Sitting of 16 June 1892

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  WEAR VALLEY EXTENSION RAILWAY BILL [Lords.]
  CONSIDERATION.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): I gave notice yesterday to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, but I think if the House will allow me to make a brief statement possibly it may not be necessary for me to take

  1261
  that course. I represent on the present occasion the Cumberland County Council, and they believe that their interests will be injuriously affected by this railway, which may be so constructed that under no possible circumstances can it be continued to Alston, which is the part of the county specially interested in this matter. If time had been given, the residents in Alston, and not only those in the eastern, but in the western, part of the county would have been able to lay before the Committee an alternative scheme which would have provided through communication from Alston by Wear Head to Stanhope. The Cumberland County Council presented a Petition to be heard by counsel, and they were prepared to show that their interests would be injuriously affected. The referees, however, decided that the Council had no locus standi, and it was my intention yesterday to have appealed from that Court to the House itself; but no doubt, in consequence of the time and circumstances of the Session and the rapidity with which it is necessary to carry Private Bills through their stages, the promoters had their Bill passed as unopposed yesterday morning; and, consequently, when I rose here yesterday for the purpose I have described, I found the Bill had already been reported to the House, and, therefore, it was impossible to refer the Petition of the Cumberland County Council to the Committee. Yet I feel bound to say that the County Council of Cumberland do feel that their interests may be very seriously affected if it should be found impossible to carry on the line from Alston by Wear Head to Stanhope; and I should like to ask the hon. Baronet (Sir Joseph Pease), who takes so much interest in the railway system of Cumberland and Durham, whether he is prepared to give an undertaking that he will use his best influence to facilitate the endeavours that no doubt will be made in that district of Cumberland to procure a through line from Alston to Stanhope? If he will give such an undertaking as I have reason to believe he will be inclined to do, then I think I need trouble the House no further.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I am much
  1262
  obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has waived his opposition. In laying out the line originally we had in view going forward to Alston, but subsequently we thought that one step at a time would be all we would be able to take. In the laying out of the line Mr. Wolfe Barry, the most eminent railway engineer of the day, was consulted, and under his instructions the line is projected in a way that will in the future allow it to be continued to Alston. All I can say, as an humble individual not pledging any company, but so far as I have any influence, I shall be happy to lend any aid I can to develop the communication in this direction and the idea the promoters had in the inception of the scheme. I can assure the hon. Gentleman our line is laid out so that it can be continued to Alston at some future date, and I will take care that the arrangements made are practically carried out.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.
  Bill considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

QUESTIONS.

  IRISH CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE ACT (PRISONERS).
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland what is the total number of persons who have been imprisoned in Ireland up to 31st May last under the provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The total number of persons who have been imprisoned in Ireland up to 31st May last under the provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, is 1,893. It may be of interest to the House to

  1263
  know that out of the total number of 2,978 prisoners in custody throughout Ireland on the 1st instant four only of these were in custody under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act referred to.

  CONVEYANCE OF MAILS ABROAD.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the English Government pay three shillings per pound for the sea conveyance of letters to America and threepence per pound for newspapers, whereas the American Government have their letters conveyed to this country, often in the same steamship as ours are conveyed in, for one shilling and eightpence per pound, and newspapers and other articles for less than threepence per pound; whether any distinction is made by the Steamship Companies in the mode of safeguarding, packing, and transmitting letters, as distinguished from newspapers, or whether they are all thrown together in the hold of the ship; whether any attempt has been made by the British Post Office to do away with the difference in the amounts paid to the steamship owners for the carriage of letters and newspapers respectively; what explanation do the French and Italian Governments furnish for charging 10 francs 50 centimes per kilogramme for conveying letters, from or to India and Australia, in closed bags between Calais and Brindisi, and only fifty centimes per kilogramme for newspapers and other articles, also in closed bags, and in the same compartment and the same train, between Calais and Brindisi; whether any attempt has been made by the British Post Office to alter this system of distinction in the trans-Continental charges, or whether he intends to make such an attempt; whether he will offer a fixed subsidy, irrespective of weight of mails, to the Steamship Companies sailing to America, based on the average amounts now paid to them for conveying our mails; and whether the present mail contracts with the Peninsular and Oriental and Orient Companies to India and Australia are for fixed subsidies, irrespective of the
  1264
  weight of letters and other matter carried?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): A statement in the sense of paragraph one of the question has been made more than once; but it is incomplete, misleading, and not quite accurate. The prices mentioned are paid to the contractors for the packet service to New York in consideration of their stopping their steamers at Queens-town after leaving the Mersey, and then conveying the mails to New York. When the United States Post Office employs the return British steamer from New York it does not require the owners to stop at any other port to receive mails; and the price paid for the mere conveyance is one shilling and ninepence halfpenny a pound for letters and postcards, and twopence a pound for newspapers, &c. For conveyance by steamers sailing under the United States Registry, the American Post Office pays six shillings and eightpence a pound for letters and postcards, and fourpence a pound for newspapers, &c. The British contractors are not required to make any distinction between bags of letters and bags of newspapers, but are bound to provide a suitable and secure place for the whole mail. The system of paying different rates for the conveyance of letters and newspapers, &c., is not peculiar to the British Post Office, but is common to the transit system of the whole postal world, and co-exists naturally with the difference in postage rates. The British Post Office has not attempted to upset the transit payment system of the whole world, but has pursued the policy of making the best bargains it can from time to time; and there is no present intention of departing from that practice. The plan adopted for obtaining subsidised packet services at the lowest market price is to invite tenders, not to make offers; and no such offer as is suggested in paragraph six has been made or is in contemplation. The answer to paragraph seven is, "Yes."
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any vessels have taken mails under the American register from New York to

  1265
  England, and how long has the practice been followed?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I am not able to answer that question without notice.

  ANCIENT HUMAN REMAINS AT RATHMORE.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that quite recently certain road contractors, while excavating for gravel in the ancient moat of Rathmore in County Kildare, came upon human remains, which showed that the moat was used as a cemetery, and that several skeletons were exhumed and left exposed; and whether he will order the moat to be enclosed, and thus prevent any further desecration of the place?
  MR. MADDEN: I am informed that about three weeks ago some very old human bones were found at the place mentioned. The County Inspector is in communication with the contractors and with the tenant and landlord of the land with a view to the place being preserved from further interference.

  CONVICTS AND LIFE INSURANCE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it has come to his knowledge that a man lately discharged from Portland Prison applied to the Governor for certain information from the medical record at Portland concerning his health during the last two years of his imprisonment there; whether he is aware that the information asked for is required by an Insurance Company before the man can have his life insured for the benefit of his family; and whether, under the circumstances, and as the information can only be supplied by the prison doctor under whose care he was for the term specified, he will cause the Governor to give it?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): Yes, Sir, I am aware of this case. I have given directions that the medical officers shall give any information in their possession to any Insurance Company that may apply for it.

  RE-ADDRESSED LETTERS.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, under the new regulations as to re-addressed letters, all such letters, if not re-posted within twenty-four hours of arrival, are subject to an extra charge of twopence each instead of one penny, as under the old arrangement; and whether, as many persons, such as commercial travellers, &c., are prejudiced instead of benefited thereby, he will consider the desirability of a further alteration in the arrangement?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: The extra charge would only be made if such letters were not prepaid; but the arrangement seems liable to cause inconvenience in certain cases, and I propose to amend it, so that a single fee only shall be charged.

  THE CASE OF CONVICT GILKS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a man named Lewis Gilks, late of the 24th South Wales Borderers, who was sentenced by Court Martial at Ranakhat in 1890 to five years' penal servitude for shooting with intent to kill in a quarrel with a fellow-soldier, and is at present serving his sentence in Portland Prison; whether he is aware that Gilks, who bore an excellent character in the Army, and was highly commended for bravery and soldierly conduct by Colonel Bromhead, was, at the time of the shooting for which he was convicted, invalided from Burmah to Ranakhat suffering from jungle fever, and that no injury was done by the shooting; whether he was aware that an influentially signed Memorial, supported by Colonel Bromhead, has been forwarded to the Home Office, praying for the release of Gilks; and whether, under all the circumstances of the case, and considering that Gilks has already been over two years in prison, he will take his case into consideration with the view to discharging him on a ticket-of-leave?
  MR. MATTHEWS: My attention has been called to the case of a man named Lewis Gilks, late of the 24th

  1267
  South Wales Borderers, who was sentenced by Court Martial at Ranakhat in 1890 to five years' penal servitude for shooting with intent to kill in a quarrel with a fellow-soldier, and is at present serving his sentence in Portland Prison. I gather from a Report from the Horse Guards that evidence of the prisoner's good character was before the Court which tried him, but the Report is silent as to the other allegations, that he bore an excellent character in the Army and was highly commended for bravery and soldierly conduct by Colonel Bromhead, and that he was suffering from jungle fever, while no injury was done by the shooting. The Memorial was sent to the Horse Guards, and not to the Home Office. The case has been fully considered by the Military Authorities, and I am informed that they are unable to recommend any mitigation of the sentence.

  ELECTION OF GUARDIANS IN CORK UNION.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Recorder of Cork has confirmed the sentences given against Mr. Edward Fitzgerald, P.L.G., of Cork Union, in eight cases of forging and tendering proxy voting papers in his own favour in the late Guardians election; and whether the Local Government Board propose to remove Mr. Fitzgerald from the Board of Guardians and order another election; if so, when?
  MR. MADDEN: The Local Government Board for Ireland have been informed that the Recorder of Cork has confirmed the convictions against Mr. Fitzgerald. The Board have accordingly taken steps to set aside his election, and for the ordering of an election to fill the vacancy caused thereby.
  MR. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that Major Kirkwood, Local Government Board Inspector appointed to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances attending the election of three Guardians, Messrs.
  1268
  Creane, Roche, and Fitzgerald, alleged to have been returned to the Cork Board of Guardians by means of the forgery of proxy voting papers, refused to take evidence on the question of forgery, on the grounds that he (Major Kirkwood) could not go outside his instructions; and whether, as it was to investigate charges of forgery that the inquiry was asked for, and as one of the three Guardians (Mr. Fitzgerald) has been convicted of eight charges of forgery, the Local Government Board will so extend the scope of the inquiry as to enable Major Kirkwood to take evidence as to forgery?
  MR. MADDEN: The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed. The only cases in which the Local Government Inspector declined to take evidence in regard to forgery were those in respect of which no votes had been allowed, and which therefore, even if they were forged, did not affect the result of the election; but where it was alleged that votes had been recorded by the returning officer in respect of the forged papers evidence was taken by the Inspector. The Local Government Board see no necessity for re-opening the inquiry.

  THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF RADNORSHIRE.
  COLONEL HILL(for Mr. ALFRED THOMAS,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Standing Joint Committee of the Radnorshire County Council have fixed the limit of age from twenty-five to forty for candidates for the post of Chief Constable of the county, although the limit is laid down at forty-five by the Police Act; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  MR. MATTHEWS: By the rules made under 2 and 3 Vict., c. 93, the limit of age prescribed for candidates for the post of Chief Constable is forty-five. I am advised that it is within the discretion of the Standing Joint Committee of a County Council to curtail this limit, although it is not open to them to extend it.

  LAND REGISTRATION AND THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he will explain how it happened that, although a circular dated 1st March, 1892, was by the Irish Land Commissioners issued to the purchasers of land, informing them that they could have their purchases registered gratis under the Local Registration of Title Act, 1891, and designating the Clerks of the Crown and Peace for counties as the proper persons to apply to for registration purposes, a number of proprietors in the County of Waterford, on applying to Mr. Dennehy, the Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the County and City of Waterford, were informed that he had nothing to do with the matter, and directed them to Mr. McCoy, solicitor, Waterford, the local Registrar, who informed them his fee in each case would be £2, even if the farm consisted of only five acres; are the intentions of the Act correctly indicated in the circular or in the replies of Mr. Dennehy and Mr. McCoy; and will the Land Commission be directed to issue clearer information concerning the exact intentions of the Act, or if the circular is correct will officials be requested to throw no unnecessary discouragement in the way of persons availing themselves of the provisions of the same?
  MR. MADDEN: It is expressly provided by the Local Registration of Title Act that a tenant purchaser shall be entitled to registration within one year without charge for office fees. I will communicate with the local Registrar, for I cannot help thinking there must be some mistake as to the facts. Of course, if the tenant purchaser finds it necessary to employ a solicitor, that would not be covered by the provisions of the Act. I am extremely anxious to facilitate registration in every possible way under the Act. I am in communication with the Land Commission and others, and no effort will be spared to influence Local Bodies in facilitating the application of the Act. A large number of tenant purchasers have taken advantage of it, and I hope it may be possible to simplify the procedure to make registration more accessible than it is at present.

  SKIBBEREEN POST OFFICE.
  MR. THOMAS HEALY(for Mr. MAURICE HEALY,): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the Skibbereen Town Commissioners as regards the inconvenience and unsuitability of the existing post office in Skibbereen; and whether, seeing that a suitable site has been offered to the Department, situated in a convenient and central position, and that post offices have been built in other Irish towns with a smaller population, a post office will be built at Skibbereen?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Yes, Sir, and the district surveyor has been in constant correspondence with the town clerk on the subject. I hope that a satisfactory result will be obtained. It is usual in similar towns for the postmaster to rent an office, the Department furnishing the rent. The Department is anxious that a suitable office shall be provided at Skibbereen, the present accommodation being insufficient.

  FAIR RENT APPLICATIONS IN COUNTY CORK.
  MR. THOMAS HEALY (for Mr. MAURICE HEALY): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if the Irish Land Commission are now able to state when a Sub-Commissioner will sit in the County Cork for the hearing of fair rent applications?
  MR. MADDEN: The Irish Land Commissioners report that Sub-Commissioners were continuously employed in the County Cork from December, 1887, to the 22nd August, 1891, during which period there were at times as many as six Sub-Commissioners working in that county at the same time, and at no time less than two. A Sub-Commission will probably commence its sittings in that county at the beginning of the next Circuit.

  GOVERNMENT DRAWING EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the greatly increased difficulty of the

  1271
  test copy in the last examination in second grade freehand drawing; whether, in view of the fact that no notice was given of the intention to make the test more difficult than in former years, and also of the endeavours now being made by teachers of advanced age to obtain drawing certificates in order to retain their present positions, he will instruct the Inspectors of the Science and Art Department to deal leniently with the candidates at the forthcoming examination; and whether he can assure the existing teachers, who have satisfied Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools by their teaching of drawing, that they shall not be compelled to obtain a certificate from the Science and Art Department?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE,): The test copy in the last examination was intentionally made more complex, and in that sense more difficult, with a view to afford the candidates more opportunity of showing their ability, and the examiners of testing their skill. But the examiners will, in making their awards, take into account the nature of the test copy prescribed, and there is no intention of raising the standard abruptly. Whether at any future time the Science and Art Department's certificate will be required must depend on further experience of the operation of the present rule. But it is most improbable that those existing teachers who have shown by the results of their teaching that they are qualified to teach drawing will be required to obtain a certificate, and it is the intention of both Departments to administer the regulations on the subject with special regard to the interests of the older class of teachers.

  SWAZILAND.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the importance of the territories of Zanbana and M'Begisa on the future of Swaziland and the newly-annexed portion of Amatongaland, Her Majesty's Government will act on the advice given by Sir Charles Mitchell, Governor of Zululand in 1889 [C. 6200], and annex the said territories, or otherwise prevent
  1272
  foreign influence obtaining control over the Lebombo Mountains?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,) (who replied): My right hon. Friend (Baron H. de Worms), who is unavoidably absent, has asked me to say, in view of the provisions of the Swaziland Convention, that Her Majesty's Government do not consider it open to them to entertain a proposal to annex the territories of these chiefs. They are not aware that any foreign influence is obtaining control over the Lebombo Mountains, and are fully alive to the importance of preventing such a result.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government intend to facilitate the construction of a harbour and railway from Sordwana Point to the Swaziland, frontier under the concessions granted by native chiefs to Colonel Coope; and whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table the whole of the Correspondence which has taken place in reference to Colonel Coope's concessions between the Governor of Zululand, the Colonial Office, the Mapootaland Syndicate, Mr. Van Laun, and others interested in the scheme, from the year 1888 up to the present time, including the recommendations from the following Chambers of Commerce—namely, London, Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford, Liverpool, and Sheffield?
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER (who replied): The Secretary of State has referred for the consideration of the High Commissioner in South Africa and the Governor of Zululand the question whether permission can be granted for laying a railway between Sordwana Bay and the western limit of British Zulu territory. If they report favourably the permission will be granted by the Zululand Government, and will not be a concession from the local chiefs. The Correspondence referred to in the second part of the question is incomplete, and the Secretary of State cannot undertake at present to lay it before Parliament.
  DR. CLARK: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, before any such concession is granted, communication will be made with the Powers having authority over the neighbouring territory?
  *MR. LOWTHER: Perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of that question to the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies.

