the Government have no power whatever over the Commission in regard to this matter.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The point urged by my hon. Friend is that we as an agricultural community are deeply interested in obtaining fitting representation on the Commission, and it is no answer to say that it rests with the Commissioners
    1018
    to appoint the Sub-Commissioners. We are told that we cannot have the Commission enlarged because it has already been appointed by the Queen, and its constitution cannot, therefore, be interfered with. But I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was positively and absolutely stated that it was intended to appoint Sub-Commissioners, and, that being so, we asked the right hon. Gentleman to submit the name already mentioned. The suggestion that there were to be Sub-Commissioners did not come from us but from the Government, and I see that the right hon. Gentleman assents to that proposition. Nothing could be more invidious than for a Member of Parliament to suggest the name of this or that individual, because such a course generally leads to all sorts of jealousies; but my hon. Friend consulted a number of people, with the result that the name of Dr. Quin was mentioned. That gentleman's name got into the newspapers; and when a man finds himself mentioned in that way as about to receive a particular appointment, it is somewhat a slur upon him if the appointment is withheld. It can easily be understood that a young' man at the commencement of his professional career, finding himself treated in this way, must have felt that he had not been well treated. So much with regard to the personal grievance; but the grievance to our country still remains, because this Commission is proceeding, and the interests of Ireland are, as we allege, being neglected.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,: I have a perfect recollection of the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member opposite, and I remember the recommendation given to the name of the gentleman to whom reference has been made; but as far as my recollection goes, the Commission had at that time already been appointed. It was, I think, believed, both by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and my

    1019
    self, that the appointment of Sub-Commissioners lay with us, but we found that the appointment was really in the hands of the Commissioners. Since that time they have discovered that they do not require the services of extra Sub-Commissioners. That being so, it would be impossible for the Government to give directions to the Commissioners as to the mode in which they are to carry on their duties; and as the Commissioners are now far advanced in their inquiries, I regret to say that it is almost impossible for us to carry out the wishes expressed by hon. Members opposite.
    MR. SEXTON: The Commissioners have only been acting for one year, it having been appointed in July, 1890, and I say there is abundance of time for the appointment of other Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman can issue a Supplementary Warrant if he chooses, and I hope that that is what he intends to do.
    *MR. RITCHIE: All I can say, in answer to the hon. Member, is that I shall be glad to inquire of the Commissioners whether, and, if so, when, it is likely they will appoint Sub-Commissioners, and in that case I will take care that the name of the gentleman referred to shall be again submitted to them.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask a question with regard to the Educational Schools Commission in Ireland. That Commission is doing its work very slowly; and although the expense of the Commission is not very large, being about £4,000, it is nevertheless a matter which is deserving of consideration. That Commission has been re-appointed year after year by an Act included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and it was not intended that that body should sit in perpetuity. Having regard to the work the Commission has to do, it seems to me that it is very desirable it should be wound up as speedily as possible, and that the Government ought to put some pressure on those gentlemen in order to bring their work to a conclusion. They ought to take notice of the number of
    1020
    days the Commission has sat, and the exact amount of work it has done, and to treat the whole matter from a Treasury point of view. The fact that it is appointed year after year shows that the Government thought they would be able to bring its labours to a conclusion within a period of four or five years. If the Government were to notify their intention of taking this sum of £4,000 a year off the Estimates the next year, they would find that these gentlemen would bring their labours to a conclusion with much more rapidity than they seem inclined to do at present.
    MR. JACKSON: I entirely agree with what the hon. Member has said, and I have already drawn attention to the matter in the earlier part of the year, when I was assured that the work was being wound up. I believe that this will be the last year for which the money will have to be provided.
    Vote agreed to.
    11. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £103, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses."
    MR. MORTON: I should like to know what is the meaning of the Subhead D. As far as I can understand it, it relates to money for the provision of Queen's Plates to be run for in Ireland. Turning to Sub-head M, I find that, as far as England is concerned, an alteration has been made in the allocation of the money which used to be given for this purpose, and that it is now given not for the encouragement of horse racing or that sort of villainy, as I am almost tempted to call it, but for the improvement of the breed of horses in Great Britain. I should like to know whether the time has not arrived when we can make a similar change with regard to the gift of this money to Ireland, so that, instead of encouraging horse racing there, which, as everyone knows, is one of the worst evils we can foster, it may be given for improving the breed of horses. I am told that this subsidy is no use in Ireland except to

    1021
    the officers of the Army of Occupation, for whose amusement it seems to be continued.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I can assure the hon. Member that there is a very moderate amount of racing in Ireland, and that there is a very small amount of betting, although almost everyone takes an interest in the amusement which racing affords. So far as the officers of the English garrison are concerned, I doubt very much whether any of them are the owners of racehorses; they may own steeplechasers, but the Queen's Plates are not given for steeplechasing. The amount given is a very moderate one, namely, £1,800; and if it were withdrawn it might have the effect of destroying the best class of racing which takes place in Ireland, and thus tend to deteriorate the breed of horses.
    *MR. MORTON: There is a strong feeling in this country that this sort of thing should be done away with. I do not desire to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing if I can only obtain a satisfactory answer from the Secretary to the Treasury.
    MR. JACKSON: I should have risen to answer the hon. Member before had not the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who knows much more about the subject than I do, come to my relief. I would point out that this matter has been considered on several previous occasions, and I do not know any question on which it would be more difficult to make an alteration that would give general satisfaction. Several attempts have been made to alter the appropriation of the money which is given in this way, and I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Peterborough that these Queen's Plates have done nothing to improve the breed of horses. I think it is certainly undesirable to take any step that would tend to discourage the production of a good breed of horses either in Ireland or in England.
    MR. MORTON: Very well, I will leave this matter for the consideration of the Home Rule Parliament, which will probably be established about this time 12 months. I should like now to
    1022
    call attention to the question of the fees paid for the creation of Bishops and Archbishops. I raised this question on the Home Office Vote, and I was told that it had reference to this Vote, consequently I gave notice that I would call attention to the matter when this Vote was taken. I think I have a special right to raise this point as a representative of an ancient Cathedral City. I find that the cost of inaugurating the Bishop of Manchester was about £460, and I should like to know whether all these fees were promptly accounted for? A statement has been laid on the Table with regard to the Attorney General's fees, but I want to know if the Government are willing to do away with these exorbitant charges. A Bishop who gets a See is very much in the position of the man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thieves. Will the Government grant a Return showing what the exact fees are, and will they be willing to reduce them?
    MR. JACKSON: I believe the fees paid to the Exchequer by Archbishops and Bishops on their appointment will appear from a Return which will be presented before the end of the Session. I think that Return will show that the fees paid by a Bishop are something like £40, and not £400, and we do not get complaints of the excess from those gentlemen who have to pay them on account of receiving certain honours and dignities.
    *MR. MORTON: But the First Lord of the Treasury told us that the fees paid into the Exchequer by an Archbishop were £330, and by a Bishop £220.
    MR. JACKSON: I am speaking only of the fees which are payable to the Exchequer. If the hon. Member will wait for the Return he will get an authoritative statement.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now agree to report Progress?
    MR. GOSCHEN: I believe there is a general desire on the part of the House that Supply shall be closed. There is an opportunity upon Report of asking