  MR. PURDIE'S CASE.
  MR. RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to give any further information as to the case of Mr. Purdie, arrested by the French police on a false charge, and for several days refused permission to communicate with the British Ambassador?
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The French Government have expressed regret for the unfortunate mistake by which Messrs. Purdie and Lockwood have been subjected to serious personal inconvenience; but they maintain at the same time that the police acted with perfect good faith, and that French citizens would have been similarly treated under similar circumstances. With reference to the refusal of the permission to communicate with the British Embassy, further communications are in progress with a view to arriving at an arrangement for similarity of treatment in such cases in the two countries.

  SCOTCH PRISONS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is his intention to submit proposals to the Treasury consequent upon the Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Scotch Prisons, in time to enable effect to be given to it before the Dissolution?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): The Secretary for Scotland intends immediately to submit proposals to the Treasury relative to this subject, but is, of course, unable to say whether effect will be given to them before the Dissolution of Parliament.

  METROPOLITAN CABS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the police have any instructions to take the numbers of and summon cabmen who seek for fares while "crawling"?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The police instructions provide generally for carrying out the Acts relating to public carriages, and the Orders of the Secretary of State made under those Acts. By an Order of the Secretary of State, dated 10th March, 1871, the police are enabled to summon drivers of cabs for plying for hire elsewhere than at some standing or place appointed for that purpose, or for causing obstruction by loitering or wilful misbehaviour.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: There are no other special instructions in reference to cabmen?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No.

  POST OFFICE ACCOUNTS AND VOUCHERS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is true, as stated in a letter dated 13th May, 1890, and signed by W. Harris Nicolas, as chief clerk to the Exchequer and Audit Department, that, under an agreement entered into between the Right Honourable H. C. Raikes, M.P., as Postmaster General, and Sir Charles Lister Ryan, the Auditor General, all vouchers relative to Post Office accounts to the year 1881–2 inclusive have been destroyed; and whether he will consent to furnish the litigants in the actions of William Hind v. the Right Honourable W. H. Smith, as the First Lord of the Treasury and others, 1888, Joseph Steer Christopher v. the same, and William Hind v. the Postmaster General, with verified copies of such vouchers for £8,000,000, and also allow them or their agents to inspect the books and documents of the Electric and International Telegraph Company and the United Kingdom Electric Telegraph Company?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: It is the fact that all Post Office accounts and vouchers for the year 1881–2 have been destroyed. As regards the retention of Post Office accounts and

  1275
  vouchers at the Audit Office, the only requirement of the Post Office is that they shall not be destroyed within six years, the period fixed by the Statute of Limitations. This requirement was communicated to the Comptroller and Auditor General in 1880, on the advice of the solicitor to the Department, and has since been maintained.

  EVENING TECHNICAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. RANKIN: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in view of the new regulation in the Code of 1892, Section 106, Sub-section (b), paragraph (v), it would be competent for the Technical Instruction Committee of any County Council to aid any evening schools with respect to those scholars who, having passed the fifth standard in an elementary school, are presented for examination in any special subjects which are permitted to be taught by the Science and Art Department as technical instruction subjects?
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: There is nothing, so far as I am aware, to prevent a Local Authority giving aid to evening schools in respect to those scholars who under Article 106 (b) (v) of the Code are no longer receiving instruction in the obligatory or standard subjects.

  EXAMINATIONS FOR CUSTOMS OFFICERS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury will he explain why the Board of Customs gave no previous notice to the candidates attending the recent examination for the position of first-class examining officer what subjects would be obligatory, what standard of efficiency they would require, or what value was attached in marks to each paper or question; and whether any value was given by the Board of Customs to the official characters previously earned by the candidates in the discharge of their duties?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GORST,): All the subjects at such examinations,
  1276
  which are of a practical nature, are obligatory, and, therefore, no notice to this effect was necessary. It has not been the practice, nor do the Board of Customs think it desirable, to announce the standard of efficiency required or the number of marks to be assigned to each paper or question. Special inquiry was made as to the official character of each candidate, and none but candidates approved by the Board were permitted to be examined.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a knowledge of gauging was obligatory at the recent examination for the position of first-class examining officer, and, if so, will he explain why officers who had no practical acquaintance with this duty were successful, and passed over the heads of senior practical gangers; and how many officers were admitted as having "approved" characters for promotion to the examination, wherein all the subjects were obligatory, who from their first appointment to the second class of examining officers had only performed two or three out of the four kinds of duty on which they were examined; and why the Board did not have the officers examined during the day, but required that they should present themselves after performing their day's work, a course which acted with severity against officers employed during the very inclement weather in January gauging in the open air, and how may this be remedied in future?
  SIR JOHN GORST: Gauging was an obligatory subject, and of the officers who were successful all but one possessed a practical knowledge of it. The appointment of this officer—who passed the written portion of the examination—to the first class on probation was postponed until he had been instructed practically and was reported to be an efficient gauger. In approving officers for examination the Board had to consider only the character which they bore in the Service; their fitness for promotion in other respects was to be tested by the examination. Being a test examination, it was necessary that it should be in all cases on the same day and on the same papers, and the time of day was fixed after full conference with the practical officers

  1277
  of the Department, who were in direct touch with the subordinate officers.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the system of awarding marks at the recent examination for the position of first-class examining officer of Customs, which may have acted detrimentally to at least one experienced senior officer, whether it can be arranged that this officer, who passed the necessary qualifying standard in each subject, will receive his due promotion in the grade?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I do not admit that the system was unfair to any candidate, and I see no reason for treating exceptionally the case to which the hon. Member refers. The case has been carefully considered, and the Board of Customs have every desire to deal impartially with every officer.

  THE YEOMANRY COMMITTEE REPORT.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what action he proposes to take on the recommendations of the Yeomanry Committee?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): The financial effect of the Yeomanry Committee's recommendations has been under the consideration of the Treasury; but, speaking generally, the Secretary of State is prepared to carry out the changes recommended in the Report, subject to variations in some of the minor details.

  DISTURBANCES IN UGANDA.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if Captains Lugard and Williams have now enjoyed a much longer spell of leave than that usually allowed to regimental officers, and if the Commander-in-Chief would now recall these officers to their regiments; if these officers now receive pay from the War Office; and if these officers
  1278
  receive any pay from the East Africa Company, or money in any other shape?
  MR. BRODRICK: No question of leave arises, as these officers are seconded in their regiments. The period of seconding is usually for five years. They receive no pay from Army funds, and I have no knowledge as to their emoluments from other sources.
  MR. PICTONhad notice later on: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Captain Lugard and Captain Williams are in receipt of full or half pay; and, if so, what services do they render Her Majesty in return for it? He now said: I believe the question has already been answered, but am I right in understanding that neither of these officers receives any pay?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir, the hon. Member is quite correct. Neither of these officers receives any pay whatever from the Army funds.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOT:: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a statement in the Times of the 13th instant, with regard to Uganda, that the British East Africa Company have issued an order to abandon it; whether it is the intention of the Government to allow the Company to abandon a sphere which has been allotted to Great Britain; and whether any attempt is to be made to sustain Captain Lugard and his men in the position which they have occupied up to the present time?
  COLONEL NOLAN: Before the First Lord answers I should like to ask a question on the same subject. I should like to ask the First Lord if care will be taken that any additional force under Captain Lugard will not be used either directly or indirectly for the purpose of confiscating the property of Catholics or of taking their lives?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan), I have to say that he appears to

  1279
  assume, firstly, that Captain Lugard has been employed in the destruction of the Catholics; and, secondly, that Her Majesty's Government have approved of that course. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is entirely in error in both those assumptions. With regard to the question on the Paper in the name of my right hon. and gallant Friend, I have to say that I believe the Company have sent instructions to their agents to retire from Uganda at the end of the year. The Government have not, as I understand the matter, any power to compel them to stay. But it must be borne in mind that the withdrawal of the Company's officers by no means implies the abandonment of the country. I can give no opinion on the question put to me in the last paragraph until we obtain information as to Captain Lugard's actual position and prospects, but I may remind my right hon. and gallant Friend that in our opinion the proper way to maintain our position in Uganda is to construct a railway to the eastern shore of Lake Victoria Nyanza; that the surveys are being rapidly proceeded with, and would so far seem to show that the project presents no engineering difficulties.
  SIR W. BARTTELOT: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman this one other question. As I understand his answer, it is the intention of the Government that we are to maintain the sphere in which Uganda is situated?
  MR. BALFOUR: I apprehend there is no intention of altering the sphere of British influence.

  SIR HENRY DRUMMOND WOLFF AND THE BUCHAREST LEGATION.
  MR. LEGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that, upon the appointment of Sir H. Drummond Wolff to the Bucharest Legation, that post was converted into a first-class Mission, and the salary of the Minister raised from £2,500 to £3,500 in consideration of its increased rank and importance, whether he can state why, upon the promotion of Sir H. Wolff to another post, the salary of his successor was reduced by £1,000, the class of the Mission remaining unchanged?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Legation in Roumania was raised to a first-class Mission, but the salary attaching to the post was not increased. The allowance to Sir H. Wolff was a personal one, and ceased upon his transfer to Madrid.
  MR. LEGH: Is it thought desirable to continue the personal allowance on Sir H. Drummond Wolff proceeding to his present appointment?
  MR. LOWTHER: No; the allowance ceased on his being sent to Madrid.
  MR. BRYCE: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it is desirable that some memorandum or statement should be given, explaining the nature of the case and the reasons for departure from ordinary practice?
  MR. LOWTHER: I think such a statement was made at the end of the Session by my right hon. Friend (Sir James Fergusson).

  RIFLE RANGES AT GREAT YARMOUTH.
  SIR HENRY TYLER: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, having reference to the recent Report on the proposed ranges for military purposes in the New Forest, he would now re-consider the question of establishing ranges on the North Denes, Great Yarmouth?
  MR. BRODRICK: The difficulty in the case of the North Denes arises from want of room, but the Secretary of State is still giving the matter careful consideration.

  SOLDIERS AT POLITICAL MEETINGS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been directed to the manner in which a number of non-commissioned officers and men of the 15th Hussars, now stationed at Cahir, were employed in connection with a political meeting held in a park in Cahir on Friday, the 3rd June; whether he is aware that the Hussars were employed with their horses and waggons carrying tables, forms, chairs, &c., from the cavalry barracks to the place of meeting in the park, and another corps of the same regiment were engaged in removing the furniture

  1281
  after the political meeting; and by whose orders and by what authority were these soldiers so employed?
  MR. BRODRICK: The following telegram from the General Commanding in Ireland contains all the information I have on the subject of the hon. Member's question:—
  "Officer commanding 15th Hussars states, with reference to inquiry respecting political meeting at Cahir Park on 3rd June, no noncommissioned officers or men of his regiment were employed, nor is anything known of a political meeting held as stated."
  DR. TANNER: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that the Military Authorities know nothing of the meeting being held?
  MR. BRODRICK: It is quite possible that the meeting was held and the officer knew nothing of it; the information is explicit that no men of the 15th Hussars were employed.
  DR. TANNER: Then it is an absolute denial that the men were there?
  MR. BRODRICK: I have read the telegram, which gives all the information I have.

  BELFAST MEDICAL STUDENTS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether any further attention is being paid to the wish of senior and junior students in the Queen's College, Belfast, for a Summer Session for Anatomy; whether he is aware that such a session is provided in Dublin, and that Belfast students requiring the additional course are at present compelled to take a Summer Session at Dublin University Medical School, at the Catholic University, or the College of Surgeons, and whether any steps will be taken to provide for the alleged want?
  MR. MADDEN: The President of the Queen's College, Belfast, reports that no application for a Summer Session of Anatomy has been made to him, nor is he of opinion that any necessity for it exists.

  PRIVATE NOTICES AT UIG POST OFFICE.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that, amongst the official notices in the Uig Post Office, a notice has been exhibited of the days on
  1282
  which rent will be collected on the Kilmuir Estate, and calling upon the tenants to come forward on the rent days and make payment of their rent and arrears, so as to put themselves in a better position with the estate; and whether the postmasters are permitted to use their premises for notices of this kind?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: A notice such as that described was exhibited in the Uig Sub-Office; but it was removed by the sub-postmaster some days ago. It is contrary to regulations to put any private notices among the official notices.

  EARLY SCOTTISH HISTORY.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, as the Chronicles of the Picts and Scots and other Early Memorials of Scottish History, a volume published by the Treasury, is now out of print, it is intended to again reprint it for sale; and, if not, why not?
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: It is not intended to reprint the volume referred to, as it is not considered that there has been sufficient public demand to justify the expense to the public that would necessarily be incurred.
  DR. CLARK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the book is out of print, and that a premium of ten shillings is charged for it, and that no one can print it, the copyright being with the Treasury?
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: I believe the book is out of print. The first issue was a small one, and the public demand does not justify reprinting.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think the book has a historical interest which should make it worth while to reprint it?
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: I have not perused the book in question.
  DR. CLARK: If the Treasury will not reprint it, will they waive the copyright and allow others to print it?
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question to the authorities concerned.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS HOURS OF LABOUR.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade propose to draw the attention of the Cambrian and four other railway companies mentioned to the following paragraph on page 4 of the Report of the Select Committee on Railway Servants (Hours of Labour):—
  "Sometimes long hours are evidently due to mismanagement, as in the case of the Cambrian, the Waterford and Central Ireland, and the Midland and South-Western Junction Railways; sometimes to a congestion of traffic which ought to have been seen and provided for by additional accommodation and additional staff, as on the North British and the Lancashire and Yorkshire"?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): I think it appears from the recent evidence before the Committee and from the papers presented to the Committee that the particular instances referred to in this part of the Report were being remedied; but with regard to the subject generally, I have given instructions to the railway department of the Board of Trade that the procedure recommended by the Committee in reference to excessive overtime should at once be carried out, as far as is possible, without fresh legislation.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, why the Report of the Select Committee on Railway Servants Hours has been issued without the Minutes of the Proceedings which I understand and believe to be the usual course; and whether, having regard to the general interest in the proceedings of this Committee, he will take steps to have the Minutes of the Proceedings issued immediately?
  *SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: I was informed by the Clerk to the Committee that he had been told by the printers that, owing to the great length of the alternative Report which the hon. Member proposed, it would be impossible for him to print as usual the Report with the proceedings so as
  1284
  to be issued without very considerable delay. As a very inaccurate statement of the Report of the Committee had already appeared in the public Press, I thought it most desirable, as the matter was one of considerable interest, that the accurate Report should at once be issued. I therefore directed that it should be issued at once without the proceedings, at the same time directing that the full Report and proceedings should also be issued as soon as possible without waiting for the evidence.

  EMIGRATION TO BRITISH COLUMBIA.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to introduce legislation sanctioning a loan of £150,000 to the Government of British Columbia, for the purpose of carrying out the policy of Her Majesty's Government of emigration from the Highlands of Scotland; and whether, before doing so, he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of British Columbia, and a copy of the recent Act of the Legislature of that Colony bearing on the same subject?
  MR. GOSCHEN: A Bill is prepared of which I intend to give notice to-day. The Papers to which the hon. Member refers will be laid on the Table.

  MARRIAGES IN INDIA.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, in 1887, the Reverend Father Millard, a Roman Catholic clergyman, was convicted of abetment of bigamy, and sentenced to imprisonment by the Madras High Court, because he had solemnised the marriage of a Roman Catholic convert woman, who had been deserted by her husband, although the said marriage was in strict accordance with the rules of the Roman Catholic Church in such cases, which have been in force among the Roman Catholic community in India for over 300 years, and in accordance with which numerous such marriages have been solemnised

  1285
  throughout the country, both before and after the establishment of British rule, and their legality never previously questioned; whether the Secretary of State for India will consider the desirability of directing the Government of India to pass a short Act embodying the original intentions of the Legislature in 1866, by which the legality of all such marriages may be clearly established with retrospective effect, and so that Roman Catholic clergymen in India may no longer run the risk of tine or imprisonment for performing their duty; and whether the Secretary of State for India will cause to be laid upon the Table all Correspondence connected with the above subject?
  MR. CURZON: Father Millard was convicted because he solemnised a marriage between a man and a woman the latter of whom by the law of the land was still the wife of another man. No steps were taken, as they might have been, under the Native Converts Marriage Dissolution Act of 1866, to annul the first marriage before performing the second. The Indian Christian Marriage Law has recently on two occasions been very carefully revised by Acts II. of 1881 and II. of 1892, of the Governor General's Council; and it seems unnecessary to take any further action in the matter. The Secretary of State has no Correspondence on the subject. The case is reported at page 218 of the Madras Law Reports, Volume X.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman is it to be understood that the only reason why this Roman Catholic priest was convicted of the offence of marrying the couple was the fact that necessary precautions had not been taken with regard to the former marriage?
  MR. CURZON: The hon. Member must draw what inferences he pleases from the first part of my answer. I merely state the facts.

  DISTRAINT FOR TAXES.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has been informed that a man named Bird, representing himself to be a tax gatherer for Brixton, entered the dwelling house, No. 10, Zenoria Street, East Dulwich,
  1286
  and refused to give his name or that of his fellow visitor, and distrained for taxes which he had never asked the landlord for; if the said Bird is as he represented a tax gatherer; and if there is any redress for the illegal distraint?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Mr. Bird is the collector of taxes for the district. The taxes are payable on or before 1st January, and it is the duty of the collector to recover payment of them on the premises assessed. Collectors of taxes are not bound to apply to landlords, and as the tenant of the house in question failed to pay on the repeated demands of the collector, the latter had no alternative but to enforce payment. As to the alleged refusal of Mr. Bird to give his name, Mr. Bird on entering the premises handed his warrant to the tenant, and called attention to his name which was inserted therein. Mr. Bird is appointed by the Local Commissioners, and is not an officer of the Inland Revenue Department. Any complaint as to his conduct should be made to the Local Commissioners.

  KISHNAGHUR STATE COLLEGE.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether any proposals for the abolition of the Kishnaghur State College have been made by the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal; whether he is aware that, both on the occasion of the foundation of the College and again in 1874–6, large sums of money were subscribed by the Maharajah of Nuddea and other residents in the district for the endowment of the College, and that these sums of money were made over to the Government on the faith that the district would permanently enjoy the advantage of a first-grade State College; and whether the Government of Bengal will be instructed to take no irrevocable step in the matter until it has been submitted to the judgment of the Secretary of State in Council.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CURZON,): In accordance with the recommendations of the Education Commission, the Local Municipality was asked to take over the management of the Kishnaghur College, with a grant in aid; but refused the

  1287
  offer. It is, however, still hoped that the transfer of the College to local management may be effected, and it would be premature to contemplate the abolition of the College. The Government accepted an endowment of Rs. 40,000 raised by public subscription for the support of a B.A. class. In the event of the closing of the class, it would be necessary for the Government to deal with the question of the endowment. The subject is receiving very careful consideration in India; and the Secretary of State sees no reason for issuing any special instructions.

  PETROLEUM IN THE SUEZ CANAL.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the Petitions of British shipowners representing about 5,000,000 tons of shipping, and forming a very large proportion of the shipping using the Suez Canal, in which the shipowners strongly protest against the Provisional Regulations and the proposed authorisation of the passage of tank steamers laden with petroleum on the Canal by reason of its climatic and other exceptional conditions, and in view of the fact that the shipowners' protests have been sustained to the fullest in the Report of the eminent petroleum authorities, Sir Frederick Abel and Mr. Boverton Redwood, he will instruct the Government Directors on the Board of the Suez Canal to urge as Directors upon the Suez Canal Company, that the whole question shall be re-considered with the technical assistance of Sir Frederick Abel and Mr. Boverton Redwood, with the object of securing the protection of navigation in the Suez Canal under Rules so framed that the flags of all nations shall receive equal treatment?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Report of Sir Frederick Abel and Mr. Boverton Redwood has been placed before the Board of Directors of the Suez Canal Company, and it does not appear to be necessary to address further instructions to the British Directors on the subject.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Under Secre-
  1288
  tary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the police rights of Egypt in regard to bulk petroleum in or on the waters of the Suez Canal, or in the ports situate in or along and adjacent to the Suez Canal, are limited to the sale of petroleum?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The nature and extent of the police rights or Egypt is a subject over which Her Majesty's Government has no control, and on which it is unable to express any opinion.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the position established by Her Majesty's Government that the Suez Canal Company cannot make Regulations or bye-laws in excess of the powers given under its concession, and the further fact established by Her Majesty's Government that the Egyptian Government is free to enact, under its police rights, regulations in relation to petroleum, will he inform the House what course is left to shipowners in the event of a conflict between the Regulations of the Suez Canal Company and the Police Laws of Egypt in the matter of bulk petroleum in or on the waters of the Suez Canal, or in the ports of Egypt situate in, along, and adjacent to the Canal?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The question is a purely hypothetical one, and, in any event, it is not one for Her Majesty's Government to determine.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing, as stated by him, that the Provisional Regulations of the Suez Canal Company claim for the first time to make compulsory what has hitherto been optional, Her Majesty's Government will advise the Suez Canal Company to withhold the Provisional Regulations, pending the decision of the Egyptian Courts as to the matter of the legality or illegality of the Provisional Regulations now submitted for the decision of the International Courts of Egypt?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: On Tuesday last I replied to an almost identical question put to me by the hon. Member

  1289
  for North Mayo (Mr. Crilly), and I have nothing to add to the answer which I then gave.

  HACKETSTOWN AND THE POST OFFICE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware of the great inconvenience the inhabitants of the town of Hacketstown and the populous districts surrounding suffer for want of a telegraph office; whether he is aware that Hacketstown has fourteen fairs in the year, and an important weekly market, and that a delivery fee of two shillings is charged for a telegram from the nearest office at Kiltegan, a distance of three miles; and whether, under these circumstances, and as Hacketstown has already good post office accommodation, and as the cost of laying a wire between Kiltegan and Hacketstown cannot be much, he will have telegraph communication established at Hacketstown?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: The question of an extension to Hacketstown was under consideration in 1883, and renewed inquiries on the subject have only recently been made. It does not appear, however, that there is any prospect of a telegraph office at that place being remunerative, and the Department is, therefore, not in a position to make the extension, except under guarantee. The amount of the guarantee required could be ascertained, and communicated to the hon. Member.

  CUSTOMS' BOATMEN.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of giving more favourable consideration to the case of the boatmen, who are termed by him as the "first line of defence of Her Majesty's Revenue"; whether he is aware that the boatmen desired the abolition of classification on condition that their yearly increment of £1 be raised to £2 10s.; whether that will be conceded them now, or will they be placed on the same footing as boy clerks as regards increment; and is he aware that, before the decision to abolish the two classes, a boatman could rise to
  1290
  the maximum of £80 in seventeen years, whereas under the present régime it will take twenty-five years?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Customs' boatmen, as well as all other branches of the Service, deserve and receive every consideration. The Board of Customs are carrying out the provisions of the Treasury Minute with strict impartiality. With regard to the remainder of the hon. Member's question, certain recommendations have just been received from the Board of Customs, which there has not yet been time to consider.

  EMMANUEL HOSPITAL.
  MR. WILLIAM LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Attorney General will he explain on what grounds he has sanctioned a scheme for the sale of Emmanuel Hospital, Westminster, although the Charity Commissioners had refused their sanction and the London County Council had also declared against the sale; and will Parliament have any opportunity of pronouncing a judgment upon this proposal to destroy an ancient building and to build over an open site in a crowded quarter of the Metropolis?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): After most carefully considering the whole of the evidence brought before me and given at the local inquiry, and personally inspecting Emmanuel Hospital, I came to the conclusion that in the interests of the Charity it was not possible to continue to hold the existing building. As the law at present stands Parliament will not have any opportunity of pronouncing a judgment upon the proposal, but I must not be understood to assent to the criticism on the proposal conveyed in the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question. I should also like to mention that the whole matter is again under the consideration of Mr. Justice Chitty, before whom the proper parties were represented, and he has reserved his judgment.

  THEOLOGICAL TESTS IN SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Scotch Universities' Commissioners

  1291
  have yet presented to Her Majesty their Report relating to the subject of Theological Tests in the Scotch Universities, which it is understood was settled by them some time ago; and, if so, when that Report will be printed and circulated?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Commissioners have not yet presented their Report on this subject to Her Majesty, and it is understood that the terms have not yet been finally settled by them.
  MR. BRYCE: May I ask the First Lord whether, if it is presented within the next fortnight or so, he will have it printed and distributed at once?
  MR. BALFOUR: I am not sure that it will not have to be laid on the Table as a Parliamentary Paper?
  MR. BRYCE: It is, as I understand, a Report to be presented to Her Majesty.
  MR. BALFOUR: Then I will inquire into the matter.

  THE CASE OF JOHN HONIHAN.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland what are the most recent reports of the condition of John Honihan, of Derry, Donoughmore, County Cork, at present undergoing imprisonment in Mountjoy Prison, who was recently seriously injured; and whether, in view of the mitigating circumstances attending his conviction, an early release will be recommended?
  MR. MADDEN: The General Prisons Board for Ireland report that the convict referred to sustained a compound fracture of the bones of his left leg. The surgeon of the Prison states that the case is making satisfactory progress. The Lord Lieutenant has already had the conviction of this man before him on Memorial. His Excellency found that there were no mitigating circumstances in the case, and decided that the law must take its course.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will move to discharge Order No. 24, Public Elementary Schools Bill, to-day in
  1292
  view of the opposition to that measure; and without expressing any personal opinion as to the exemption of schools from rating I would ask him whether the restrictions on the use of schools for meetings contained in the Bill are not greater than those which now exist, so that the Bill must be strongly opposed on this side of the House?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Of course I cannot discuss the merits of the Bill in answer to a question; but I may express my dissent from the view of the hon. Gentleman that the second part of the Bill will not confer a great advantage upon those who desire to hold meetings in schools. With regard to the Bill generally, I am afraid that it is now impossible to find time to pass it, as opposition has been promised from many quarters, and not alone from the other side of the House. In these circumstances, although with very great reluctance indeed, I am forced to come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to press it through during the remainder of the present Session.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: My right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) intended to be here, and I know that it would have been his object to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, and to ask his consideration of the propriety of doing at this stage of public business that which has often been done in former Parliaments and former Sessions—namely, to take on the Saturday the last stage of the Appropriation Bill. The Appropriation Bill could then be finished on Saturday next. I have looked carefully through this long list of Bills upon the Paper, and, with one or two exceptions which I will immediately name, I believe every one of these Bills could be disposed of either to-day, Friday, or Saturday. We all know that when a Bill is not opposed, and when there has been no Amendment requiring the Report stage, the consent of the House is very readily given to the Third Reading. I believe, with the exception of No. 23, which is a Money Bill (the Mauritius Loan Guarantee), about which there will be no difficulty, and

  1293
  which requires all the stages to be taken, that all the Bills upon this Paper could be disposed of by Saturday next; and this would, of course, relieve hon. Members, and allow them practically to go where they are much more wanted than they will be here. That applies equally to both sides. The right hon. Gentleman has very fairly said that he will take off the Paper No. 24 (the Public Elementary Schools Bill), and I imagine that for the same reason he will be willing to take off No. 9 (Archdeaconry of Cornwall Bill). I have never read the Bill, but the mere title of it shows that it is an Ecclesiastical Bill, and is, therefore, not an easy Bill to pass at any time, but especially now. There is also the East India Officers Bill; and the expression of opinion made on the other side of the House yesterday ought, I think, to convince the right hon. Gentleman that that Bill ought not to be proceeded with at present. If these three Bills disappear from the Government list, I can see nothing upon that list that might not be entirely disposed of in the present week. I am aware that a Saturday Sitting involves a certain amount of inconvenience; but according to my calculations of the list, there would, in addition to the Appropriation Bill, be only one Bill that would have to be taken on Saturday, and it is unopposed. As to the Indian Budget, an arrangement might be made whereby it could be taken next week if that were considered desirable. I venture to suggest these things to the right hon. Gentleman's consideration. Of course, it is not necessary for him to give notice until to-morrow of the Saturday Sitting, but he might consider the propriety of it between now and to-morrow.
  MR. PICTON: Is the First Lord of the Treasury aware, with regard to Order No. 9 (Archdeaconry of Cornwall Bill), that the opposition is not entirely confined to this side of the House?
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be right to postpone the discussion of the Indian Budget to a period when, according to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, all the Members of the
  1294
  House, or very nearly all of them, would have gone to their constituencies?
  MR. BALFOUR: In reply to my hon. Friend, no doubt, if the Indian Budget were taken next week, my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India would have to address a very empty House, but I do not think that that is peculiar to this Session; for my recollection of previous Debates on Indian Budgets is that, however eloquent the speaker addressing the House may be, the audience, though select in point of quality, is very small in point of quantity. With regard to the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that we should have a Saturday Sitting, I should certainly have no objection to that course if anything could be gained by it, but I should be unwilling to take it if nothing is to be gained by it, because it compels Mr. Speaker and the officers of the House and a sufficient number of Members to be here to make a quorum. Now the House must sit next week, as there must be Business from the Lords; and it is impossible that we can adjourn until the early part of next week. I therefore do not think that anything will be gained by having a Saturday Sitting. I do not mean that this must necessarily be a final answer, and if the right hon. Gentleman thinks it unsatisfactory I shall be prepared to give him a final answer to-morrow.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I wish to say a single word in reference to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) and from my right hon. Friend (Sir William Harcourt). To-morrow, I hope, we shall have some further information on the subject of the Bills that are to be proceeded with. On the question of the Saturday Sitting, undoubtedly we thought that for the sake of the greater security of expediting Public Business it might be wise; but if the right hon. Gentleman sees his way quite clearly without it, it is not our duty to endeavour to force it upon him or upon the House. I do hope that when we have further information about the Bills we shall likewise have further information on the subject of the day of the Dissolu-

  1295
  tion. The arrangements of everyone, or of those who intend, or who have youth and vigour sufficient, to submit themselves anew to the constituencies, are to a considerable extent dependent upon a knowledge of the day; and it undoubtedly would be a matter of very great and real convenience, with a view to fixing a number of necessary arrangements, if the right hon. Gentleman could give us some further light upon that subject to-morrow. I am quite in the hope that he will do so. I believe that he has had some information conveyed to him to-day on the part of the London trades with respect to a question which was raised here a few days ago as to the day of polling, and if he has had that information I have no doubt it will receive from the right hon. Gentleman his best attention. I am certainly in the hope that to-morrow we shall be put in a tolerably clear position as to the expectations of the Government for the final winding up of the Business and the discharge of the necessary preliminaries before the Dissolution takes place.
  MR. PICTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that Order No. 9 will not be taken this evening?
  MR. BALFOUR: It will not be taken this evening.
  MR. CAUSTON: I wish to ask the Postmaster General whether official notice has been issued by the Post Office Authorities with regard to the acceptance of polling cards with the name of the voter only written on them at the halfpenny rate?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): Official notice has been issued.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 234.)
  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): I understand it would be more convenient that the Bill should be recommitted.
  Order discharged.
  Bill re-committed.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. SEXTON: If there are any Amendments to be made in the body of the Bill, shall we have to take the body of the Bill first, or the new clauses first and the body of the Bill afterwards?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY,): The Bill being re-committed, generally the procedure will be the same as ordinarily in Committee. We shall have to go through the clauses as they stand before taking the new clauses.
  Clause 1.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I think the most convenient way will be for me to move the rejection of this clause in order to refer to the statement made yesterday by the Chief Secretary. An Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), and upon the Debate which then took place my right hon. Friend suggested that he saw a Way of meeting the difficulty that the hon. Member for West Belfast felt in agreeing to this clause. The proposal he made to the Committee was to the effect that, the hon. Member for West Belfast having suggested that the Christian Brothers were prepared to accept a form of Conscience Clause, he was on his part ready to make a recommendation to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to reconsider the rule which prevents the Christian Brothers becoming a portion of the national system of education in Ireland. When that statement was made by my right hon. Friend I felt constrained to say that I could not give my consent to it, and that I must, on behalf of myself and my friends, hold myself and them perfectly free as to any future action we may feel compelled to take upon this suggested alteration of the rule of the National Board. That action had been commented upon in a way that I think is somewhat unfair both to myself and to my hon. Friends. It has been suggested in some important quarters in the Press that we who