    1023
    questions; and if the hon. Member for Peterborough will consult ray right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds or myself upon the points he has raised, with which hon. Members are generally familiar, we shall be glad to go through the Estimates with him privately, so that we may save the time of the Committee.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: I see there are 13 or 14 Government Orders down after Report of Supply. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake, if Supply is closed, not to press those Orders?
    MR. GOSCHEN: I will look through the list in the course of the next four or five minutes, and see how far I can assent to that arrangement. We do not want to keep hon. Members and officers of the House here one minute longer than is necessary.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: There is one important Vote—the Post Office Vote—to be taken. For my part, I shall be content to defer my remarks upon it until the Report stage. I hope next Session we shall have an opportunity of thoroughly discussing it, even if it be necessary to bring it on out of its order.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I will lay the right hon. Gentleman's views before the First Lord of the Treasury.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: I think the Business of the House would be facilitated if it were arranged that those Votes which are to be discussed on Report were taken first to-morrow.
    MR. MORTON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made an appeal to me, but I give him fair notice that on the Army Vote I intend to raise a question as to gambling. In looking after the economical administration of public money I am only acting on the advice he gave me in 1889. Does he intend to force all the Votes through tonight?
    MR. GOSCHEN: I hope Supply will be closed.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have a Motion on the Paper affecting the Army Vote on which I shall have to raise a
    1024
    discussion, and it will have to be taken in Committee in order to get it properly discussed.
    MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I am in the same position. I do not think that at twenty minutes to 2 in the morning we ought to be forced to discuss the remaining Estimates.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The point is this: Unless we finish Supply to-night it will probably throw the Prorogation over to another week, and we all desire it should take place next week. Surely it does not much matter to hon. Members whether they make their protest to-night or to-morrow on Report. I trust they will bow to the views of the majority. If it is possible to give precedence tomorrow to the Votes which hon. Members desire particularly to discuss, it shall be done.
    MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I, for one, cannot assent to that arrangement, and I shall divide the Committee. Surely it does not matter much if the Session is prolonged a day or two. We do not get the facilities for discussion on the Report stage which we have in Committee. I now move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Cunninghame Graham.)
    MR. LLOYD - GEORGE: I support that. I do not think it is possible to get through the Estimates to-night. It is no fault of ours that they have been brought on so late in the Session. The Government are responsible for that piece of bungling. There is one Vote which my colleagues for Wales desire to discuss thoroughly.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not resist the Motion. I am as much disappointed as he is that the Business of Supply cannot be closed tonight, but I protest against the Votes being discussed at this hour of the night, and hope he will not force a futile Debate on this Motion.
    *MR. MORTON: I must say there is something indecent in trying to force

    1025
    Supply through at this hour of the night. We are asked to vote millions of money without Debate, and if we do, then we shall not be doing our duty to our constituents. It cannot make much difference if we do prolong the Session 24 hours, and I hope, therefore, the Government will give way and let us go home to rest.
    MR. CALDWELL: When we remember how every sitting of the House this week has been prolonged until 3 or 4 o'clock, and that we have to meet again at noon, I think it is most unreasonable on the part of the Government to resist this Vote. A good deal of business has been got through this evening, and there has been no obstruction. Every year the Estimates are postponed to the end of the Session, and then are taken practically without discussion. Now, the Government hope by reason of the sheer exhaustion of hon. Members to get all the remaining Votes through. I do not think it is fair. When the right hon. Gentleman moved the suspension of the Standing Orders, he said it was not intended to make oppressive use of the privilege; but yet he is so unreasonable as to make us sit till 4 or 5 o'clock. I shall support the Motion to report Progress.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The Government have the cordial support of those who lead hon. Gentlemen opposite in their endeavours to close the Session. There will be to-morrow a full day for the discussion of the Report, and I believe we are following the wishes of the enormous majority of the House in endeavouring to close Supply to-night, and I shall certainly take the opinion of the House by dividing against the Motion.
    *MR. MATHER: I think it is only fair that we on this side of the House should cooperate with the view of shortening the Debate on the Estimates. Inquiries have been made by hon. Members in their places which could have been satisfied by the application of ordinary intelligence, and I think speeches have been made at undue length. Some consideration should be shown for the House, and speeches might very well be limited to 10 or 15 minutes.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: I appeal to my hon. Friends to allow the Votes to go through and to take any discussion on Report. The House is wearied out, and the Gallery is also wearied out.
    MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: There is nothing more out of place than the airs of superiority which some Members assume. We have hada pretty lecture from the hon. Member for Gorton, but I deny that we have been wasting the time of the Committee, or that we have asked frivolous questions.
    *MR. MATHER: I made no allusion to the hon. Member. I only said some speeches had been made which could well have been cut down considerably.
    MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: There is nothing I admire more than independence. With regard to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says as to there being a tacit understanding with the hon. Gentlemen who lead the Opposition, I have to say I hold myself perfectly free of the whole lot of them. I shall persist in dividing the House on this matter, at the risk of making myself disagreeable to the Front Opposition Bench and to all those superior persons who are fond of lecturing the House of Commons on manners.
    COLONEL NOLAN: We are sent here to look after Supply, and it is a perfect farce to expect us to take Votes like these at this hour. We might just as well be asked to take them all. Surely such Votes ought to be postponed for a day.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it would not be well for him to consent to postpone such Army Votes as are contentious until to-morrow. If he does he will make much better progress with the Votes than he will otherwise. I am sure the refusal of the Government to report Progress will not facilitate matters.
    (2.4.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 74.—(Div. List, No. 412.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    12. £100,000, Pleuro-pneumonia.
    13. £481, for Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund.

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
    14. £709,806, to complete the sum for Customs.
    15. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,584,024, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inland Revenue Department."
    MR. ROBY: I desire to address a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the action of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax. A month or two ago I pointed out that the Income Tax Commissioners were, under the apparent sanction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, refusing to return Income Tax to grammar schools and other charities, which they assert do not come within the exemption allowed by the Act. The House of Lords, in the suit "Commissioners of Income Tax v. Pemsel," has, within the last few days, decided that the Commissioners are quite wrong in their interpretation; and that charitable purposes in the Income Tax Acts include, as they have hitherto always been taken to include, all purposes coming within the purview of the 43rd Elizabeth, chap. 4. I shall be glad to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he proposes to do. Will he undertake that the Income Tax Commissioners shall not carry this misplaced ingenuity to some other Department, and that they shall at once refund the money which they have illegally kept for the last two years or more?
    MR. GOSCHENwas understood to say that, following the recent decision of the House of Lords as to the liability of charities to Income Tax, a refund had already been made, and would probably be succeeded by other repayments.
    MR. CALDWELL (nearly the whole of whose observations were rendered inaudible by cries of "Divide!" and interruption): It is no answer to
    1028
    me to say "We will consider the House of Lords' decision." We know very well that the Commissioners have formed an opinion of their own on the matter. [Cries of "Divide!"] The House of Lords has given a decision, which is that funds which are really for charitable purposes should be taxed. These Trades House Incorporations in Glasgow have certain funds. [Loud and continued cries of "Divide!" and interruption.] I think it most unreasonable. [Cries of "Divide!"] I move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question' proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    MR. GOSCHEN: I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman has been allowed a very long time to state his case, and has repeated himself three or four times. I think he has said enough to do justice to his case, and I hope he will withdraw the Motion. I think everyone here understands his complaint—he has said ample to convey his views both to my mind and that of the Committee. He must allow for a little impatience if he repeats his argument two or three times over. He has said his say, and I hope he will withdraw his Motion.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I hope the hon. Member will repeat his complaint, because there has been so much noise in the House that though I am anxious to understand it I have been unable to do so. I think that the whole British nation should be made aware of the manner in which the business of the country is being done.
    *MR. MORTON: I am anxious that we should make progress, but the noise which has been made throughout the most interesting speech of the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division has prevented us from hearing his complaint. This is not the way to conduct the business of the House. The conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite is so disgraceful that I am bound to support the Motion for Progress in the interest of law and order
    MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS: The Committee might have had this Vote some time ago if hon. Members opposite had listened to the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division. I cannot but express indignation when I find that hon. Members opposite refuse to hear a Member on this side of the House and compel him to move to report Progress.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I hope the hon. Member has almost concluded his speech. If he will do so now no doubt the Committee will bear with him, but I think it will be acknowledged that cause has been given for some little impatience.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: I would appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion. It seems to me there is some difference between the hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be good enough to say what he thinks the hon. Gentleman means. [Laughter.] Well, the right hon. Gentleman may have a definition of the matter which my hon. Friend does not intend, and it might assist matters if he would state what it is.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. CALDWELL: I will now, with the leave of the Committee, shortly and clearly state the point. These Trades House Corporations in Glasgow are 14 in number. The funds of the Corporations are used for the purpose of giving pensions to decayed brethren connected with the Corporations. The funds exist now purely for these charitable objects. It has always been the practice of the Inland Revenue not to charge any Income Tax or Government duty in respect of the funds of these Corporations. Within the last year or two the Government have started a 5 per cent. duty, which is far more than the Income Tax, and have levied that duty upon the funds of these Corporations, and the result is that those pensioners who have been enjoying, say £20 a year, have had £1 deducted. This shows the thorough unreasonableness
    1030
    of the position taken up by the Income Tax Commissioners. It is most unjust to charge these pensioners any Income Tax at all. When you are dealing with a trade or a Co-operative Society you do not charge on the aggregate of profits unless the whole income comes to £150; but here you deal with men whose incomes are not more than £20, and you exact from them not 6d. in the £1, which is the amount you get from wealthy taxpayers whose incomes are over, say £400, but you deduct £1 from their £20. The Government got a decision in England in their favour, but though they have legality on their side the inequity of the matter has been pointed out to them. It is no answer for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell me what the legal interpretation of the Act of Parliament is. We ask him and the Income Tax Commissioners to have regard to the spirit of the decision of the House of Lords and to exempt these pensions from Income Tax. With the facts before him, and knowing what the decision of the House of Lords is, he is able to give a decision on the question. I am surprised that he should not have closed the discussion half an hour ago by agreeing that the decision of the House of Lords in the case of England shall apply in the case of Scotland. He knows that in the end that must take place. [Cries of "Divide!"] To give him an opportunity of offering a reply I move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £1,000.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is not necessary to move that in order to obtain a reply. The hon. Member has stated his case, and now it can be answered.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I do not see that I have any further reply to make. Instead of speaking three minutes, as he promised, the hon. Member has spoken for 35 minutes. I should not be doing my duty if I were to allow myself to be guided merely by the length of the speech of an hon. Member. I cannot allow myself to be coerced into giving a wider answer than I have given already, namely, that the Treasury will loyally carry out the decision of the Court. The result of my having

    1031
    said that in the first place was that the hon. Member thought it right to detain us for another half-hour. I can say no more.
    MR. CALDWELL: It does not seem to me that it is more than half-an-hour since I began. The delay has been owing to the fact that I was not allowed to finish my speech.
    Vote agreed to.
    16. £5,354,932 (including a Supplementary sum of £131,250), to complete the sum for the Post Office.
    MR. KNOX: There are a large number of matters on this Vote that I wished to call attention to in connection with my constituency, and I will reserve all of them but one to the Report stage if I get a satisfactory answer upon that. I called attention to the matter the other day, but instead of getting a civil answer from the Postmaster General, he said something about my being interested in the appointment of someone, or applying for the appointment of someone to the office of Postmaster at Cavan. As a matter of fact, I have never applied, and I never intend to apply, to him, or anyone else in the British Government, for any post for anyone. Although the right hon. Gentleman refused to give me an answer, I have received information from other people on this matter. Letters have been written to me stating that the office of Postmaster has been bestowed upon a person, not out of regard for qualification or fitness. This post office is an important one, in the centre of a large rural district, and the number of people under the Postmaster is considerable. There were 35 applicants for the post. Some of them had been for 20 years in the postal service. Many of them had had 15 years' experience of post office work, and others had had 10 years' experience. Nevertheless, the person appointed had had only three years' experience. The person appointed, however, had an advantage that the others had not. It happened that her father was a henchman of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North
    1032
    Armagh, and though it is strictly forbidden that anyone in the post office should apply for a situation through a Member of Parliament or any other influential person, I am given to understand that the recommendation of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh was given in the matter of the appointment of the person selected. The District Surveyor of the district, and the Secretary to the Post Office in Dublin, did not recommend this particular person for the appointment. I do not ask that the appointment which has been made shall be cancelled. It would be unfair to do that now, though I am bound to say that a general feeling of discontent and dissatisfaction has been caused throughout the district by the appointment made. I do not ask that the appointment be cancelled; but what I do ask is: that in future appointments of this kind in Ireland, the recommendations of the Post Office officials and the District Surveyor or Secretary to the Post Office in Dublin shall be considered, and those only, and that the recommendations of the local gentry shall not be taken into account. There is an important vacancy at this moment at Strabane, and I would express a hope that it will be filled, like all other Civil Service appointments, in accordance with the recommendations of officials who know the qualifications of the candidates, and not in accordance with family or other interest.
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: I do not wish to detain the Committee by answering the questions addressed to me at any length; in fact, I think I have already answered them. I cannot prevent Members of this House—on both sides of this House—and other persons from writing to me and recommending candidates when appointments have to be made, not only in Ireland, but in England as well; but the Committee may rest satisfied that I never allow myself to be influenced by these recommendations. With regard to the lady who was appointed to the Cavan office I may say, in the first place, that I was not aware that her father was what the

    1033
    hon. Member calls a henchman of the hon. Member for North Armagh. I was aware, however, that he had been an excellent and extremely meritorious servant of the Post Office, and that he had filled the position of postmaster in Cavan for many years to the satisfaction both of his neighbours and the Post Office Authorities. The office is only a small one, carrying a salary of £130 a year, and the young lady who has been appointed has been for years in her father's office—though she may only have been in the Postal Service itself for a short period. I have every reason to believe that she is thoroughly competent to perform the duties of the post which has been conferred upon her. In regard to the vacancy at Strabane, I may point out that although I did receive a letter recommending a certain individual for the appointment, I did not allow myself to be influenced by that recommendation, but appointed a gentleman from the Post Office in Dublin, in whose case I had received no letter of recommendation. I think this will be sufficient to show that in making these appointments I allow myself to be guided only by the qualifications of the individual selected.
    MR. KNOX: The right hon. Gentleman has given a perfectly satisfactory answer as to the post office at Strabane, but at the same time I am bound to say that I have received such a large number of letters from members of the Post Office Service, as well as outsiders in different parts of Ireland, that I think if other appointments like that at Cavan had been made the dissatisfaction would have been general. I am glad to find that though the hon. Member for North Armagh succeeded in getting his nominee appointed at Cavan, his policy has not succeeded in the case of Strabane.
    Vote agreed to.
    17. £528,055, to complete the sum for the Post Office Packet Service.
    MR. MORTON: I notice here an item of £4,000 in connection with packets to Newfoundland. I am informed by some people in Newfoundland that the Allan Line who received this £4,000
    1034
    charge higher fares than they do to places more distant. I want to know whether, as we give this subsidy, we have not some sort of control over the passenger fares charged.
    MR. RAIKES: We have no control whatever over the matter of passengers, but only over the mails.
    MR. KNOX: I should like to ask how it is that steamers from Belfast to Fleetwood carry mails, whilst steamers from Liverpool to Belfast do not. The Belfast and Liverpool boats are owned by an Irish Company, whilst the Belfast and Fleetwood boats belong to the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company.
    MR. CALDWELL: I desire to call the attention of the Postmaster General to the fact that the mail steamers which ply between Strome Ferry and Stornoway sometimes go out of their way to call at Portree, which causes a considerable delay to the mails and puts the inhabitants of the district to very great inconvenience.
    MR. RAIKES: I will inquire as to the Liverpool and Belfast line of steamers, but I must say I do not think it at all probable that another subsidy will be granted to a mail route between England and Belfast, looking at the extremely favourable arrangement we have been able to make with the Fleetwood boats. As to the Strome Ferry steamers. I would point out that in that particular contract it was arranged that on two or three occasions during the year—one of them being the period at which the Militia are called up and have to be conveyed from one place to another—deviations should be made from the main route. I should be sorry if this led to inconvenience, but I would point out that a large subsidy has been allowed in this case, so that larger and more commodious boats may be employed in the Service, and from these circumstances I think the public derive more advantage than is counteracted by the inconvenience to which the hon. Member has referred. The subsidy will come to an end with the year, and when it comes to be renewed we shall then have an opportunity of ascertaining

    1035
    whether better terms can be obtained from other companies.
    Vote agreed to.
    18. £1,716,080 (including a Sup plementary sum of £43,750), to complete the sum for the Post Office Tele graphs.