  1297
  were present here yesterday had adopted an attitude that differed more or less materially from the attitude adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), on the First and Second Reading of the Bill. That I entirely contest. The view which was expressed yesterday by the hon. Member for East Down (Mr. Rentoul) appears to me to be precisely that expressed by the hon. Member for South Tyrone on the First and Second Reading of this Bill. I venture to remind the Committee of the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. He said, speaking on the First Reading—
  "The right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that, although this system of national education was a mixed system, yet by the consent alike of Protestant and of Catholic it was rapidly becoming denominational. I challenge the fact itself, and I challenge the description of the fact";
  and then he went on to say—
  "I am agreeably surprised that the right hon. Gentleman appears to have taken a little bit of everybody's advice, and the only persons left out in the cold are the Christian Brothers. The answer to that is, let them do as the monastery schools do and the convents do, and they will come under the national grant at once; but so long as they insist upon a Catholic atmosphere in the schools, they cannot expect the rules of the National Board upon which this system is founded to be broken down to suit them."
  Then, upon the Second Reading of the measure, my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone alluded to this peculiar aspect of the case, and drew attention to some evidence given by the Director of the Christian Brothers' Schools before the Commission of 1867, not only with regard to the general character of Catholic denominational education, but also with regard to the character of the emblems. Then he went on to say—
  "I say that to introduce these schools into the national system of education would be to break up the foundation principle of that system. That may be a proper thing to do, but it should be done with fair notice—fairly and squarely. There is no reason why every denominational school should not be admitted if the Christian Brothers are admitted, and there is no reason why the Church should not proceed straightway to endow religious teaching of all kinds. But we in Ireland have disestablished a Protestant Church, and we are not willing to endow another Church by this indirect but thoroughly effective means."
  1298
  The hon. Member for East Tyrone (Mr. Reynolds) said he objected to touch the question of denominational teaching; but that if it were touched at all, it should be dealt with as a new principle, and not by introducing the thin end of the wedge. It seems to me that his remarks were founded on the same principle as those of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, and I would say that I and my hon. Friends draw a very strong distinction between denominational teaching and the system of mixed education. I admit absolutely and frankly that the principle of mixed education in Ireland has been very seriously invaded not only by Members of the Roman Catholic Church, but by members of the Episcopalian and other Churches. The principle that now exists in Ireland is that of mixed and unmixed education, but denominational teaching is excluded from all the schools under the Board. A member of the Board stated before a Royal Commission in 1870 that the intention of the founders of the system was to prevent any of the children going to schools under the Board from being subjected to any religious teaching to which their parents could object, and he went on to state that that principle was carried into effect by positive and absolute rules. Now, the right hon. Gentleman yesterday said he was willing to recommend to or to lay before the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland a fresh form of Conscience Clause. I have since communicated with many gentlemen who would be in a position to form an opinion on this subject, and I have asked them to let me have their views with regard to it. They have done so; and their view is that any alteration of the Conscience Clause which exists at the present time is objectionable, and would be a departure from the principle of this Bill. That being so, it is impossible for me to assent to the proposition of my right hon. Friend. I had no opportunity yesterday, nor shall I have to-day, of taking the opinion of the House upon the question, so I simply state that the proposal is one which, so far as I can ascertain, is objectionable to those who are best fitted to speak with authority on the subject of education in that portion of Ireland which I

  1299
  represent. I wish to point out that the form in which the right hon. Gentleman made the proposal—I refer to the report of it in the Times—has led intelligent and competent authorities to entertain a dislike to it. I would here again refer to the evidence given by the member of the Education Board in Ireland before the Commission in 1870. When asked—
  "Are the emblems in the schools such as would be objectionable to Protestants?"
  his reply was "Yes, I think so." Now, having regard to the various objections which the Christian Brothers have had to coming under the system of the National Education Board in Ireland, it may be imagined that the proposal made yesterday by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Jackson) went further than it really did. I will read what the Pall Mall Gazette says upon the subject—
  "The schools of the Christian Brothers, Mr. Jackson agrees, shall participate in the additional grants now to be made. Some form of Conscience Clause is to be introduced, but the Catholic emblems are not to be removed, nor of course is Catholic religious instruction during hours not devoted to secular teaching to be interfered with."
  It goes on to say—
  "And thus it remains true to say that every glass of whisky drunk during the Belfast Convention will contribute something to the maintenance of Catholic emblems in the schools of the Christian Brothers."
  Now, I do not think that the words of my hon. Friend bear that meaning; but if the interpretation given to them by such an important organ—at all events, in Radical circles—as the Pall Mall Gazette is a true one, and they mean something very different from what my right hon. Friend intended, it can be understood that I and my hon. Friends are anxious to have a definite statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to the real extent of the offer he made yesterday, and which was accepted by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). This is a matter of very great importance, upon which I and my hon. Friends have the strongest possible opinions, and I trust, therefore, it will not be considered that I have unduly taken up the time of the Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be omitted."—(Mr. Macartney.)
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  COLONEL NOLAN: The hon. Gentleman, who, I believe, is a large shareholder in the Pall Mall Gazette, has certainly advertised that paper uncommonly well in the House of Commons. The leading article he has quoted appears, to a certain extent, to express triumph over some of the Ulster Members. As for the statement that
  "Every glass of whisky drunk during the Belfast Convention will contribute something to the maintenance of Catholic emblems in the schools of the Christian Brothers,"
  no doubt it is true in a sense, as it would also be true that every glass drunk would help to maintain other schools in Ireland, or that every glass drunk at a meeting held for the overthrow of the British Government would tend to the support of the British Army and Navy. Now, what is the present position of affairs in the towns of Ireland? The boys of the schools are getting no help whatever from the State, simply because the Christian Brothers only receive assistance from the Science and Art Department, which is very small and inconsiderable. I cannot understand why Protestants in the North of Ireland should care so much about the education of Catholics in other parts of Ireland. I would point out that the Conscience Clause suggested by the Chief Secretary will thoroughly protect all Protestants. It appears to me that the hon. Member for South Antrim has referred to the article in the Pall Mall Gazette merely in order to show that his Party are not beaten. But we do not consider his Party at all; we only want to get a share of taxation for the education of boys in Ireland. We believed that the result of the compromise suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be that the Christian Brothers would get a fair share of the fee grant, and it was upon that understanding that we withdrew our opposition to the Bill. On the whole, I think it is a fair and straightforward arrangement, and the article read by the hon. Member ought not to interfere with it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for South Antrim made a speech with the object of getting a declaration from the Chief Secretary, and the discussion ought to be confined to that.
  MR. SEXTON: The question at issue yesterday was whether schools should be included in the Bill unless they were declared by the State to be inefficient. I withdrew my Amendment and agreed to accept the concession of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for South Antrim, on no better plea than some racy and humorous remarks in an article in an evening newspaper, invites the House to reopen the question. I trust that the House will be satisfied with the full Debate which has taken place with regard to it, and not agree to go over the same ground again. Had the schools of the Christian Brothers been excluded from the Bill, it must have proved abortive in the towns and cities of Ireland, as it could never have been carried into effect. As to the form of the Conscience Clause, I would point out that that which is enforced in the primary schools is one which was devised by the Board itself, and that it has never received the sanction of Parliament. It is one also that has been constantly objected to, and twenty years ago it was condemned by a Royal Commission consisting equally of Protestants and Catholics. I challenged hon. Members yesterday to say in what respect the Conscience Clause under which the schools of the Christian Brothers work differs from the Conscience Clause enforced in the primary schools of England and Scotland. There was no answer. It is substantially the same. We desire not only that the Christian Brothers' schools, but that the schools of the Church Education Society and other Protestant voluntary schools in Ireland should benefit by the Bill. There was no suggestion to override the rules of the National Board, or that any schools should be brought under the Bill unless they complied with those rules. The suggestion made yesterday was that it should be referred to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to consider a revision of their rules, so that they may be better applied to the primary system of education in Ireland. The posi-
  1302
  tion taken up by the hon. Member for South Antrim was that the Commissioners should not be allowed to consider the revision of their own rules. But surely you would have established a new state of things. Under the Bill as it stood you would have had neither free nor compulsory education. The parents could not have been fined if they sent their children to the Christian Brothers' schools, and the managers of those schools could not be compelled to receive them without payment. Therefore, I say that the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Antrim is not entitled to serious consideration.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: The hon. Member who has just sat down states that the Conscience Clause is an absolute security. I agree with him, and, therefore, I ask what is the necessity for the clause relating to the religious objection of parents to send their children to a school? If the Conscience Clause is an absolute protection, why is anything more required? The insertion of this provision is an admission of the principle that it is not a protection, and opens the door to the argument that there must be a Board School in every English parish, and the effect of them in Ireland may be to do away with compulsory education.
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member for South Antrim has quoted a newspaper article, but anyone who heard the statement I made yesterday must know that it could not be interpreted as it has been interpreted in that article. The question raised by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) was as to the Conscience Clause in the Intermediate Act of 1878, which he said the Christian Brothers preferred to the clause in the rules and regulations of the Education Board. The question I was asked was whether I would consent to refer to the National Education Commissioners whether that clause might be substituted in the rules and regulations of the Commissioners in place of the clause which now exists. I tried to clearly express my opinion, and I believe my actual words were, "I decline to make any recommendation to the Education Commissioners." I still

  1303
  hold that opinion, and I say that the proposal made to me was one that I could not reasonably resist. I shall not discuss the question as to whether or in what respect the Conscience Clause in the Intermediate Education Act of 1878 differs from the Conscience Clause in the rules and regulations of the Commissioners, because I do not desire to express any opinion upon the relative merits of these two clauses. The simple question was that certain schools in Ireland which objected to the Conscience Clause in the rules and regulations of the Education Commissioners were willing, and in fact were working under the clause which has been prepared by Parliament, and embodied in the Act of 1878. I thought, and think still, that the proposal was not in itself unreasonable, and I certainly did assent to the question being referred to the National Education Commissioners to say whether they were able to accept that clause in lieu of that included in the rules and regulations. And, as was stated by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), of course no grants will be made to either the Christian Brothers' Schools or to the Church Educational Schools, or to any of the other schools, without conforming to the rules and regulations of the Education Commissioners. I must say that I consider the interpretation which has been given one entirely unwarranted by anything I said, and I hope, after this expression of opinion, my hon. Friend will feel that there is no justification for the construction which has been put upon it.
  *MR. BARTON: I desire to associate myself with my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim in reference to this concession, which I quite understand my right hon. Friend gave, with the object, perhaps, among others, of ensuring that this valuable measure should not be lost. While joining in the protest, I fully recognise that, and I am sure the House will agree with the wish that the Bill which will undoubtedly confer great benefits on Ireland should pass. My right hon. Friend will fully understand the position in which we are placed. We are the only Members present representing the
  1304
  Ulster constituencies, and those constituencies feel deeply on this question. From the first, one of the points they have insisted on is the one now in question. I have received this resolution from the Free Education Committee—
  "The Committee desire to express their unshaken adherence to the Conscience Clause as at present enforced in National Schools."
  Thus I am only performing my duty in saying we regret that the right hon. Gentleman has in any way relaxed that rule. As I understand, my right hon. Friend has spoken of referring one matter only to the Commissioners for consideration—namely, the question of substituting the Conscience Clause in the Intermediate Act for the Conscience Clause at present enforced in the national schools. I did not hear anything further in his speech. He said that he was only going to refer that matter to them, and thus he cannot be misunderstood as pressing on the Board a course of action. While I think the explanation of my right hon. Friend has fully disproved the unfortunate construction which certain newspapers have placed upon his statement, my right hon. Friend will recognise that my hon. Friend and I are only representing the views of the Protestant community of Ireland in saying that we do object to any relaxation of the rules. We cannot, however, push that objection to the length of in any way stopping a measure which will, I have no doubt, not only confer great benefits upon Ireland, but also great credit on the right hon. Gentleman.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am afraid that I am partly responsible for the inconvenience to which my hon. Friend, or, rather, the other Representatives from Ulster, have been placed by not being able to be present here at the discussion of a measure in which they take great interest. My hon. Friends will recognise that the course of Business during the present week has been difficult to manage so as to suit the convenience of everybody, and that really the Government bad no choice but to take the Bill on the day we did take it. I had less reluctance in coming to that arrangement, as I am

  1305
  convinced that in reality no question has been raised either yesterday or today which can legitimately arouse the susceptibilities of any section of the Protestant population of Ireland. What my right hon. Friend has done is to promise that the National Board of Education should consider two alternatives to the Conscience Clause. I do not wish, of course, to express an opinion upon this clause, but I think I may say that no one has contended that the Conscience Clause embodied by the Act of 1878—a Conscience Clause accepted by all the sections of Irish opinion at that time, and it never has been criticised, so far as I know, by any body of Irish opinion since—nobody will, I think, pretend to contend that that Conscience Clause is less stringent in its character or less capable of affording adequate protection to all children, to whatever denomination they may belong, in Ulster or any other part of Ireland. The suggestion has been made that my right hon. Friend went much further than that—that he proceeded not merely to suggest the consideration of two alternatives to the Conscience Clause, but that he also desired to have the other rules and regulations of the Board of Education overhauled with a view to modifying the present system by which education is regulated in Ireland; and suggestions have been made that my right hon. Friend desired either directly or indirectly to open vexed and most controversial questions. That is not a legitimate conclusion to anything my right hon. Friend said; it does not express either the views or intentions of the Government, and that being so, I hope my two hon. Friends, who are the only Representatives of Ulster present, will feel that we have not in any way attempted to carry into this Bill any question to which particular objection can be taken by any section of Protestant opinion in Ulster or any other part of Ireland.
  MR. SEXTON: I only wish to add my deliberate opinion that any arrangement which may be made which does not result in the admission of the voluntary schools will render this Act, so far as compulsion is concerned, a dead letter.
  MR. BARTON: I admit that the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury has done good, to my mind, and while recognising that my right hon. Friend has made a statement which it would be disrespectful not to accept, I regret myself that any relaxation was made.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  *MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: In reference to this clause I would point out that if no school suitable for the education of children exist in a neighbourhood, it is only necessary to make representations to the Education Department, and a School Board district can be formed. It seems to me these words are really unnecessary. If you say that no employer shall compel a child to attend a school to which the parent objects, the meaning is that an employer can compel a child to attend school if the parent does not object. That, however, is not the case. An employer cannot, either under the Factory Act or under this Bill, compel a child to attend school. I consider the words are unnecessary and inconsistent with the rest of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, lines 18 and 19, to leave out after "1891," the words "but no employer shall compel a child to attend a school to which its parent objects on religious grounds."—(Mr. Sydney Gedge.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The words proposed to be left out were yesterday suggested from the opposite side of the House, and they met with very general support. I do not myself apprehend the disastrous consequences which my hon. Friend assumes. I submit to the Committee that the Amendment should not be accepted.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Yesterday I opposed the insertion of these words, and I venture to suggest to the Committee that neither the Government nor the Front Opposition Bench knew exactly what the positions of the employers and half-timers were under the

  1307
  Factory Act and under this Bill. My advice was not taken, and I discovered almost immediately after the decision that the view I took that Irish employers were guilty of no action peculiar to themselves was perfectly correct. They have done precisely what is being done in England, and in Scotland, at the present moment, and has been done for some years—that is, they make it a condition of the employment of children as half-timers that they shall go to a particular school. That is all that has been done in Ulster, and that is what is going on at the present moment in England. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) put a question to the Vice President of the Council for Education (Sir William Hart Dyke) to the following effect:—
  "Whether he is aware that in the town and district of Rochdale, when children are taken from a Board School for employment as half-timers, it is frequently the practice of their employers to insist that the children should be taken from the school preferred by the parents and sent to some other school selected by the employer, and most commonly of a denominational character; and whether parents who send their children into employment as half-timers thereby lose the right to the free choice of a school; and, if not, whether he can take any means to prevent the inaction of this right in Rochdale and the neighbourhood?"
  The Vice President replied—
  "So far as I am aware, no complaint of the kind suggested has reached the Department, and I do not know of any practice in the matter calling for interference. It is obvious that a parent's right to select a school cannot be affected by the fact that a child attends as a half-timer, but it may be the case that a school is sometimes maintained in connection with a factory in which a child is at work, and the child is expected to attend that school as a matter of convenience."
  What the Vice President said with regard to England is precisely the operation of the law in Ireland. Nor are there any means in Ireland more than in England which can deprive the parent of the right to select a school for the education of his child. What happens is this—that in Ireland, as in England, the employer says: "If your child is to be employed in my factory or mill as a half-timer, then I make it a condition of employment that he or she should go to a certain school"; and this is not only for the convenience of the child, but also for the benefit of its education. It is convenient that
  1308
  the children who are half-timers in a particular factory should go to the half-time school, where every arrangement is made for their convenience and for the benefit of their education. What did the Committee do yesterday? While permitting in England a system which enables the employers to make it a condition of employment that the child should go to a particular school, you decided to penalise the Irish employer if he should observe that procedure. I think the Committee were in a great hurry, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland is taking a very light view of the effect of the clause. Either it has no effect, and so is absolutely unnecessary, or else it will have some effect upon the employer in Ulster and in other parts of Ireland and does make this a condition of the employment of half-timers. If that is so, it is an unjust interference with the conditions an employer ought to be able to impose, and the words, therefore, ought not to be introduced into the clause. I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment.
  MR. SEXTON: No doubt the Committee were in a hurry at half-past five, but at the hour at which these words were adopted they were not in a hurry. The question was debated at leisure by the hon. Member and others, and the Committee, after hearing all that was said on both sides by Gentlemen who were under no obligation to consult their sentiments, divided upon the question, and in the Division 106 Members of all parties voted for the insertion of the words, and ten Members voted against it. Of the ten Members, we have learned that four got into the wrong Lobby. Therefore, it really was a Division of 110 against six. That having been the state of opinion in the House of Commons, after the simple question had been clearly explained, it argues hardihood on the part of the hon. Gentleman to raise the question again to-day. The abstract reasoning of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) has little to do with the case. The hon. Member is a fine example of the Englishman who knows more about Ireland than the men who have lived there all their life. He considers his abstract reasoning is

  1309
  superior to their knowledge of the actual conditions of life; but I submit that knowledge of the actual conditions of life is more important than the abstract reasoning of the hon. Member for Stockport. I endorse what I said yesterday, upon the authority of a gentleman who was formerly President of the National Teachers' Association, and upon the authority of a gentleman responsibly connected with education, that in many parts of Ulster the employers do compel Catholic children in their employment on pain of dismissal to go to a school taught by Protestant teachers, although there is a Catholic school taught by a teacher available. I call that an outrage on fair play; I call it an unjustifiable assault on conscience; I call it tyranny. The hon. Member yesterday challenged me to give particulars. I did not wish to give the names, nor will I now. But since yesterday I have had telegrams assuring me upon the authority of well-known gentlemen that there is an important firm in Belfast which deducts school fees from the wages of children who attend the Catholic school. If a child, Catholic or Protestant, attends the Protestant school there is no deduction of school fees; and further, the firm pays the Protestant teacher £30 per year, and the Catholic teacher nothing. That is the sort of thing going on. I do not refer to Belfast employers. The words I proposed embrace employers all over Ireland, whether Protestant or Catholic; and if I were a Magistrate, and a Catholic employer were brought before me for compelling a Protestant child to go to a Catholic school or deducting school fees from it because it went to a Protestant school, nobody would be more ready than I would to inflict a penalty. All I ask for is fair play and no allowance of tyranny by any man, whether Catholic or Protestant. I hope hon. Members will not delay the House much longer on a subject which provoked, I think, the most overwhelming Division I have known in my time.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  MR. MADDEN: I move to leave out the word "wilfully," in line 21. If the word remained in it would be necessary to prove that the employer wilfully employed a child which was under age. If the word were omitted no employer would then take in his employ a child under age.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 21, after the word "fact," to leave out the word "wilfully."—(Mr. Madden.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6.
  MR. MADDEN: I beg to move, in line 7, to insert the word "and" after "metropolis."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 7 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 13.
  On Motion of Mr. MADDEN, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Page 6, line 30, after the word "the," insert "third."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
  Schedule.
  MR. SEXTON: According to the first provision of the Schedule, the grant is to be applied in augmenting by twenty per cent. the existing rate of salaries of class teachers and of salaries of assistant teachers, and by three shillings and sixpence the capitation grant to schools receiving such grants and not having teachers paid by class salaries. Now, this augmented capitation grant is the amount to be paid chiefly to convent school teachers in order to render their treatment equivalent to that which the ordinary national teachers receive by the addition of twenty per cent. to their salaries. I am sensible that it would be very difficult to urge a case for a larger grant to the convent schools out of this particular sum of £210,000 a year; but I desire to most seriously represent to the right hon. Gentleman the

  1311
  unequal position of the convent schools of Ireland in comparison with the national schools. By the most conclusive test, that of inspection and examination, these convent schools are acknowledged to be the most efficient schools in Ireland. I lately cited some figures from the last annual Report of the Commissioners, which showed that the percentage of results in the convent infant schools was three per cent. better than that of the national schools, and that in the higher class the percentages were correspondingly better, until in the highest classes the percentage was sixteen per cent. better than in the other schools. The teachers in the convent schools are not classified, and they are therefore paid by a capitation grant which is for ordinary merit ten shillings per head per annum, and for special merit twelve shillings, the result being that their salaries are forty-five per cent. lower than the corresponding salaries paid to the national school teachers for work that is not so good. Now, Sir, by this Schedule you increase by twenty per cent. the existing rate of class salaries of teachers and of the salaries of assistant teachers, and you give an increase of the capitation grant, which I admit is slightly larger than that given by salaries. How does the case now stand? As I have said, the existing capitation giant for the convent schools is forty-five per cent. less than the present salaries of the national teachers, and therefore, in order to put the teachers in the convent schools on an equal footing with those in the national schools, you have first to increase the existing grant by forty-five per cent. and then to increase that by twenty per cent. I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that I have put the case fairly and accurately as to facts, and I trust he will take care, although this matter may in his judgment be outside the purview of the Bill, that it does not escape the attention of the Education Board.
  MR. CONWAY: I should like to say a word on behalf of the national teachers in Ireland. We who support them, not as against the Sisters or Brothers, but as the servants of the people, are placed
  1312
  in an invidious position by the arguments of the hon. Member. The hon. Member ought to recognise that the convent schools have the choice of children. For the most part their scholars are children belonging to the superior class of artisans and shopkeepers, and their attendance at school is regular; whereas the national schools have difficulties of climate, of poverty, and of the distances of the homes of the children from school. They are also handicapped in the matter of having to be trained and to have some experience before they get their certificates. These difficulties have been recognised by the hon. Member in the past. I have heard him in this House descant upon the work of these national teachers, and compare them favourably with any body of teachers in the British Empire. But to-day he takes up the cause of the Sisters against them. I feel on somewhat delicate ground in referring to these Sisters; but let me say at once that I respect both them and their work. These Sisters, however, are simply acting teachers. They go through no course of training, but as teachers they have splendid opportunities for earning handsome grants. Then they live in communities; they do not live in the world. But the teachers belonging to the national schools live in the world, and encounter pecuniary difficulties unknown to the Sisters; and until the Sisters are placed on an equality with the national teachers as regards certificates and some other matters, I am not prepared to agree with the hon. Member for West Belfast on the question of their pay, although I am told by the hon. Member for North Longford (Mr. Timothy Healy) that my seat has been provided for, and that I shall not again have the opportunity of standing up for the national teachers in this House. If, however, this House does not afford me that opportunity, there are other means one can utilise; and I shall, whenever this matter is debated, take up my stand on behalf of the national teachers, and if comparisons have to be instituted I shall undertake to prove that the services of these teachers deserve more than the recognition accorded them in this Schedule I deprecate the tone which has been

  1313
  imported into this Debate by the hon. Member for West Belfast. We hoped to have passed this Bill without any burning question being raised with regard to Sisters or lay teachers, with regard to monks or national male teachers. I would almost say it is unworthy of the hon. Member to raise these distinctions, and to thereby excite a considerable amount of ill-feeling in Ireland.
  MR. SEXTON: I think, Sir, my action in this House has shown whether or not I respect the national teachers. I am not against them, as the hon. Member seems to imply. I shall be happy to assist them to obtain further benefits, and I do not admit that any argument I have advanced in the interest of other schools prejudices in any degree the provision as to national teachers. The course of progress on this Bill has shown where the friends of the national teachers are. I think I may claim that by my exertions yesterday I saved this Bill; and I think I have shown for many years that I am one of the foremost, and perhaps one of the most judicious, friends of the national teachers in this House.
  MR. JACKSON: No doubt the examination of the convent schools shows a satisfactory state of things; but it must be borne in mind, in justice to the other schools with which a comparison has been made, that the convent schools have the advantage of more regular and continuous attendance on the part of their scholars. That unquestionably makes a great deal of difference with regard to the results. It should also be recollected that the convent schools may come under the classification if they like, and claim all the advantages given to the national schools. I think the tendency ought to be in that direction. As far as I understand, the hon. Member for West Belfast does not propose to move any Amendment, because he admits that, as regards this money with which we are now dealing, we have given as fair a proportion to the convent schools as to the others.
  MR. SEXTON: The Amendment I now have to propose relates to that part of the Schedule which fixes the length of service entitling an assis-
  1314
  tant teacher to a bonus. It is proposed that no assistant teacher of less than seven years' service shall be entitled to any bonus. Sir, this is not a question of service; it is a question of sharp necessity and mere subsistence. The assistant teacher in Ireland, although he may by hard study have passed his examination and reached the highest class, only receives the salary of the third class, and his whole average income is not more than £1 a week; while the female teacher in the same position only receives sixteen shillings a week. The right hon. Gentleman may think that these low salaries will have the effect of inducing them to become principals, but I would point out that there must always be a large number of assistant teachers in Ireland. I would press upon the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of not insisting upon this seven years' service as the qualification of the bonus of £9 to each male and £7 10s. to each female, because the effect of that will be to shut out from its benefits a large number of teachers. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept my Amendment, because it involves a sum so trifling in comparison to the satisfaction which it would give to this humble but important body of public servants.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 23, to leave out the word "seven," and insert the word "three."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Schedule."
  MR. JACKSON: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Member. In addition to this bonus of £9 to each male teacher and £7 10s. to each female teacher, there is the additional salary of twenty per cent. to be paid under the first paragraph of this Schedule, and therefore the total increase is £16 10s. to the male teacher, and about £12 10s. to the female teacher. It is not necessary I should again go over the ground, and I do not think it is desirable to stereotype or encourage teachers to remain as assistant teachers. I think we should make such a difference between the salaries of the principal teachers and the assistant teachers as

  1315
  will induce the latter to do their best to qualify themselves as principals. I would point out that the addition we propose to make to the salary of the assistant teachers is considerable, considering their number. When I received a deputation of assistant teachers some time ago in Dublin they pressed upon me strongly that there should be some improvement made in their salaries. Well, I went carefully into the matter, and I came to the conclusion that some increase should be given them; but, as I have said, I do not want to remove any inducement that might urge them to qualify themselves as principal teachers, and we think seven years is not an unreasonable period to entitle them to receive the bonus, bearing in mind that these assistant teachers when they enter the service are young men. But I am really very anxious to give satisfaction to this class of teachers, and therefore I will agree to five years instead of seven. I think the hon. Member will consider that a reasonable concession.
  MR. SEXTON: I recognise the reasonableness of the concession made by the right hon. Gentleman, and I am happy to agree to it.
  MR. CONWAY: If the right hon. Gentleman can see his way, having fixed five years for the present assistant teachers, to reduce the time to three years for future assistant teachers, I think it would be of great advantage. A large number of men and women are now being trained yearly, and as they come into the market the difficulty of assistant teachers becoming principals is naturally increased.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON: There are three thousand assistant teachers in Ireland, and only 176 of that number have reached the first class. These men and women suffer in a very peculiar sense in the matter of pay, and I will therefore propose that a bonus of £18 be given to each male assistant teacher and a bonus of £15 to each female assistant teacher of five years' standing in any class higher than the second class. Considering the small sum that would be required to make this concession, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to make it.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 24, at end, add the words, "And a bonus of eighteen pounds to each male, and fifteen pounds to each female, assistant teacher of three years' standing who is classed higher than the second class."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. JACKSON: I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment now proposed by the hon. Gentleman. The concession I have made will benefit all those in the first class, and I think, too, that it will be found on examination that assistant teachers in the first class are only a short time before they become principals. It will be complicating matters very much to separate the different classes. The cost would not be great; but, at the same time, I think there is not sufficient justification for it, and I hope the hon. Member will not press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SEXTON: I have already pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that there are cases in which the limit of the capitation grant to ten shillings will work great hardships. Although, generally speaking, the capitation grant should be sufficient to compensate for the loss of the school fees, yet there are cases when, owing to the good attendance at the school and the rate of fee paid, the teacher will lose money, even allowing for the increase of his salary under this Bill. I am afraid, therefore, that a large number of teachers will suffer injury, and I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should allow school managers the option of receiving the capitation grant in lieu of school fees.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take care that education should be really free over the whole of the country, and that there should be no collection of fees.
  MR. FOLEY: I certainly think the right hon. Gentleman might make some concession in this matter.
  MR. JACKSON: I recognise that the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) does not press this very strongly; but, on looking at this matter, there are two considerations which ought to be borne

  1317
  in mind. But first let me say that I have had a careful examination made, and I think it would be very difficult to prove that, in any case, the teachers would absolutely lose. It has been asserted that such is the fact, on the assumption, which I think is a very large assumption, that all the children who attend school pay. But in this Bill the payment would be given on the average attendance, and thus, so far as the teacher is concerned, there would be no bad debts. At present it cannot be doubted that all the children do not pay, and allowances are very properly made in some cases. Under the Bill the teachers will get paid for every time a child attends. There is another consideration also by which the teachers will benefit, and that is from the increased average attendance at school. I am confident that the passing of this Bill, and application of compulsion and the freeing of the schools from fees, will increase the number of children in the schools, and that will materially tend to benefit the teachers. Taking all these considerations into account, it may be stated with great confidence that not only will no teacher suffer, but all the teachers will largely gain.
  Sechedule, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  New Clause—
  Page 2, leave out Clause 3, and insert the following clause:—
  (School Attendance Committee.)

  "(1.) In every place to which this section applies there shall be a School Attendance Committee consisting of six, eight, or ten persons, as the Local Authority of the place may determine, one-half of whom shall be appointed by the Local Authority and the remainder by the Commissioners, and one-half of whom shall, where practicable, be school managers, patrons, or trustees, and the Local Authority shall make regulations subject to the approval of the Commissioners as to the time and mode of appointment of the Committee, the term for which members of the Committee shall hold office, and the conduct of their proceedings.

  (2.) The Local Authority of any place may for the purposes of this Act divide the place into districts, and in such case a School Attendance Committee shall be appointed for each district in manner hereinbefore provided.

  (3.) The School Attendance Committee, with the approval of the Local Authority, may appoint and remove officers, fix their remuneration, and prescribe their duties.

  1318

  (4.) In the event of the Local Authority failing to exercise any power, or perform any duty conferred or imposed on them by the preceding part of this section, the same may be exercised or performed by the Commissioners.

  (5.) The expenses of a School Attendance Committee, and the salaries and expenses of their officers, shall be defrayed by the Local Authority out of the local rate,"—(Mr. Jackson,)

  —brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. SEXTON: This is a new clause, which relates to matter which we have not before discussed, and I think it requires very careful revision. The original proposal was that the Local Authorities should appoint the School Attendance Committees; but according to this clause one-half are to be appointed by the Local Authorities and the other half by the Education Commissioners. I think it is desirable that one-half of the Committees should be persons connected with the management of schools, and having some experience and taking some interest in the matter. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is desirable.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause read a second time.
  Amendment proposed, in line 5, after the word "one," to insert the words "not less than."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON: In the same line occur the words "where practicable." There are plenty of school managers in Ireland, and I think it is desirable that these words should be omitted, so that there may be no excuse for leaving them out.
  Amendment proposed, in line 5, to leave out the words "where practicable."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. JACKSON: These words were put in because we were a little uncertain whether in some districts there might be so many persons available. For instance, suppose in some district

  1319
  where a Committee of ten was formed it was impossible to find five persons available as school managers, what would happen? I think the words do no harm, and they might be useful in preventing a deadlock under circumstances to which I have referred. They may afford some protection in the case of small districts.
  MR. SEXTON: Suppose, then, you say "where such persons are in the district."
  MR. MADDEN: "Where such persons are available."
  MR. SEXTON: Yes, that will meet the point.
  Amendment amended, and agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON: These patrons and trustees who are mentioned in this sub-section may be people who do not live in the district or even in the country. There is no security that they would attend to the work of the Committee, and I would suggest, instead of the words used, the words "managers of schools in the place."
  Amendment proposed,
  In lines 5 and 6, leave out "school managers, patrons, or trustees," and insert "managers of schools in the place."—(Mr. Sexton)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MACARTNEY: The patrons, as a rule, are energetic in their attention to the details of educational subjects, and many of them take a great interest in the management of schools. Much the same can be said of trustees. I have no doubt where a patron or trustee did not interest himself largely in the question of education he would not care to take part in the work of the School Attendance Committee. But I cannot conceive any legitimate reason why a patron, who is interested in the subject and attends to the management of a school on his estate, should be deprived of the right to sit on the Committee.
  MR. JACKSON: These words were put in because it was felt that in restricting the Committee to school managers there might be too severe a limitation. I would point out,
  1320
  however, that if the words were struck out it would not prevent such persons being appointed.
  MR. SEXTON: Suppose we leave out trustees.
  MR. JACKSON: Very well. Then the Amendment will read "managers or patrons of schools in that place."
  Amendment amended, and agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON: With respect to the remainder of this sub-section, I have an objection which I think the right hon. Gentleman will share. It is proposed that the Local Authority shall make rules and regulations such as are left to no other Local Body in Ireland. I think there ought to be a Schedule which should state what number of the Committee forms a quorum, and what is the length of the term of office. It is obvious that Parliament could not properly delegate questions of this kind to a Local Authority. It would certainly be much more convenient to settle the matter now.
  MR. MADDEN: I understand that the hon. Gentleman desires to have those matters settled by Parliament.
  MR. SEXTON: That is what I want.
  MR. MADDEN: Probably a better course would be that the Local Authority "shall make regulations subject to the Commissioners of Education," and the term for which they are appointed and the number to form a quorum can be stated in the Schedule.
  MR. SEXTON: What term does the right hon. Gentleman propose?
  MR. MADDEN: Three years.
  MR. SEXTON: For both classes of Commissioners?
  MR. MADDEN: Yes.
  Amendment proposed,
  Leave out from "and," in line 6, and insert "the term for which members of the Committee shall hold office and the quorum of the Committee shall be as prescribed in the 4th Schedule of the Act."—(Mr. Madden.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON: In Sub-section 2 it is provided that the Local Authority may divide a place into districts. I think that is a very undesirable power to entrust solely to a Local Authority, and it might be used in a very im-