    ARMY ESTIMATES.
    19. £631,700, for Transport and Re mounts.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have several points to raise on this Vote, but shall postpone them until the Report stage, if I am given to understand that by the withdrawal of the Clergy Discipline Bill from the Paper we may take it that it has been abandoned.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I do not think that is precisely the way in which a question should be put. I will make a statement with regard to the Bill tomorrow—though we do not intend to proceed with it to-morrow.
    MR. CALDWELL: The Government have agreed to abandon the Bill in return for being allowed to get Supply. ["No, no!"] Yes; that is the arrangement, and I think the country should know it. The whole of this Supply has been a matter of bargaining, and—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member's observations are in no way relative to transports and remounts.
    Vote agreed to.
    20. £2,605,000, for Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies.
    MR. CALDWELL: I move to report Progress. I think that seeing that we have to meet at 12 o'clock to-day we might now very fairly adjourn. We understood that the Government, on condition of being allowed to get all Supply through to-night, had agreed to abandon the Clergy Discipline Bill. ["No, no!" and cries of "Order!"] That Bill was to the advantage of the Church of England and the community at large.
    1036
    I thought when the Government seemed so anxious to get Supply and had commenced bargaining that I should get my price as well as other Members, but I have failed to do so.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    COLONEL NOLAN: Is the bread now supplied good?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: No complaints have been made to me, but after the question of the hon. Member I will make inquiries.
    Vote agreed to.
    21. £820,600, for Clothing Establishments and Services.
    22. £1,847,100, for Warlike and other Stores: Supply and Repair.
    MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I do not believe in bargains with the Government, and if some hon. Members have agreed to defer their observations on the Votes to the Report stage, that is their affair and not mine. I intend to proceed with my remarks. They bear upon a subject which more properly would be dealt with by hon. Members for Newcastle, as it refers to a constituent of theirs, but as they seem to be elsewhere engaged the duty is thrown upon me. The case to which I wish to draw attention is one on which I have asked several questions, though without being able to obtain a satisfactory answer from the Secretary for War. The case is that of a poor working man, named Jobson, who claims to have been the inventor of a certain time fuse, or a certain system of applying it. In 1859 Sir William Armstrong by a combination of the inventions of three men made the Armstrong gun. To render the system perfect a time fuse was required, and that was invented by this man. His models were submitted to the authorities, but were afterwards stolen. Subsequently Sir William Armstrong received a grant for a time fuse, which this man claims to have been his invention. I believe the man would have

    1037
    obtained redress if it had not been for some intemperate letters he wrote, and I want an assurance that his error of judgment shall not be visited with penal consequences, and that the reward due to his invention shall not be reaped by another man. I think the least the Secretary for War can do will be to give this man some compensation.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I remember the question to which the hon. Member refers having been raised, but according to the information I have upon the subject, it appears that if the gentleman referred to has any claim at all, it is rather against the company than against the Government.
    MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: There may be some justice in what the right hon. Gentleman states, but I hardly think it possible for a poor man like the one of whom I am speaking to obtain justice in the Law Courts against a rich and powerful firm like that of which Sir William Armstrong is the head. I hope, however, the right hon. Gentleman may see fit to re-consider his position, and see that a sum shall be awarded to this gentleman which will give general satisfaction. A small thing of this kind would not add in any appreciable degree to the expenses of the Government.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I will undertake to look into the matter, but the facts are not exactly as they have been stated by the hon. Member.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I should like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the bursting of a 6-in gun the other day in Australia. I find that, instead of the new powder, what is called the brown powder was used, and that that powder is very liable to deterioration in certain climates. If the bursting of the gun was caused by the deterioration of this powder, of course it was not due to any fault in the gun. I am not aware whether this brown powder is liable to explode in this way, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to furnish some information upon the point cither to-night or to-morrow.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I can tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, so far
    1038
    as I am able to form a judgment on this matter, the accident was due to a defect in the gun, and not to any defect in the powder.
    SIR W. PLOWDEN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us to-morrow some information in regard to the difficulty experienced in the forging of steel for guns.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of this question, and I may tell him at once that we do not have any large amount of steel forging in the Arsenal, where steel is only manufactured on a very small scale. That being so, it is not desirable to employ in the manufacture of our steel persons of the same position and experience as have to be employed by the private firms who manufacture this kind of steel on a much larger scale.
    Vote agreed to.
    23. £112,500, for Establishments for Military Education.
    24. £160,900, for Miscellaneous Effective Services.
    25. £257,900, for War Office, Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges.

    NAVY ESTIMATES.
    26 £221,100, for Admiralty Office. Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [30th July] reported.
  First Resolution (see page 843) postponed.
  Subsequent Resolutions (see pages 866, 867) agreed to.
  Postponed Resolution to be considered to morrow.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL. (No. 432.)
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [30th July], "That this House doth agree with the Lords in

  1039
  the Amendment, Clause A (Grouping schools), as amended."
  Question put, and negatived.
  Subsequent Amendments agreed to.
  Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with one of the Amendments made by the Lords."—Sir William Hart Dyke, Mr. Mundella, Lord George Hamilton, Mr. Jackson, Sir Richard Temple, Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Henry H. Fowler, and Viscount Cranborne,—To withdraw immediately.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.

  LAND REGISTRY (MIDDLESEX DEEDS) BILL [LORDS].—(No. 428.)
  As amended, considered; Amendment made; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1889–00.
  Resolutions (see page 881) reported, and agreed to.
  SCHOOLS FOR SCIENCE AND ART BILL [LORDS].—(No. 425.)
  As amended, considered; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1892, the sum of £32,335,139 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL. (No. 432.)
  Reasons for disagreeing to Lords Amendments, reported, and agreed to. To be communicated to the Lords.

  LUNACY BILL [LORDS.]—(No. 430.)
  As amended considered.
  Clause (Medical certificates)—(Mr. Rowntree,)—added.
  Amendment made.
  Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  TRAINING COLLEGES (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 391.)
  Order for Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 436.)
  Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments considered.
  First Amendment agreed to.
  Page 16, Amendment in lieu of Clause F, insert the following Clause:—
  (Power to Land Commission to claim possession of holding.)
  "Whenever the Land Commission are entitled to cause any holding to he sold under any power of sale, they may, if they think fit, apply to the High Court, or (if the rateable value of the holding does not exceed fifty pounds) to the County Court of the county in which such holding is situate, for an order to the Sheriff to put them in possession of such holding, and it shall be" lawful for such Court, upon being satisfied that the Land Commission are so entitled, to issue an order accordingly, and such order shall be executed by the Sheriff in like manner as a writ for the delivery of possession,"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Amendments made.
  Amendment proposed,
  After the words last added, to add the words: "Where such order has been made on account of any arrears of an annuity in respect of which a guarantee deposit is retained at the date of the order, such arrears shall be declared by the Land Commission to be an irrecoverable debt within the meaning of section three of The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885.'"—(Mr. Knox.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Jackson,)—put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Four o'clock a.m.

BERKELEY PEERAGE.
Committee for Privileges met: Claim of the Right Honourable Francis William Fitzhardinge Baron Fitzhardinge considered: Then it was resolved, That it is the opinion of the Committee that no reason has been shown for departing from the resolution of this Committee of the 28th of June 1811, and the Order of the House thereon of the 2nd of July 1811: The Report thereof to be made to the House: Then claim of Randal Mowbray Thomas Berkeley considered: Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Committee that the said Randal Mowbray Thomas Berkeley has made out his claim to the titles, honours, and dignities of Earl of Berkeley and Viscount Dursley: The Report thereof to be made to the House.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
Trimlestown Peerage (Claim to Vote for Representative Peers for Ireland)—Committee for Privileges met: Counsel heard to open the case of the Claimant: Witnesses examined; the Attorney General and the Attorney General for Ireland appearing on behalf of the Crown; and Committee adjourned sine die.
House resumed.
Trimlestown Peerage (Claim to Vote for Representative Peers for Ireland)—Ordered, That the Claimant do pay all the expenses attending the taking and printing the evidence, and also the cost of the examination of the evidence by an examiner appointed by the Crown Agent.

JUDICATURE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]—(No. 151.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an amendment.
RANGES BILL.—(No. 238.)
  LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 228.)
  Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next—(The Lord Chancellor.) (No. 288.)
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.) (No. 289.)
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (RATES AMD CHARGES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendment reported (according to order.)
  EARL WEMYSS: My Lords, there is an Amendment which stands in my name. I have been asked to move it. It was to have been moved by another Member of your Lordships' House. I am not conversant intimately with the subject, but what I am told is that as the Bill now stands it will materially affect a very great and important industry of South Wales. The steel manufacture in South Wales is very extensive. I believe there are about 1,000,000 tons of steel rails produced in South Wales in the course of a year, and I am told that the effect of this Bill as it stands will be to raise considerably the charges for the carriage in that district of steel goods. I am informed that it will nearly double them. If this Amendment were passed it would have the effect simply, as I am told, of leaving the charges as they are now, plus leaving this industry subject to terminal charges. This is the statement made to me; and I believe it was generally the object of the Joint Committee to lower rather than raise charges. Your Lordships-having yesterday given a vote in favour of the railways against lowering charges where they ought not to be excessively lowered, it seems only fair that in this case this alteration should be made, and that this great industry should not be subject to the rise in charges which I am told will be the effect of the Bill.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, with regard to the last point which the noble Lord mentioned, that a

  891
  rise in charges will be the effect of the Bill, that is an entire misconception. We are not dealing in this Bill with actual rates, we are dealing with the maximum powers of the company, and it does not follow that because any change is made in the maximum powers, therefore the actual rates will be raised. But, my Lords, I do not think it can be made out that the effect of this Order upon the rates of the railway in question will be as the noble Lord seems to think, nothing but the raising of the rates. I have grave doubts of that; in fact I have a belief, amounting almost to certainty, that for the traffic which he mentions, taken as a whole, the powers will be actually lowered rather than raised by the effect of this Order. The Act to which I think the Amendment is intended to refer is what is known as the South Wales Act, 1855. I do not think there is any such Act as the Great Western Act, 1855; at least, I have not been able to trace it. But assuming that I am correct that the noble Lord who has given your Lordships the result of his information in this matter intends to refer to the South Wales Act, I will deal with it as if that were the case. My Lords, this is the same Act which was the subject of discussion yesterday, upon the Amendment of my noble Friend Lord Aberdare, who is not now in his place. The powers for coal and common articles of that kind, and for wrought iron, which is mentioned in the Act, are 2d. a ton a mile, that is inclusive of wagons. The effect of this Order is that for coal the powers in future will be 1½d. per ton per mile exclusive of wagons, with, as I explained yesterday, terminals of 3d., which cannot effect anything in the nature of raising such powers for more than six miles, that is only six half-pennies, and does not include any traffic which goes from siding to siding, which will be the case with a great deal of the heavy traffic. So far for the articles in Class A, but with regard to the steel trade it requires a little more explanation. The first point I should be inclined to take is this: it is rather a technical one. Steel is not an article mentioned in the Act: it is usually as a matter of actual practice classed with iron, and in our amended classifications we have put articles whether made of iron or steel in
  892
  the same class. As I know I am correct in saying that steel is not mentioned in the Act, it will be an unnamed article, and therefore the highest power which in the case of this Act is, I think, 4d., would be the charge which, strictly speaking, the company would at the present time, be entitled to exact, if they could get it, which probably they cannot. Now, going back to the term used in the Act, "wrought iron," the effect of our Order is that some articles of wrought iron are in Class B and some in Class C. For those articles which are in Class B there is absolutely not only no raising of power, but there is a diminution for those of the articles which have been divided. Under, I venture to say, the more scientific classification which we are bringing into force, some of them will be in Class C, and for them there will be a slight raising of maximum power; but I am entitled to make this point, that, according to the proposal of the Board of Trade, all wrought iron articles, if declared to be undamageable, were in Class B. The Joint Committee, for reasons which seemed good to them, and after a very full discussion, and practically with the consent of both sides, altered the decision on this point, and the Order, as now laid on the Table of the House, is absolutely and in all respects in conformity with the decision of the Joint Committee on this matter; it comes up unaltered from the other House of Parliament, and I venture to think, under those circumstances, that it would be most unwise and injudicious for this House to make the alteration which the noble Lord asks for.
  EARL WEMYSS: Might I ask the noble Lord one question? He said that under Class C there will be a power of raising the maximum above that paid on the articles previously. Will steel come under Class C now, and did it not do so before?
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Steel is not classified. Some articles of steel are in B, some in C, and some are in Class 1. The initial figure for Class C is 1·80d., so that, as far as the conveyance rate is concerned, even for Class C there is no raising of power. As far as the conveyance rate is concerned, any raising of power to which I alluded is the effect of terminal which is given for Class C, and that, after a certain number

  893
  of miles are run, will be, of course, entirely worked off. Though the initial figures which we have given for Class C was nearly l¼d. less than the existing power for conveyance, it is l·80d. by the scale of graduation which was put in the Bill for conveyance, it will be rapidly reduced; and though I was obliged candidly to say there would, by the conjoint operation of the classification and rate clauses, be some raising of powers, it is certainly very slight in Class C, and certainly not comparable as regards any maximum raising made in the powers of the company by the effect of the other provisions in the Order.
  EARL WEMYSS: I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Amendment being, by leave, withdrawn, I would like, according to the notice that I have given, to ask the House to suspend the Standing Order, No. 39, for the day, in order that this Bill may be read a third time. It cannot, I think, prejudice anybody, and it will be a matter of extreme convenience to everybody concerned, to the Board of Trade, and I believe to the other House of Parliament, if all these Bills can be considered together in any subsequent stage they may have to go through.
  Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to order) and dispensed with; Bill read 3a, and passed.

LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (RATES AND CHARGES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  *THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I wish to say one word with reference to what passed in your Lordships' House last night. Of course I am not going to ask your Lordships to revise the decision at which you then arrived, though the majority was a very small one; but I wish to say one or two words with regard to the merits of the question itself. I do not propose to make any Motion on the subject. I can quite understand that it was extremely difficult for the
  894
  House to comprehend the somewhat mysterious jargon of classes and letters and classifications and one thing and another with which my noble Friend Lord Belper and myself, who were on the Joint Committee, and my noble Friend opposite, are familiar, owing to our experience. The result was to leave upon my mind a sense that the decision which was arrived at was not in conformity with what is quite just to the London and North-Western Railway Company. I am not an upholder of the London and North-Western Railway Company or of any other railway; and I believe that in the deliberations of that Committee and in the votes which were given, as an individual I voted a great deal more on the side of the traders than I did in favour of the propositions put forward by the Railway Companies. At the same time, I think your Lordships intended that the Members who were appointed to sit upon that Committee should do the most pure and simple justice, as far as lay in their power, between the railways and the trading interests. A great many of our decisions passed without any remark; but this particular one, which happened to be in favour of the London and North-Western Railway Company, has, I am sorry to say, been reversed. I am not going to attempt to convey to your Lordships any detailed information on the subject; I am afraid that I failed last night, and I do not think I should succeed any better now; but having given, as your Lordships did, and as the Committee did, higher rates for the carriage of coal, special rates on these small Welsh railways, I do respectfully say that I think the House acted somewhat under a misapprehension in refusing rates of the same nature to those same railways with regard to the more manufactured article, slate. That is all I have to say except this: that at the last moment I asked if your Lordships could extend the charges of the London and North-Western within a farthing of what appeared on the special scale. I know that your Lordships were not willing to take that course, and I only hope and trust that the matter will be revised and reconsidered hereafter. I can only say that if that course were decided upon I should be most happy to be a member of a Select Committee to examine into the

  895
  merits of that one particular case, and to elicit the opinions and examine the persons upon whose opinions those changes have been made in the Bill. I feel certain that if the other members of your Lordships' Committee had been present they would all have agreed with me upon this point, as Lord Belper did last night. I only hope that this matter may subsequently meet with some reconsideration from Her Majesty's Government.
  Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order) and dispensed with; Bill read 3a, and passed.