  1321
  proper way. I would suggest that it should be exercised under the supervision of the Education Commissioners after public inquiry.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 10, after "(2)," insert "subject to the approval of the Commissioners after public inquiry."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON: The third sub-section provides that the Committees may appoint officers and remove them, and fix their remuneration with the consent of the Local Authorities. It would be undesirable to make the School Attendance Committees too entirely dependent on the Local Authorities, and it would not do to trouble the Local Authorities too much with details. It is reasonable that the Local Authorities who raise the money should have to do with the salaries, but I think the Committees might be trusted to appoint and remove teachers without supervision.
  Amendment proposed,
  After "Committee," in line 14, to insert "may appoint and remove officers and prescribe their duties, and with the approval of the Local Authorities fix their remuneration."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON: As the section now stands, I should like to move some words which will give protection to the feelings of the different religious denominations. I think it is very necessary that some provision of this kind should be inserted. I do this in the interests of the Protestant minority in the South as well as of the Catholic minority in the North.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the words which have just been inserted, to add "Provided that where such appointment is made the Commissioners, having regard to the number of each religious denomination in any place or district, may direct that there shall be at least one Protestant and one Catholic officer for such place or district."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. JACKSON: I think we might have left this question to the School Attendance Committee. Of course I have no objection to the appointment of either Catholics or Protestants, but I feel some doubt about the advisability of specifying it in the Act. Is it desirable
  1322
  in this one instance to raise the question of denominationalism? If we left this matter to the Committees they would in all probability make the appointments as the hon. Member desires; but I feel that there is some difficulty in introducing the words into an Act of Parliament.
  MR. SEXTON: I shall be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman will introduce words to the effect that the Committees shall have regard to the numbers of the religious denominations in the place.
  MR. MACARTNEY: The Committees would certainly have regard to the numbers of the religious denominations, but I think it is most undesirable to introduce this question in the Bill. The religious element is now introduced for the first time, and I do not believe it will tend in the slightest degree either to facilitate the proceedings of the Committees or to assist them with regard to the appointments. I hope the hon. Member will not press the question, because on grounds of public policy it would be inexpedient to introduce matter of this kind into the Bill.
  MR. KNOX: I would point out that there is a difference between the North and South of Ireland in this matter. The Catholics in the South will have a majority on the Committee in almost every case; but it is quite the other way in Belfast, where the representation of the Catholics among the school attendance officers would be the same as that among the public officials—none at all. I think there should be in the clause some indication of the intention of Parliament.
  MR. JACKSON: I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment, as I think it would lead to mischief rather than anything else.
  MR. SEXTON: People who are entitled to speak assure me that some such provision is necessary, and I think Parliament should in some mode suggest that the denomination should be considered. I cannot forget the case of Belfast, where the Town Council has not appointed a Roman Catholic official for years, and the Local Authority is to appoint half the School Attendance Committee, and there is

  1323
  great danger that there will not be a single Roman Catholic officer. I cannot say that I feel sufficient confidence in the Committee to leave it to them. I really feel grave and serious apprehension as to the working of the Act in Belfast and other places, particularly in the North of Ireland. If penalties are secured against Roman Catholic children by Protestant officers, who also look after the Protestant children, a feeling would be generated which would not conduce to the smooth working of the Act.
  MR. MACARTNEY: These officers cannot take any action without the authority of the School Attendance Committee. If the hon. Gentleman's argument is worth anything, we must go back on the Bill, and introduce directions that the Committee shall be appointed on the basis of religious belief, and nothing else.
  MR. SEXTON: We can trust the Commissioners to act fairly with respect to the School Attendance Committee.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Then why not trust the Committee to do their duty also?
  MR. KNOX: There may be a fair representation of the minority on the Committee, but they may be out-voted on the question of the appointment of the officers, and no action can be taken by the Department to prevent the minority being out-voted in the matter. I think some indication of the intention of Parliament should be given.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I do not apprehend any difficulty in the country districts under this head, but in Belfast I think there might be. There the Local Authority appoints half the Committee, and the Catholics would have little representation on it. Perhaps the Attorney General will consider the matter with a view to its alteration in another place.
  MR. JACKSON: I will consider it, but I feel that it is a matter of great difficulty.
  MR. SEXTON: I cannot consent to withdraw the Amendment, as a principle is concerned, but I cannot hope to carry it.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. MACARTNEY: The Commissioners have power to carry out any duty which the Local Authority fail to perform, and I think it desirable that they should have the same power with regard to the School Attendance Committee. I, therefore, propose to insert after "Local Authority," in line 17, the words "or School Attendance Committee."
  Amendment proposed, in line 17, after the word "Authority," to insert the words "or School Attendance Committee."—(Mr. Macartney.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. SEXTON: This would be a serious matter, and would greatly embarrass the working of the Act. If the Committee were wholly appointed by the Local Authority there might be some ground for the provision, but half the Committee is to be appointed by the Commissioners. The quorum may be fixed, and no doubt is, so that the Commissioners' nominees will always be sufficiently numerous to form a quorum, and so you have security that nothing prejudicial shall be done. I think, on the whole, the wiser course would be to leave the School Attendance Committee a free hand within the limits of the Bill.
  MR. JACKSON: I think my hon. Friend will see that the appointment of half the Committee by the Education Commissioners does alter considerably the necessity for the control originally in the Bill. He will see that half the Committee is appointed by the Commissioners, and that half the Members must be present to form a quorum; so that if half the members appointed by the Local Authority absent themselves, the members appointed by the Commissioners would be a quorum. I think we may take it that the Committee would discharge its duties properly; and having provided for the failure in duty on the part of the Local Authority, I think we have sufficient control of the Committee.
  MR. MACARTNEY: If my right hon. Friend is satisfied with the clause as it stands, I do not wish to press the Amendment; but I think there should

  1325
  be some provision for a case which I hope may not arise.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to secure that the Board shall not come down on the Local Authority like a thief in the night, but that the latter may have some notice of their action. I suppose it is not intended that the Board should suddenly discharge some duty which the Local Authority may have unintentionally omitted to perform.
  Amendment proposed, in line 17, after the word "authority," to insert the words "after warning or reasonable notice."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question put, and agreed to.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to move before "expenses," in line 21, to insert "half of." We have given so much power to the Government and the Commissioners that I think if half the expenses come on the local rate that would be ample, and that the rest should be found by the Government. That is done in the case of Poor Law officers, doctors, and sanitary officers, and the system works well because the Local Authority keeps down the expenses. The rate is a new one, and will in some cases be felt severely, and it is only fair that the Imperial Exchequer should bear half the expenses.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 21, before "expenses," to insert "half of."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. JACKSON: I am sorry I cannot meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman's desire, as I think it would be most likely to lead to extravagance on the part of the Local Authority.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I must say I feel the point very deeply, and it is a flaw in the Bill, and I protest against this part of the Bill as strongly as I can. You are putting on a new rate without any request from the locality, and if the Commissioners are kept in order by the Chief Secretary they will be able to resist any increase of expenditure. There is no fear of the expenses being run up if the local rate bears only half. I must press the point as strongly as I can, but I do not
  1326
  think we are strong enough to go to a Division.
  MR. SEXTON: I should be glad if the Government could see their way to accept the Amendment, but I join with my hon. and gallant Friend in recognising that it would be useless to go to a Division.
  MR. CONWAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the point between this and Report?
  Question put, and negatived.
  On Motion of Mr. SEXTON, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  At the end of the Clause to add the words "but any revenue from penalties under this Act in any district shall be applied in relief of local rates."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the New Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
  COLONEL NOLAN: I protest against this new rate. We have not got our share of the Education Grant, and if I am a Member of the next Parliament, I shall feel myself at liberty to press that point. Irish Members have resisted the rate as much as they can, and it must not be said that we are consenting parties to it.
  MR. SEXTON: I protested against it as strongly as I could on the Second Reading.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  New Clause—
  Page 6, after Clause 13, insert the following Clause:—
  (Power to acquire land for school-house or teacher's residence)

  "(1.) If the Commissioners are satisfied, by persons desirous of establishing or improving a national school, that a site is required for the school or for the residence of a teacher of the school, and cannot be obtained except under the powers conferred by this section, and if security to the satisfaction of the Commissioners is given to them for the probable amount of the purchase-money, and the costs of carrying this section into effect, they may authorise persons approved of by them as trustees to purchase a site for such school or residence to be held by the trustees on trust for the purposes of such school or residence.

  (2.) For the purpose of the purchase of land in pursuance of this section, section two hundred and three of 'The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878,' shall apply as if it were herein re-enacted, and in terms made applic-

  1327
  able to such trustees instead of to the sanitary authority, and section two hundred and fourteen of the same Act shall apply to Provisional Orders made for the purposes of this section.

  Provided as follows:—

  (a.) References in the said section two hundred and three to a newspaper circulating in the district of the sanitary authority shall be construed as references to a newspaper circulating in the Poor Law Union where the land proposed to be taken is situate;

  (b.) If a memorial is presented to the Local Government Board within one month after the making of a Provisional Order by owner, lessee, or occupier of lands proposed to be taken compulsorily, stating that the memorialist requires that such Order shall not be acted upon until it is confirmed by Parliament, then the Order shall be of no force unless and until it is confirmed by Parliament; but if no such memorial is presented, then the Order shall come into force at the expiration of one month from the making thereof;

  (c.) The Order may contain such provisions as the Local Government Board may deem necessary for securing that, in case the said trustees acquire land as a site for a school or residence under this Act, otherwise than by agreement, the school or residence shall be built to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, and shall be properly maintained, and be at all times conducted as a national school or used for the residence of a teacher of a national school, under the regulations of the Commissioners for the time being in force; and for providing for the appointment of new trustees from time to time; and, generally, for all such matter and things as the Commissioners may think expedient,"—(Mr. Jackson,)

  —brought up, and read a first and second time.
  MR. SEXTON: There are 8,000 principal teachers, and only 2,000 of them have residences; the remainder live in huts and hovels unfit for anybody giving instruction to live in. They have also frequently to travel many miles in all weathers. We want, as far as possible, to provide residences for teachers of existing schools. The Bill says—
  "If the Commissioners are satisfied, by persons desirous of establishing or improving a national school."
  These schools are established already, and may not require to be improved, and you put in a condition which makes the clause nugatory with regard to them. I move to leave out the words having that effect.
  Amendment proposed,
  Line 1, to leave out the words "by persons desirous of establishing or improving a national school."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, line 1, to leave out "the," and insert the words "a national."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, line 3, to leave out the second "the," and insert the words "a national."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON: The clause provides that, unless the Commissioners are satisfied that the land cannot be obtained under the present law, they are not to allow the new law to be exercised. That would put a weapon in the hands of an occupier who wished to reduce the clause to a nullity. He might ask for one hundred years' purchase, and it could not then be said that the land could not be obtained under the present law. The process must be made as easy and the force as certain as possible. I would suggest that in line 4, after "obtained," the words "on fair terms," or similar words, be inserted.
  MR. MADDEN: I think the words "on reasonable terms" would meet the case.
  Amendment proposed, in line 4 after "obtained," to insert "on reasonable terms."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  COLONEL NOLAN: In line 9, after "residence," I should like to put in—
  "And the site for a residence may include such an amount of land as the Commissioners may think suitable for a garden, a small tillage field, or grass for a cow."
  I know nothing more melancholy in country places than to see a house put down without any ground round it. You cannot make the teacher comfortable unless you give him one or two acres of land, and it would be a great convenience if grass for a cow could be given the teacher if he were married, as I suppose he would be in many cases. I merely wish that the words "site of residence" should be qualified in some manner by providing that the Commissioners should be allowed to include

  1329
  a suitable amount of land for the residence. I hope the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to accept that.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 9, after "residence," to insert "The site of a residence may include such an amount of land as the Commissioners may think suitable for a garden, a small tillage field, and the grass for a cow."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. JACKSON: I think we have heard already in this House of "three acres and a cow." But in a clause of this description, which was really assented to only for the purpose of dealing with extreme cases, and admittedly cases occurring here and there, where a site was unreasonably refused, I do not think we could give compulsory power for taking "the grass for a cow."
  COLONEL NOLAN: I am quite willing to sacrifice the cow if necessary. I would be quite willing to adopt the words suggested by the hon. Member for Hackney and stop at the word "suitable," and allow the amount of land which the Commissioners may think suitable to be taken. But what do you mean by a "site"? What you mean by a site for a residence ought, I think, to be defined. It certainly ought to include a garden, which should not be less than an Irish acre—you may say a statute acre if you like; but I think this is of great importance. I do not think it would be worth while giving any residences to the teachers unless they have a little bit of land. I do not want it to be too much, because I do not want their energies to be devoted to the land. But if they had gardens, having a great amount of spare time, they might very often teach a little agriculture to their scholars. The Chief Secretary sneers at a "cow." It is all very well sneering at this thing till it comes home before the electors; and I think they will perfectly understand it, if the Government refuse this very modest and humble provision of mine.
  MR. SEXTON: In the corresponding clause in the Scotch Act the word "garden" is mentioned, and in England I think there is nothing to pre-
  1330
  vent Local Authorities attaching a small portion of land to a teacher's residence. What I wish to ask is whether the Commissioners would be bound under this clause not to attach such land as they thought proper for the residence of a teacher?
  COLONEL NOLAN: I am always ready to take the view of the Chief Secretary on lay questions; but on questions of law I would prefer the view of the Attorney General for Ireland. Perhaps the Attorney General for Ireland would give us his opinion whether under the present clause the promoters would be able to take, with the sanction of the Commissioners, an acre or two of land to be attached to the teacher's residence.
  MR. MADDEN: According to the words of this clause a certain amount of land would have to be taken compulsorily. This land would be what would be suitable for a site for a residence. That would not include land for agricultural purposes, but it would include whatever would be necessary or suitable for the convenient occupation of the house.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Would that go as far as a garden?
  MR. MADDEN: I do not like to bind myself to the amount. But it would go as far as what would be suitable for the enjoyment of the house. It would include the curtilage.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Does curtilage include a garden?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It does include a garden. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not divide the Committee upon his Amendment.
  COLONEL NOLAN: After the opinion of the Attorney General for Ireland that it includes a curtilage and what would be necessary for the convenient occupation of the house, and after the legal opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) that curtilage includes a garden, I think that is quite enough for my purpose.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks these words at the end of the clause relating to the cost necessary? I think the