REDEMPTION OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 280.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, this is a Bill which carries out the provisions of one of the clauses, Clause 29, I think it was, of the Land Department Bill, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland last year, but was not passed. It has been before the country for about a year and a half. The clause, as it appeared in the Land Department Bill, has been modified in the case of this Bill, but merely in the sense of making the machinery of the Land Purchase Acts and the Fair Rent Acts applicable in every minor particular to the provisions of the present Bill. I may remind your Lordships that the Land Act of 1881, which conferred privileges upon tenants in Ireland, limited those privileges to leaseholders up to 60 years and under; and the Land Act of 1887 again modified that by carrying out the same policy, but including in its provisions all tenants who held leases up to 99 years. Now, with reference to those leaseholders who hold for longer terms than 99 years, who may be generically termed perpetuity leaseholders, I think it may be stated to be generally recognised that there is no worse form of tenure than land held in perpetuity at a rack rent by a tenant. Neither in England nor in any other country are such a tenure known; in Ireland it was only, I believe, in the year 1887 that it was enacted by an Act which was then passed through Parlia-
  896
  ment that copyholders should be compulsorily enfranchised. Therefore, the main principle upon which this Bill is founded will, I think, meet generally with approbation, and will generally be found to coincide with the principles which have guided Parliament during the last few years. I may also say that in Ireland at the present time the Purchase Acts apply to these perpetuity leaseholders, whereas the Land Acts do not so apply. This Bill provides that tenants for over 99 years, holding at what the Land Commission may consider a fair agricultural value, may apply to redeem their rents subject to the consent of the lessor or the grantor by payment of a capital sum to be agreed upon, or in case of difference as to this capital sum, the matter is to be referred to the Land Commission; but in case the lessor or grantor does not consent, or delays unreasonably the procedure for redemption, it is provided in this Bill that though the redemption be not made, the lessee or grantee shall be deemed a present tenant which, as your Lordships know, under the Acts of 1881 and 1887 means a tenant who has the power of coming into Court and applying to have a fair rent fixed. To that extent he will be brought under the Act of 1887. Thus, there will be two alternatives: the perpetuity leaseholder will have the power, if his landlord consents, of redeeming his rent, and in the event of his landlord not consenting, he will be able to come in under the Act of 1887, and be made a present tenant and have a fair rent fixed. Thus, my Lords, I think entire uniformity will be secured, and a grievance will be reduced, not, indeed, a very large one, because, although I have no figures before me, I have reason to believe there are not more than about 2,000 tenancies of this character throughout Ireland, but inasmuch, as I said before, as the principle of a tenant holding in perpetuity at a rack-rent is one which has not met with favour during the past few years, I venture to hope your Lordships will read this Bill a second time, thus doing away, as far as we can, with the last of the grievances of the leaseholders in Ireland. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl Cadogan.)
  *THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: My noble Friend, in placing this Bill before your Lordships, has certainly not indulged in much description; in fact, he has placed it before the House in a light which, when you read it, I think you will hardly believe applies to it. This Bill is really a much larger measure than my noble Friend's remarks would have led your Lordships to believe. I speak under correction, but I understood the noble Lord to say that this Bill applies to leaseholders who hold under unexpired leases of under 99 years.
  EARL CADOGAN: Of over 99 years.
  *THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: Your Lordships may put a "0" to that—it applies to men who have unexpired leases of 990 years, and it applies also to men who hold fee-farm grants. I must say I think this is certainly not a Conservative measure, although it is introduced to-night by my noble Friend. It is entirely a one-sided measure. It allows the tenant to force his landlord to sell to him at a price to be fixed by the Land Commission if the landlord and tenant do not agree; thereby, for the first time, introducing the pernicious system of compulsion. It forces the landlord to sell to the tenant, but if the tenant is in a position which would give the landlord any benefit by taking the same measures with regard to him that he can take with regard to the landlord, he is unable to do so. It is a one-sided Bill entirely: the tenant has the power of forcing the landlord either to sell the land to him at a price to be fixed by the Land Commission—
  EARL CADOGAN: I am sorry to interrupt my noble Friend, who always understands these matters so clearly; but I hope, really, he will read Clause 1 with a little more care than he seems to have given to it. There is no power whatever in the tenant to force his landlord to sell at a price fixed by the Land Commission. It is provided it is true, that in ease the landlord and tenant disagree as to price the Land Commission may fix the price, but the Land Commission has no power whatever to force the landlord to sell.
  *THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: If the noble Lord had only waited a moment he would have heard what I was about to say. What I said was
  898
  that the tenant can force his landlord to sell at a price to be fixed by the Land Commission, or if he does not do so, it allows the tenant to go into Court and to have what is called a "fair rent" fixed—but perhaps it is better to call it a judicial rent. That seems to me one-sided. I do not know whether my noble Friend thinks it is a fair thing that although the tenant can take the landlord into Court, the landlord should not be able to take the tenant into Court. There are many other kinds of leases in Ireland besides these leases let at full agricultural rents; there are many leases under which tenants hold at great advantages, and if the tenants are able to take the landlords into Court, why should not the landlords be able to take the tenants into Court? I cannot see the fairness of this sort of legislation; I think it is entirely unfair. My noble Friend rather led your Lordships to believe that the Act of 1881 was on these lines. At the time that Act of 1881 was passed I protested against it; but lot me tell my noble Friend it was not upon these lines at all, as no leases were broken by it. Under the Act of 1881, at the end of a lease of 60 years landlords and tenants could both go into Court; but here, under this Bill and under my noble Friend's previous Act of 1887, he only allows one party to go into Court. In respect of that my noble Friend quoted the Act of 1881; but I think he should not have done so, because both this Bill and the Act of 1887 are drawn on entirely different lines to the Act of 1881. There is no doubt that this Bill is a most serious measure, though, as my noble Friend states, it does not affect a very large number of leaseholders in Ireland, because the great bulk of leaseholders (of whom there are many) do not hold at full agricultural rents, and it only affects those who hold at full agricultural rents. But it is letting in a system of compulsion. Again, it is breaking up and tearing to pieces in Ireland all contracts. The noble Lord said that this particular class of leases were only known in Ireland. If yon take the present land system in Ireland, I do not believe such a system is known in any other country in the world. But I will not detain

  899
  your Lordships by dwelling upon this point. I would, however, point out to the noble Lord a particular clause in the Bill, the effect of which may not have been considered. He will see that by Sub-section 2 of Clause 2 the moment this sale has been carried out, the moment the landlord has agreed to sell to the tenant, and that the Land Commission has fixed the price, the rent-charges or other liabilities—that is to say, the charges on the holding—are to be transferred to the redemption money and taken off the land. Well, that may seem very fair, but let me point out to the noble Lord the effect of it. A landlord may in Ireland be paying 5 per cent. upon his mortgages; he agrees to sell under this measure; he can hardly refuse, because he is asked to sell with a pistol to his head. If he does not sell he has to go before the Land Commission. If he sells, all these charges are to be transferred to the land, and while he may be paying on his mortgages 5 per cent. interest, he will only receive, pending the time of fixing the price and proving the title, 2¾ per cent. Therefore, the landlord must naturally be so much out of pocket for all that time. I think that is a very great mistake, and that it would have been much better if this clause had been drawn on the lines of the Bill which was lately passed through your Lordships' House, and if the unfortunate landlord had, at any rate, been allowed to receive 4 per cent. from the tenant until such time as the title had been proved; but here you have a man who is obliged to sell, and he may possibly have to pay out of his own pocket possibly 3 per cent. more than he is receiving from the Government. I think that is a great hardship, and I hope my noble Friend will re-consider that matter. Then I would like to point out one other thing before I cease speaking to your Lordships, and it is with regard to the position of these leaseholders whom the noble Lord has referred to. Under the Act of 1887 those men were allowed to apply to the Court to have a fair or judicial rent fixed during two years. The Act of 1887 passed in August of that year, and they were given two years to apply to the Court: that is, they were given until August,
  900
  1889. Then my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave them a further year, until August, 1890. He placed these leaseholders under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and gave them another year, which carried them on to August, 1891. On what possible principle are these leaseholders to be carried on from year to year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act? If there was anything in the Act of 1887 which limited their powers of appeal for two years, then surely it should not be continually ripped up and still carried on. This is the system in Ireland which I object to entirely—this continual unrest. You never know where you are. If these leaseholders thought they had a hardship to contend with, they could have gone into Court at any time within the last four years. Why should they be placed in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act again? I would also point out to my noble Friend what I think would be a great improvement; that is, to bring them into this Bill—that is to say, to give them the same powers as he is prepared to give to these perpetuity leaseholders. If they like to sell to their landlords, let them do so; and if they do not like to sell to their landlords, let them have a fair rent fixed; but why they should be placed in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill every year I cannot understand, and I would suggest to my noble Friend whether he could possibly see his way to introducing some clause of that description in Committee, bringing in these leaseholders and admitting them to the advantages conferred by this Bill. Let us know, at any rate, how we stand with regard to them, and not be carrying them on from year to year, as they are being carried on at present. It is a very simple matter to do-so. If you are dealing with these long leaseholders upon this principle as you do in this Bill, why should you not place the other leaseholders in the same position whom you let in under the Act of 1887? I do hope my noble Friend will consider it, and before the Committee draw up some Amendment to deal with it, or I could do so myself.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I have no wish to oppose this Bill—far from it; but I cannot help wondering when I read it what sort of reception

  901
  this Bill would have had if I had had charge of it sitting on the other side of the House. I expect I should have heard some pretty strong language from noble Lords with regard to breaches of contract and a great many other things. We have made great advances since 1881; and, of course, it is very encouraging and satisfactory to us on this side to find that the Act of 1881, which I have so often heard described on Conservative platforms in language of the most unmeasured kind, is now made the basis of all legislation in Ireland. I do not profess to understand thoroughly ail the Irish tenures, but no doubt this must be a very peculiar tenure indeed, because, as noble Lords who have read the Bill will have observed, its operation is limited to that particular class of leases which, although perpetual, or let for long terms, are let for an agricultural rent. That, of course, makes a great distinction from the case in England where a small head-rent is paid, but where the circumstances are extremely different. Though I know nothing of the condition of these leaseholders or the special circumstances, I should certainly suspect that such a tenure is found to be an extremely un desirable one. My own feeling in the matter is this: I am rather doubtful whether it would not have been much better and fairer to have limited this Bill, as it is, in fact, a compulsory Bill, as I shall presently show, to compelling the tenant to buy of the landlord, or enabling the landlord to require the tenant to buy, either party requiring the other. That would have brought the matter to a complete conclusion, and would, at all events, have made an end altogether of the relations between the landlord and tenant. The tenant would then have become the freeholder. I should have thought that such an arrangement might have been made under the Land Purchase Act we have recently passed; that is to say, some assistance might have been given those tenants on certain conditions which would have enabled them to have bought out the landlords. I would also observe that the analogy which the noble Lord who moved the Second Beading of the Bill finds between the Copyhold Acts in England and this Act is really not a true one, because in the case of the Copy hold Acts either party may compel
  902
  the other: the lord of the manor or the copyholder may compel the enfranchisement of the copyhold. Neither are these copyholds in England really in the same position, for this reason: In the case of a copyhold the lord's rights are, generally speaking, a very small part of the value of the holding, and the copyholder is, to all intents and purposes, the owner of far the larger interest in it. The rights of the lord are limited, in fact, to the receipt of a very small quit rent and of a tine which has become, in most cases, exceedingly small, because the fine was either fixed irrevocably at a very small amount many hundred years ago, or is now restricted by the operation of proceedings in the Law Courts to two years' fine. That is not the case here, for the landlord is in possession of the full agricultural rent of the land; and except, therefore, as regards his power of resumption of the land at the end of the lease, he is really in possession of the full value of the land in the same manner as the landlord who has let it in the usual manner. But I was going to observe that this Bill is in one sense compulsory. It is quite true that the 1st clause is, so far, not compulsory—that it does not say the parties are to agree together; but if they do not, they come under the proviso at the end of the 1st clause, and that proviso is a very drastic one indeed, because it simply converts this leasehold into an ordinary present tenancy under the Act of 1881. That is an entire, complete alteration of the position of the landlord and tenant. This certainly seems to me, upon the whole, to be the strongest measure ever proposed with regard to Irish land, and in that sense it may be said to complete what has been done previously. I may say that, looking to the very extraordinary nature of these perpetual leasehold tenures, and to the undoubted evils which must result from their continuance, it seems to me justifiable on the part of Parliament to compel a sale on fair terms. I doubt very much whether it was necessary or desirable to compel the landlord to adopt the alternative of agreeing with the tenant; and if the tenant does not agree with him, then that the tenant shall have the power of compelling him to sell under the Act of 1881. I greatly doubt whether that is a fair or reasonable

  903
  arrangement, but, as I have said, I should be quite out of court, after the part I have always taken and the policy I have advocated with noble Lords on this side of the House, if I objected in any way to the principle of this Bill. I would only again remark that Her Majesty's Government have been educated very far, and this Bill is a proof of how far their education has gone in this direction, because in the earlier Act we did not deal with leases; the Act of 1887 did, and so does this, and it is curious that it should have fallen to Her Majesty's Government to carry the principle further than we originally intended.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I should not have interfered on this occasion but that I should not like to appear to pass in silence a measure of this kind introduced by a Conservative Government. The noble Earl opposite really rather applauds the Conservative Party for bringing forward and carrying through Parliament measures which he and his noble Friends had not the power of carrying themselves, and I think he alluded to the Bill of 1887. With regard to the Bill of 1887, which was introduced into and carried through this House by my noble Friend below me, I would remind your Lordships how that Bill was carried through. I will say that that Bill was not only distasteful to the Irish landlords, but to the Conservative Party in general, for it was breaking into the freedom of contract; and I, for one, deeply regretted that such a breaking into the freedom of contract and such a cancellation of leases which Mr. Gladstone promised in 1881 should not be touched for 15 years, should have been carried out by a Conservative Government and by the Conservative Party in 1887. But I would ask your Lordships to consider, why was it necessary that such a measure should be brought forward? For the simple reason that the Unionists knew they must bring forward remedial measures, measures which we considered it essential for the government of Ireland should be carried through Parliament. By passing that Bill we were enabled to secure those powers by which we have restored—as, I venture to say, we have restored—law and order in Ireland. With regard to the Bill which has been
  904
  introduced to-day by my noble Friend, I confess I do not think it will do any harm; but, at the same time, I regret to see that there is again a breaking into freedom of contract in a measure brought forward by the Unionist Party. I speak subject to correction; but, if my memory serves me rightly, in 1887 the noble Earl made statements with regard to the inclusion of leaseholders in a manner diametrically opposed to the representations made on the introduction of the Bill on the present occasion. I should be the last person to wish to damage the Bill brought forward tonight, for I fully recognise that the Bill is a proof of the wish of the noble Lord and the Government to render the Purchase Bill a complete measure. I believe it will in no way damage any tenants, be they yearly tenants or leaseholders, who ought to be able to participate in the benefits of a Bill intended to benefit all classes connected with the agricultural interest in Ireland.
  EARL CADOGAN: My noble Friend behind me has stated that when the Bill of 1887, which I had the honour to introduce in this House, was under discussion, I made statements with regard to leaseholders which were diametrically opposed to those I have now made. My noble Friend will not, I am sure, have forgotten that the whole object of the Bill of 1887 was to include leaseholders in the privileges which were conferred by the Act of 1881. It is perfectly true that in the Act of 1887 we did not include leaseholders beyond 99 years; but that I used arguments against the inclusion of leaseholders in the discussion on the Bill in 1887 I most emphatically deny. The noble Earl opposite appears to take a somewhat doubtful view with regard to this Bill, because while on the one hand he objects, to a certain extent, to the compulsory purchase which he contended was provided for under this Bill—
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: No; I beg the noble Earl's pardon; I said I thought it would have been much better if it had been a compulsory purchase and not a purchase which is connected with the proviso.
  EARL CADOGAN: I was going to say that while the noble Earl did not object entirely to this Bill, he suggested that compulsory power should have been