  1331
  right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) would call them very large and loose words. They would have the effect of frightening promoters from undertaking such schemes. I should be glad if these words were left out.
  MR. MADDEN: I would really ask the hon. Gentleman not to interfere with these words. I cannot possibly agree to omit them.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to point out that in Clause 14 in the old printed Bill—I do not know what the number is in the new printed Bill—it is provided that the compulsory powers should not come into operation till the 1st January, 1894. I think it would be very desirable if it could be arranged that this clause relating to residences should come in where the restrictive effect of Clause 14 would not apply to it.
  MR. JACKSON: I deem it my duty to call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that in the printed Bill which has been issued to-day, the date on which the Bill is to come into operation is the 1st January, 1893.
  MR. SEXTON: It may be corrected.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: As I understand, a correction of that kind might be made elsewhere.
  MR. JACKSON: It is an error in the printing.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The "3" was altered by the Committee to "4." It must be an error of the printer.
  MR. SEXTON: Which will be corrected, no doubt?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
  Amendment proposed,
  "That this New Clause shall be recited after Clause 13, and subsequent to the provision that this Act shall not come into operation till 1st January, 1894."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  New Clause—
  (Certificates of birth for purposes of Act.)
  "Where the age of any child is required to be ascertained or proved for the purposes of this Act, or for any purposes connected with the elementary education or employment in labour of such child, any person, on presenting a written requisition in such form and containing such particulars as may be from time to time prescribed by the Commissioners, and on payment of such fee, not exceeding sixpence, as the Commissioners from time to time fix,
  1332
  shall be entitled to obtain a certified copy, under the hand of the registrar or superintendent registrar, of the entry in the register under the Births and Deaths Registration (Ireland) Acts, 1863 to 1880, of the birth of the child named in the requisition,"—(Mr. Sexton,)
  —brought up, read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.
  New Clause—
  (Authority to prosecute.)
  "No legal proceedings for non-attendance or irregular attendance at school shall be commenced in a court of summary jurisdiction by any person on behalf of a school attendance committee, except by the direction of not less than three members of the said committee,"—(Mr. Sexton,)
  —brought up, read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The next clause which stands in the name of the hon. Member seems to be outside the purview of this Bill, as it deals with the Amendment of the law of reformatory schools.
  MR. SEXTON: It may be outside the purview of the Bill, but my object is to provide that where a child is found wandering about not under parental control the School Attendance Committee might send it to a certified industrial school.
  MR. JACKSON: That may be done already.
  MR. SEXTON: Yes I know the police can at present take up a child found wandering in that way and have it sent to an industrial school; but I wish to have it provided that the School Attendance Committee should be invited to deal with such cases. I think that would be well within the object of the Bill.
  MR. JACKSON: I am afraid I cannot accept this clause. The hon. Member wishes to set up some day industrial schools in Ireland similar to those in England. There are no such schools in Ireland. I venture to suggest that if there should be any necessity for such schools when the Act has come into operation, it will be easy by an Amendment in a year or two hence to provide for it. I would ask the hon. Member not to press the clause at present.
  MR. SEXTON: I shall not press the clause at present. I wish to say, after full consideration of what has been said by the Bishops, and after the fullest

  1333
  inquiry on the subject, I am convinced that this scheme of compulsory education can never work well in Ireland until you make provision not only by industrial schools, but by day industrial schools, for the case of children in cities who have no parents, or who are not under the full control either of parents or anybody else.
  New Clause—
  (Return of registrars of births and deaths to school attendance committees.)
  "Every registrar of births and deaths, when and as required by a school attendance committee, shall transmit, by post or otherwise, a return of such of the particulars registered by him concerning deaths and births of children as may be specified in the requisition of the committee.
  The committee may supply a form, approved by the Commissioners, for the purpose of the return, and in that case the return shall be made in the form so supplied.
  The committee may pay, as part of their expenses under this Act, to the registrar making such return such fee as may be agreed upon between them and the registrar, not exceeding one penny for every birth and death entered in such return,"(Mr. Sexton,)
  —brought up, read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.
  MR. JACKSON: I beg to move, in page 7, after line 11, to insert—
  First Schedule.
  "(1.) The minimum number of attendances for the purposes of the first section of this Act shall be seventy-five complete attendances in each half year ending respectively the thirtieth day of June and the thirtieth day of December at any national or other efficient school."
  Schedule brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule be read a second time."
  MR. SEXTON: The word "minimum," I think, should be omitted. There is no question of maximum or minimum. The only question is as to satisfying the law.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "minimum."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON: Having regard to the calendar, I think the word "thirty" should be "thirty-one," as December, I believe, has thirty-one days.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "thirty," and insert the word "thirty-one."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Second Schedule.
  "(2.) The certificate of proficiency for the purposes of this Act shall be a certificate of such proficiency in reading, writing, and elementary arithmetic as is now prescribed for the fourth class in the programme of instruction of the Commissioners, or such higher proficiency as may hereafter be prescribed by them."—(Mr. Jackson,)
  —brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule be read a second time."
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to move to insert, after
  "Certificate," the words "issued by the principal teacher of the school which the child has last attended."
  Amendment proposed,
  After the word "Certificate," to insert the words "issued by the principal teacher of the school which the child has last attended."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Schedule 3 agreed to.
  Fourth Schedule.
  "That the members of a school attendance committee shall continue in office for three years from the date of their appointment; the quorum of the committee shall be one-half of its total number,"—(Mr. Madden,)
  —brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule be read a second time."
  COLONEL NOLAN: Make it one-third.
  MR. MADDEN: I cannot make it one-third.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Look here, they never can be got together.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  COLONEL NOLAN: You will not get one-half to attend, but you may get one-third to attend. I know local business, and I daresay the Attorney General never considered the point. Out of sixty-four Poor Law Guardians

  1335
  you may get eight or ten to attend. The School Attendance Committee will not attend in such numbers.
  MR. MADDEN: I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not press his objection. The hon. and gallant Member must remember that these are specialists, and will be brought together for special purposes.
  MR. SEXTON: I should like to suggest that the quorum should be one-half the Committee, except where one-half is more than four, and then four should be the quorum. That would meet both views.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Let three be the quorum for all the Committees.
  MR. JACKSON: Agreed.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Fourth Schedule, to leave out "one-half," and insert "three."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House.
  MR. JACKSON: I wish now to mention that there is one point in one of the clauses passed yesterday which is very likely to be raised in another place, as I am anxious that there should be no delay.
  MR. SEXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to specify it?
  MR. JACKSON: It is on the question of exemption. The point is this: I accepted an Amendment from the hon. Member for West Belfast which enlarged the reasons for non-attendance. The hon. Member said that the provision was contained in the Scotch Act, but I find on reference to that Act that there is a limitation for a certain time of the year. I think it is six weeks in the year that are prescribed as the period during which a child might be exempt. I am afraid that it might be considered that if a boy were engaged in a fishery, for instance, for the whole year round, that that might be taken as a reasonable excuse; and I only venture to suggest that there may be some alteration made in that respect.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Is it with regard to fisheries only?
  MR. JACKSON: There is no limitation as to the object. It should not be supposed that a boy is to be excused by reason of his being engaged in the operations of any particular industry the whole year round.
  MR. SEXTON: In assisting his parents?
  MR. JACKSON: Of course.
  COLONEL NOLAN: In England they only think of the harvest; but it must be remembered that in Ireland, in addition to the harvest, there is the period when a child may be engaged in the planting of potatoes in the month of March. There is that difference in the case of Ireland.
  MR. SEXTON: I attach great importance to the clause, and I hope care will be taken as regards its amendment.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, considered; reported; read the third time, and passed.

  BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 230.)
  CONSIDERATION.
  As amended, considered.
  DR. CLARK: I do not know whether the Lord Advocate would consider the desirability of having this Bill re-committed. There are one or two Amendments which might be considered.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I hope my hon. Friend will not insist that this Bill, which consists of some hundreds of clauses, should be re-committed.
  New Clause—
  Page 42, after Clause 103, insert the following Clause:—
  (Lighting of common stairs, &c.)
  "(1.) The owner or owners of common stairs or passages or private courts, or of lands or premises having a right of access by any common stair or passage or private court, shall provide, fit up, and maintain, and renew, in such common stairs, passages, or private courts, all necessary lamps, brackets, and other means of lighting, and all necessary means of extinguishing the light, and shall provide the necessary supply of gas or other light therefor; and such owner or owners shall further, on being required by the Commissioners, within seven days next after the service of an Order for that purpose, provide and fit up in such common stairs, passages, or private courts, such number of lamps, brackets,

  1337
  and other means of lighting, and all such means of extinguishing the lights as the Commissioners may determine, and provide the necessary supply of gas or other light, as may be required by the Commissioners, and shall maintain, alter, repair, and renew such lamps and brackets to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, and in default of compliance with any Order of the Commissioners under this section, such owner or owners shall, each only in respect of any act or default of his own, be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings, and a daily penalty of a like amount; Provided always that the owner or owners so providing a supply of gas or other light shall be entitled to recover the amount expended by such owner or owners in providing such supply from the occupiers of every such house or building in or entering or having access by the common stair, passage, or court, each such occupier being liable to pay his proportionate part of such amount according to the rent payable by each such occupier respectively: Provided further that the occupier or occupiers shall in all cases clean, light, and extinguish the lights, at such time or times as shall be ordered by the Commissioners by any resolution passed by them and published once weekly for at least two weeks in some newspaper published or circulating in the burgh; and any occupier failing to comply with any such Order or Resolution shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings, and to a daily penalty of like amount,"—(The Lord Advocate,)
  —brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  DR. CLARK: There is only one point to which I wish to refer. I should like if the Lord Advocate would consider the advisability of leaving out the last twenty-five lines at the end. It is the present law, I admit, that the occupier should keep the lamps clean and extinguish them; but it is impossible for a man to do this who may be away at the coast or elsewhere with his family. But there have been so many changes made in the clause that most of my objections have been taken away. Still, I think it desirable that this burden should be placed on the Commissioners rather than upon the occupier.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): I have considered this clause very carefully, and what is now proposed is the result of the compromise which was arrived at. I hope the hon. Member will allow the clause to pass as it stands.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  New Clause—
  (Power to Commissioners to supply light and charge owner.)
  "(2.) The Commissioners may at any time, and from time to time as they think fit, provide, fit up, maintain and renew, in such common courts, passages, or private courts, as they may consider to be insufficiently lighted, all necessary lamps, brackets, and other means of lighting, and all necessary means of extinguishing the light, and provide the necessary supply of gas or other light therefor, and by their inspector of lighting, or any other officer or servant of the Commissioners, clean any lamps and brackets, and light and extinguish the same, and for all purposes aforesaid the inspector of lighting, or any other officer or servant of the Commissioners, shall be entitled to require and shall have access to and from all such common stairs, passages, or private courts at all times, and the Commissioners may, in such cases as they think fit, recover the expense they may incur as a debt from the owner, or if there are more owners than one, then proportionately from each owner according to the rental of the properties of each owner in any house or building or part thereof, to which access is obtained by such common stair, passage, or private court, and such owner or owners shall be entitled to recover the amount expended in providing the supply of gas or other light from the occupiers, each such occupier being liable to pay his proportionate part of such amount according to the rent payable by him: Provided always, that the said expense, recoverable by the Commissioners as aforesaid, shall not in the case of common stair lighting exceed twenty shillings per burner per annum, and in the case of all other lighting exceed twenty-five shillings per burner per annum,"—(The Lord Advocate,)
  —brought up, read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.
  New Clause—
  Page 160, after Clause 426, insert the following Clause:—
  (Power to seize diseased cattle.)
  "In the case of cattle infected with or labouring under any disease within the meaning of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, 1878 to 1886, kept within the burgh, being exposed or offered for sale, or being brought or attempted to be brought through any street or into any market or fair, any inspector, collector, or constable may seize any such cattle, and cause the same to be inspected by a veterinary inspector, and may report such seizures to any magistrate, and such magistrate may, after hearing the evidence, either order such cattle to be restored, or direct the same, and also any pens, hurdles, troughs, litter, hay, straw, and other articles which he may deem likely to have been infected thereby, to be forthwith destroyed, or otherwise disposed of; and any person bringing or attempting to bring any cattle through

  1339
  any street, or into any market or fair, knowing the same to be labouring under any such disease, shall for every such offence be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds,"—(The Lord, Advocate,)
  —brought up, and read a first time.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Line 1, after the word "or" omit "labouring under," and insert "suspected of"; line 3, after the word "to," omit the words "1886, kept within the burgh," and insert the words "1890."
  Clause, as amended, read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  New Clause—
  (Power to proceed against original seller of diseased cattle, &c.)
  "Where any person is convicted by any magistrate of the offence of selling or exposing for sale, or of having in his possession for sale, any unsound or diseased animal or diseased meat, or any animal or meat unfit for the food of man, and intended for such food, it shall also be lawful for the burgh prosecutor to proceed against the original seller of such animal or meat as if he were an offender art and part with the convicted person, and as if he had committed such offence within the burgh, provided that such animal or meat were unsound or diseased, or unfit for the food of man, at the time of the sale thereof by such original seller to the convicted person; and the purchase by the convicted person, or by any one on his behalf, from such original seller, wheresover made or carried out, shall be taken and held to be a sale by such original seller of the animal or meat in question within the burgh, in premises kept and used for the sale of animals or meat; and the penalty and punishment provided by this Act against the person convicted shall also be applicable to and be leviable and recoverable from such original seller, and all the powers, authorities, jurisdiction, and forms of procedure given and provided by this Act against the convicted person shall be applicable to the prosecution, trial, and punishment of such original seller,"—(The Lord Advocate,)
  —brought up, read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out "and health."
  Clause 4, page 3, line 5, leave out sub-section (10).
  Clause 11, page 8, line 10, after "and," insert "where not divided into wards to divide the same into wards, and."
  Clause 13, page 9, lines 21 and 22, leave out "landowner or householder," and insert "owner or occupier.
  1340
  Clause 14, page 10, line 4, leave out "director general of the Ordnance Survey," and insert "Board of Agriculture."'
  Clause 15, page 10, line 15, after "that," insert, "such adoption in part of this Act shall not affect any private interests which shall have been specially regulated by any local Act, and provided further that."
  DR. CLARK: I beg to move, in Clause 28, page 16, line 17, to leave out the word "male." I object, in this nineteenth century, to limiting the choice of persons eligible for the office of Commissioner. Let them elect whom they think proper. I will not press it at this period of the Session, for if the Lord Advocate will persist in limiting the choice of Commissioners to males, then of course there is no use in saying anything more. I simply enter my protest against it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 17, to leave out the word "male."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question, "That the word 'male' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Clause 30, page 17, line 17, leave out "August," and insert "September"; line 26, leave out "September," and insert "August."
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: I beg to move, in Clause 32, page 18, line 22, at end, add—
  "Provided, that in the case of any burgh situated in any island of Scotland, it shall not be necessary in the event of a double return, or failure to nominate the requisite number for election, to carry through the whole election procedure anew, but instead thereof the Commissioners at a meeting to be held at twelve o'clock noon on the first Friday after the annual election shall, in the event of there being an equality of votes, determine by vote which of the candidates shall be preferred; and in the event of the whole or any part of the number of Commissioners not being elected, it shall be lawful for the Commissioners then in office, at such meeting, to supply the deficiency by such and the like proceedings as are provided for in the case of interim vacancies."
  It is right that, as this has not been mentioned previously, I should state in a word or two the reason of this Amendment. It is put in at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Ross-shire, and he mentioned a case in which the circum-