  905
  inserted in the Bill which lately passed through Parliament.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I apologise for again interrupting the noble Lord. What I said was simply that I thought it might have been better if the first part of Clause 1 had been made compulsory, and if there had not been the indirect provision that the tenant should become the present tenant of the landlord if he did not agree. I made no reference to the Land Purchase Bill at all.
  EARL CADOGAN: The noble Earl has complimented us upon the state of our education. Well, I can only say that we are not quite educated up to that point, because we deny that there is any direct compulsion in this Bill. We admit that at the end of the clause there is a certain indirect compulsion, because if the landlord and tenant do not agree, the alternative is given to the tenant to come in and become a "present tenant" under the Act of 1881. If I am asked to ratify the progress with which the noble Earl has been good enough to credit us in land legislation in Ireland in the direction of breaking of contracts—a progress which I confess I do not entirely understand myself—I would say, as has been said before, that we are driven to these measures entirely owing to the action taken by the noble Earl and his friends in passing the Act of 1881. I know the noble Earl denies that; but perhaps he will not, at all events, deny this: that the result of the Act of 1881 was to leave a large body of tenants in Ireland who have a substantial grievance because the privileges which were conferred upon tenants under the Act of 1881 were denied to leaseholders in Ireland. Then, I say, the passing of the Act of 1881 obliged us, and would have obliged any Government after a few years, to take into consideration the case of those tenants who, being leaseholders, were excluded from the benefit of that Act; and it was the necessity of remedying the apparent inequalities in the position of tenants in Ireland by which tenants who were not leaseholders were accorded privileges which were denied to tenants who were leaseholders—it was entirely the result of the Act of 1881 that induced Her Majesty's Government to pass the Act of 1887, and to still
  906
  further reduce those anomalies by the Bill which I now ask your Lordships to read a second time.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.—(No. 283.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time this day ten months. I have all along seen the irregularity with which this County Council has proceeded, and I had an Amendment on this Bill which would have prevented the County Council absorbing all the powers of Magistrates, Boards of Guardians, and the public. The ground on which I go is this, that all our reforms were granted on the principle that rating was to be the foundation of voting. That was the case in 1821 at the time of the Disfranchisement Bill. Sir James Scarlett, Lord Milltown, and my father all voted against Lord John Russell's principle of rents being made the basis of the franchise. My Lords, I have always been consistent, and I beg to move the postponement of this Bill.
  Amendment moved, to leave out the word ("now"), and add at the end of Motion ("this day ten months.")—(The Lord Denman.)
  *EARL FORTESCUE: I feel that I owe an apology to your Lordships for having oven for one moment yesterday intruded any observations on the House with regard the London County Council, but I ventured to do so on a Private Bill brought forward by a body which represents a population larger than that of some of the smaller Kingdoms of Europe and of many States in other parts of the world. The proceedings of that body, as I said yesterday, have confirmed the impression felt by many, and expressed by myself during the discussion of the Bill which established the London County Council. I mean the impression that the inclusion at all of the Metropolis, which had been carefully

  907
  excluded from the operation of the General Public Health Act some 15 years before, within the scope of the general Local Government Act, still more its inclusion with hardly any provision specially bearing upon the very special circumstances of Loudon was very imprudent. We all know how this happened. The disclosure of a little jobbery, and the suspicion of more, on the part of a few members of the Metropolitan Board of Works, which had latterly lost any public confidence it ever may have enjoyed, caused a general demand for the immediate supercession of that body by some other authority. The Government hastened to comply with that popular demand, and, a general Local Government Act having been already announced, the Government, as it seemed to me, very inconsiderately proposed, and Parliament as inconsiderately adopted, the inclusion in it of the Metropolis with over 4,000,000 of population, concentrated round the Palace of the Sovereign and the Houses of Parliament, around the offices of the Ministry and the supreme tribunals of the vast British Empire. The inclusion of such a city with hardly any provision in the Act different from those which applied to all the Municipalities of the Kingdom, from such places as Manchester and Liverpool down to South Molton and Torrington, two ancient Corporations within 20 miles of my house in North Devon, comprising less than 4,000 inhabitants each, less than l–100th part of the population of the Metropolis—I say the inclusion of the capital of the British Empire within the provisions of that Bill showed that the Government and Parliament ignored the lessons of experience in different ages, and about different capitals in the world. They forgot that Rome and Constantinople, each successively the capital of a great Empire, though smaller than ours, had special arrangements for their Government as capitals, differing from those concerning the other towns of the Empire. They forgot, also, the way in which more modern capitals have been dealt with quite recently in comparison—they forgot, for instance, what had been done at Paris and Washington. Warned by the experience of the overwhelming influence exercised by Paris over the rest of
  908
  France during the great French Revolution of the last century, and, later, during the Three Days which drove the elder dynasty of the Bourbons from the Throne; Louis Philippe and his Ministers, very shortly after his accession, elaborated and carried out a most carefully-balanced plan for the government and local management of Paris. As to the chief feature of that plan I will not say more than that it consisted in spreading or dividing the management of works and the government of persons; placing the one under the Préfet de la Seine and his Council and the other under the Préfet de Police with his Council, so that neither could for a moment claim to be, or could be considered, Chief Magistrate of Paris. Notwithstanding that, Louis Philippe lost his Throne and fled in disguise to England; but the system survived his fall, which was more attributable to his own obstinacy in the first instance, and vacillation afterwards, I believe, than to any defects in the system. But the case of Washington is still more remarkable—the capital of the Great Republic of the United States. The wise and far-seeing authors of the Constitution of the united States, while part of what is now the City of Washington and the district surrounding it which were specially dealt with were still almost wild, the site having once been selected, arranged and carried that that city and the district around it should be under the special control of the Congress and of the Central Government of the United States, instead of being governed, as the other States are, to a great extent independently of the Central Government. Her Majesty's Government and Parliament ignored all the lessons to be derived from that past experience, ancient as well as modern; and they established, as I have said, a system differing very little, indeed, from that established in most of the market towns in England. I agree with that able and thoughtful statesman, Mr. Balfour—I forget his exact words—in saying that it was "just as well the inhabitants of London did not co-operate too energetically or act too vigorously in the use of their municipal rights and duties." But we cannot say how soon this state of coma may be succeeded by a sort of municipal or even political phrensy. The first Chairmen of the London County

  909
  Council, Lord Rosebery (whose absence from this House, and still more the sad cause of it, we all regret), and Sir John Lubbock, a distinguished Member of the other House, have presided over the London County Council with dignity and efficiency. But we do not know how soon some popularity-seeking demagogue may succeed to that office, or what pressure he and the County Council, as I say, representing a population already greater than that of various Kingdoms, may put upon the Imperial Legislature and Administration, carrying on their deliberations and their official work in the very midst of them. Up to this time we have seen a good deal of apathy on the part of the inhabitants of London in respect of their local government; but that apathy has not been shared by the London County Council. On the contrary, as I predicted, though fulfilling very inadequately their duties, which were quite enough to occupy all their time, they have indulged in discussion on matters utterly beyond the scope of the duties entrusted to them by the Legislature. And they have already done this, although so recently constituted. More than that, as I predicted in the same speech, when they found that some of the improvements they contemplated would cost a great deal of money, they have brought forward confiscatory proposals. Happily, they were not allowed to carry them through this House. But we do not know how goon further confiscatory proposals may be brought forward by this body, in my opinion so imprudently established for the Local Government of the whole of the vast population of this Metropolis. I can only repeat the earnest hope which I expressed yesterday, that at the next election of County Councillors, and at all succeeding ones, we may find the inhabitants of London electing a body—there are a number of admirable men at present County Councillors—but a body composed of better, wiser, and juster Councillors, and a body more economical; for the very envelope in which this Bill is presented to us shows how fearfully under their management the rates have increased, though the rateable value of London has during the last 20 years pretty nearly doubled. And, besides this, I earnestly hope they will elect Councillors with more tact and of a
  910
  more conciliatory disposition, so that instead of driving to resignation men employed under them, who are of European reputation and of undeniable efficiency, we may find them electing" Councillors, who will elicit hearty cooperation and zealous work in the management of the business of this great Municipality.
  On Question, whether ("now") shall stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

JUDICATURE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]—(No. 151.)
Commons Amendment considered (on Motion), and agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered on Monday next in order to its being dispensed with for the remainder of the Session.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.