  1341
  stances contemplated by the Amendment might occur. It is the case of Stornoway, and I have satisfied myself from the information I have received that the exigencies of communication are such that, within the time required, the thing could not be carried through, in some cases, except under very favourable circumstances. I hope the suggestion of the hon. Member for Ross-shire, which is embodied in this proviso, will be adopted.
  Amendment agreed to.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to move, in page 18, line 22, to insert the words—
  "In any burgh where various municipal or police authorities are amalgamated or united under this Act, the whole of the Magistrates and Councillors or Commissioners shall retire from office on the first Monday of November after the pasting of this Act."
  This Amendment is only to come into force where various Municipal Authorities are amalgamated under the Act. It will then compel all the Commissioners to retire, and the combined duties of both the Commissioners and Councillors will be performed by the new body of Commissioners. It is to give them the choice of re-electing some of the old Commissioners or Councillors to the new Board.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 18, line 22, to insert the words "In any burgh where various municipal or police authorities are amalgamated or united under this Act, the whole of the Magistrates and Councillors or Commissioners shall retire from office on the first Monday of November after the passing of this Act."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: I confess myself unable to understand the reference in this proposal to the other clauses of the Bill, and I wish the hon. Member had expounded what he means by it. There are only two clauses in this Bill which deal with the matter, so far as I know, and those are Clause 42 and Clause 45. Clause 45 is the only one which deals with amalgamation, but I gather from what the hon. Member says that that has nothing to do with it. Under the other clause we take away the privileges of one body and centre them in another body; but that does not involve the retirement of any-
  1342
  one, and therefore it does seem to me that this Amendment would really have no application at all in any supposed case under Clause 42. The clause does not sweep away one body and leave another, but what it does is to leave both bodies and to vest certain attributes of the one in the other—such as the charge of police, water supply, and other matters. Therefore, this proposal that the whole of one body should retire does not seem to have any foundation. It would be most unfortunate to have a break in the continuity of the succession of Town Councillors, which is provided for under the existing law by the retirement of one-third of the Council annually.
  DR. CLARK: The explanation is this. There are two barony burghs affected by this Amendment: Thurso, in my constituency, and Kirkintulloch, and there may be others. All the powers under the definition you give of a burgh boundary will be transferred from them to the Burgh Commissioners, and if they are to continue to exist it will be in name only, because all their powers are taken away from them. The intention of this clause is to wipe them out altogether, and under these circumstances it is only desirable that these magistrates and members of the Town Council shall have a chance of being elected Police Commissioners; otherwise they will not have a chance for two or three years. However, I shall not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. CLARK: My next Amendment is to make clear what is rather obscure in the case of the burghs of Wick, Banff, Macduff, and Dumfries. Some difficulty has been found with regard to what is supposed to be meant by Parliamentary burgh. The Lord Advocate has an Amendment which will probably carry out this object, and if he thinks his sufficient I shall not press mine.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 20, line 23, after the word "burgh" to insert the words "not being a Parliamentary burgh only."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: The hon. Member is quite right that there ought to be some Amendment in this clause, and I have been in communication with the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs and the hon. Member for the Wick Burghs, and the result of our consultation is embodied in the next Amendment standing in my name. I therefore hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  (7.45.) Amendment proposed,
  In page 20, line 38, leave out all after "Commissioners," to end of Clause, and insert, "Provided always that where a royal burgh, or a police burgh, or part thereof is included within the Parliamentary area of a burgh, this section shall not apply to the effect of uniting such burghs or amalgamating the administration thereof, but without prejudice to any application for such amalgamation under the provisions of Section forty-five of this Act."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MCDONALD CAMERON (&c.): I believe my constituents are satisfied that this Amendment will carry out their views.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  In page 21, at end, add, "Provided that nothing contained in this Act shall prejudice or affect the provisions of Section eighty-one of 'The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889,' and if any question shall arise under this proviso, the same, failing agreement, may be determined by the Secretary for Scotland after such inquiry as he shall think fit, and the provisions of Section ninety-three Sub-section three of the last-mentioned Act shall apply to such inquiry."
  Page 21, line 6, leave out "royal or Parliamentary."
  DR. CLARK: My next Amendment is to the effect that the Provisional Order for union between burghs shall determine not only the condition as to costs, but also the conditions under which the union of adjoining burghs shall take place as to a differential rate in each district for a special period or otherwise. Unless there be some such power the union of adjoining burghs may be deferred for some time, and I think this power ought to be given to the Secretary for Scotland.
  Amendment proposed,
  Page 22, line 28, after the word "the," to insert the words "conditions under which the union of adjoining burghs shall take place as to a differential rate in each district for a special period, or otherwise, and to the."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I have considerable sympathy with this Amendment, and would accept it were it not that I think the hon. Member is under a slight misapprehension. He rightly said that it was his desire that the Secretary for Scotland should have power to put in the Provisional Order such a stipulation. But Sub-section 3, which he proposes to amend, has no relation to the Provisional Order, because the Order there mentioned is not the Provisional Order, but an Order under the hand of the Secretary for Scotland with regard to the costs of the Provisional Order. Therefore, the Amendment would empower the Secretary for Scotland to deal with the costs of the Provisional Order, and also, outside the Provisional Order, to deal with a differential rate. That would be most inappropriate. I would refer the hon. Member to the first sub-section of this clause, paragraph 3, which says—
  "Thereafter it shall be lawful for the Secretary for Scotland to issue a Provisional Order either in accordance with the prayer of the application, or with such modifications or alterations as may appear to him to be requisite."
  Under that I have no doubt that the Secretary for Scotland would impose such conditions as those desired by the hon. Member with reference to differential rating, and I hope the hon. Member will be satisfied with that assurance.
  DR. CLARK: Do you think the Secretary for Scotland has the power I desire him to have?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: Yes.
  DR. CLARK: Then I withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Page 23, line 36, leave out "them," and insert "it."
  Page 27, line 34, leave out "landowner or householder," and insert "owner or occupier."
  DR. CLARK: I beg to move, in page 28, line 14, after "court," insert "nor as an election agent in any Parliamentary election." I think if you are going to give your clerk a good salary he ought to devote his entire time to the work. At any rate, he ought not to undertake political work.
  Amendment proposed, in page 28, line 14, after the word "court," to insert the words "nor as an election agent in any Parliamentary election."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I should have liked more time to consider this Amendment; but after the best consideration I can give, I think it is a reasonable one, I am prepared to accept it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Page 32, line 18, leave out from "legally," to "be," in line 20, both inclusive, and insert "medical officer of health who shall be a registered medical practitioner, and who shall also be registered on the Medical Register as the holder of a diploma in sanitary science, public health, or state medicine, under section twenty-one of "The Medical Act, 1886."
  Line 20, before "to," insert "(2) It shall be the duty of the medical officer."
  Line 30, before the first "the," insert "(3)."
  Page 34, line 8, after "1857," insert "and the provisions of the said Act as regards consolidation shall apply to all burghs which, at or after the passing of this Act, have, or are entitled to have, a separate police force."
  Page 34, at the end of Clause, insert "For the purposes of this section the burgh of Renfrew, and the police burgh of Lerwick, shall be deemed each to have had at the date of the last census a population of not less than seven thousand."
  DR. CLARK: I beg to move, in page 37, line 16, to leave out all the words after "respectively," to the end of Clause 83. This is an Amendment we got into the Local Government Act, and it was in the Bill four years ago. This provision has been struck out so far as the counties are concerned, and I think it ought to be struck out as regards the burghs also. When the police are
  1346
  sent, for coercion purposes, into the Highlands, you require to get the consent of the Local Authority of the town from which they are taken. This gives arbitrary power to the Secretary for Scotland without the consent of the Town Council of Glasgow to send Glasgow policemen on an expedition to Skye. I trust the Lord Advocate will be content with the powers in the first portion of the clause.
  Amendment proposed, in page 37, line 16, to leave out all the words after the word "respectively," to the end of Clause 83.—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I have looked into this matter so far as I have had time to do so, and I find that these words were inserted in the early copy of the Bill when it was being promoted by the Government of which the right hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour) was a Member. It is considered necessary in a time of emergency that the Secretary for Scotland or a responsible Minister should have power to order a portion of any police force to a district for temporary service without first having obtained the consent of the Local Authority. Taken on the whole this clause is likely to operate most beneficially, and therefore I hope that the House will agree to it as it stands.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Page 45, line 36, after "streets," insert "including the foot pavements."
  Page 51, line 23, leave out "1885," and insert "1889."
  Page 51, line 38, after "flagged," insert "together with the footways thereof."
  DR. CLARK: I beg to move, in page 54, line 10, to leave out "Commissioners," and insert "owners." I did not press this Amendment in Committee, but if the Lord Advocate wishes to be consistent he will now accept it. It is optional for the Commissioners to have a special rate for the purpose. Why should there be any change? I have three Amendments on the subject, but they all amount to the same.
  Amendment proposed, in page 54, line 10, to leave out the word "Commissioners," and insert the word "owners."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That the word "Commissioners" stand part of the Bill."
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: We do not propose to make any alteration in the incidence of assessments. Under the law as it stands the Commissioners are unable to take over the footways—which in itself is a desirable thing—unless they do it as owners. The clause, therefore, will enable them to get over the difficulty, and the Amendment is not necessary.
  DR. CLARK: I will withdraw the Amendment now.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. CLARK: I now move, in page 54, line 15, to leave out from the word "footways," to the end of Clause 139. The clause will make a very considerable change, which I do not think we ought to permit. Two-thirds of the cost of making the pavements will at once fall upon the Commissioners, and I say that if we begin to make payments like this for the owners, we have soon have to roof their houses for them.
  Amendment proposed, in page 54, line 15, leave out from the word "footways" to the end of Clause 139.—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I cannot agree with the account which the hon. Member has given of this proviso. I think it is perfectly fair that the Commissioners should in the first instance levy only one-third of the cost of the improvement on the owner, and pay the two-thirds out of the local assessment.
  DR. CLARK: With interest.
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: Does the hon. Member suggest that interest should be added?
  DR. CLARK: No, I only wish to make the clause perfect.
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I consider that it is a perfectly reasonable clause, and I hope that it will be agreed to.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment negatived.
  DR. CLARK: I will next move, as an Amendment—
  Page 54, at end of Clause 140, add "Whenever the Commissioners shall resolve to undertake the maintenance and repair of the foot pavements in any burgh by means of a general assessment, it shall be lawful for them to charge all owners of lands or premises within such burgh with a special paving assessment equal to but not exceeding twopenee in the pound of the gross yearly value of such land or premises over and above any other assessment or rates to which such persons may be liable under this Act."
  MR. SPEAKER: I observe that there is a clause dealing with this question.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Clause 201, page 74, line 33, at end, insert "Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall alter, prejudice, or affect the existing constitution, rights, or privileges of any Dean of Guild Court existing at the commencement of this Act, the members, lyners, or assessors whereof are not, under the existing constitution, wholly appointed by the town council of the burgh."
  Clause 210, page 76, line 31, leave out "Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings," and insert "Board of Agriculture."
  Line 39, leave out "Her Majesty's said Commissioners," and insert "the said Board."
  Clause 217, page 79, line 20, leave out "of."
  Page 92, leave out Clause 256.
  Clause 284, as amended, after "Provided that where, before the passing of this Act," insert "or within one year thereafter."
  DR. CLARK: I beg to move, in page 116, line 33, to leave out Clause 329. You are giving the Commissioners, in this clause, power to harry the unfortunate occupier. I think the wiser plan would be to sell the property of the owner and not that of the occupier. I do not see why the occupier should be compelled to pay his landlord's debts. I think we should leave out this clause and also the next one.
  MR. HUNTER: I also hope that the Lord Advocate will agree to leave out these two clauses, because they would be of no value to the Local Authority.
  Amendment proposed, in page 116, line 33, to leave out Clause 329.—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 329 stand part of the Bill."
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I have been informed that these clauses are regarded as useful clauses. They are, I believe, verbatim as they stood in the Act of 1862. This is a short plan for enabling the Municipality to recover what is due. It appears to me that this clause and the next one provide ample and sufficient safeguards.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed, in page 117, to leave out Clause 330.—(Dr. Clark.)
  Amendment negatived.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Clause 345, page 122, at end of Clause, as amended, insert "and on and from the owner of such lands or premises the proportion of such assessment, if any, corresponding with the period during which such lands or premises were occupied during the said year by any other occupier."
  Amendment proposed, in page 136, line 24, to leave out all after "prostitutes," to end of sub-section.—(Mr. Hunter.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: I will accept the second of the hon. Member's Amendments if this one is withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 136, line 29, to leave out the word "profane."—(Mr. Hunter.)
  Question proposed, "That the word profane' stand part of the Bill."
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I accept this Amendment; but, to prevent misconstruction, I may explain that I do so only to save the time of the House, and because such cases can be dealt with under the ordinary law.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I think it desirable that this word should be left out, but that some other word should be substituted for it, such as "blasphemy."
  MR. HUNTER: I am afraid that the attempt to insert that word would provoke a great deal of discussion in the House. It is most undesirable to give to unlearned magistrates the interpretation of a clause which makes blasphemy an offence. I have consulted the Criminal Law of Scotland, and I find only two offences specified—brawling in church and breaking the Sabbath. Therefore I think the clause should be amended as I propose. It would require a very strong case to be made out for an indictment for breaking the Sabbath to lie, and it is most undesirable that a term should be retained which has no legal meaning, and is liable to be construed according to the caprice of the magistrates. My recollection in connection with the word "profane" is in relation to history. When at school I remember being taught the difference between profane and sacred history. The history of the two great and noble peoples of antiquity—the Greeks and the Romans—were described as profane, while the history of the Jews was called sacred.
  Question put, and negatived.
  On Motion of Mr. HUNTER, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Page 136, June 34, after "recites," insert "in public."
  Page 136, line 34, leave out "profane or,"
  Page 137, line 32, leave out "profane."
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Page 197, line 30, leave out "three months," and insert "sixty days, except as hereinafter I provided."
  Page 197, line 42, leave out "three months," and insert "sixty days, except as hereinafter provided."
  Schedule 1.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to move in Schedule 1, after the word "Act," the insertion of the words "except Section 101." That section is the one by which the burden is left on the landlord if the footways are taken over. If you repeal Section 101 you repeal the burden, and I object to that being done.
  Amendment proposed,
  In Schedule 1, page 190, line 22, after the word "Act," to insert the words "Section 101."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: This Amendment raises a point already disposed of by one of the hon. Member's Amendments.
  DR. CLARK: The Forms of the House prevented me raising it; therefore I am now bringing it forward.
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: On the merits of the question I have nothing to add to what has been said on this and previous occasions. This matter has come up twice already in reference to the incidence upon owners of the assessment for maintaining footways taken over. I can conceive nothing more awkward than to repeal the whole of the Public Health Act except a single clause.
  MR. HUNTER: We take note that the Government have been very careful to omit one of the few rates which are very properly landlords' rates and to place the burden upon the occupier.
  Question put.
  (8.40.) The House divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 49.—(Div. List, No. 191.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: So far as I can gather, I believe that the Scotch Members would agree to the insertion of the word "blasphemous" in place of the word "profane," when the Bill is in another place.
  MR. HUNTER: I can assure the hon. Member that the word "blasphemous" would not pass this House. The offence of blasphemy is already an indictable offence. It would be improper and inexpedient to give a magistrate who has no legal knowledge the power of construction.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (&c.): Before we pass this Bill I should like to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the skill with which he has piloted it through the House; and I think tribute ought also to be paid to the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), who has endeavoured to
  1352
  amend the Bill, line by line, and clause by clause. Yet, in spite of the character of his attention, we may congratulate ourselves that the Bill has survived.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to thank the hon. Member for his words, and to say that the bulk of my Amendments have been accepted and have improved the Bill, which, however, is still crude and undigested, and is not much better than the law of 1862, which it repeals. But a number of police burghs desired the honour of having provosts and bailies, and to the possession of that honour I do not object. Otherwise I do not think the Bill is much required in Scotland. It will soon have to be modified; indeed, one of the reasons urged why this Bill should go forward was that it might have a trial and later be amended. The Bill has been thrashed out and reformed so much that very few people understand it. I doubt very much whether even the right hon. Gentleman himself understands it. The Rating Clause, especially, will soon require alteration.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

    THURSO AND SCRABSTER HARBOURS.
    DR. CLARK: I regret the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in his place, because, as I notified to him yesterday, I have to make a serious charge against his action on this stage of the Vote. Last year we had a grant before this House of £50,000 for certain piers and harbours in Scotland. I then moved the reduction of that grant to £47,000, and the reduced sum was put from the Chair and carried, the right hon. Gentleman assenting to it. My reason for moving to reduce the Vote was this: A Commission went to Thurso Bay to report as to the comparative merits of two harbours there, which, with assistance from the Government, could be utilised for a

    1353
    new fishing station in that part of Scotland. The Commission arrived in Thurso on Saturday night, and they left on Monday morning. The Trustees of Thurso harbour and the fishermen there were desirous of giving evidence, but the Commission heard no evidence from anybody, but they reported in favour of Scrabster harbour and disparagingly of Thurso harbour. I pointed out to the House that probably these gentlemen had not seen the Thurso harbour, except from a distance; and, from information I could gather in Thurso, it appears that some person had met them and that they went and had some liquor in a hotel, and that upon the information given them by a local laird they reported. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Lyell), the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to consider the question of obtaining further evidence with regard to these two harbours, but, as far as I can find out, he has not done so. The pier at Scrabster belongs to a private company, and it would be impossible to make a proper harbour there except at great cost, because the cliffs are two hundred feet high and run right down into the sea. Altogether, from lack of room for curing stations and being two miles away from any station, the place is utterly unsuited for the purpose of a new harbour or fishing station. At Thurso, on the other hand, there is a railway station; and if £3,000 or £4,000 more were expended on the harbour there, it could be made useful for all purposes. The harbour at Scrabster, without great improvement, would be perfectly useless, and the Company who own it would lose their dividends; but, as the members of that Company are good Unionists, something was required to be done for them. The Unionist candidate has been doing his level best; and the Scotch Office not being able of itself to make an inquiry, and not looking into the Report already made, have agreed to give £3,000 towards improving this miserable harbour, notwithstanding that Parliamant last year refused to grant the money. Personally, I do not care whether the money goes to one harbour or the other. All I want is that the fishermen and other local men should have the
    1354
    opportunity of giving evidence on the matter before any tribunal; and I told Lord Lothian, when I spoke to him on this matter, that I did not care who was sent down to hold the inquiry. My object all along has simply been to prevent Parliament voting the money on inadequate grounds. I regret that I am not able to take any effective action with respect to this matter. There is no Vote of which I can move the reduction, and of course I cannot go against the Second Reading of this Bill. All I can do is to protest against the course taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We virtually carried a reduction of this Vote, and an inquiry was promised, and now, without any inquiry, this thing has been done. The only way in which the money can be obtained is by saving it out of the Votes for Harbours. They have got £10,000 for Provisional Orders for harbours, and they may save £1,500 out of that; but why is it not put on the Estimates of the House in a straightforward manner so that we can discuss it?
    *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): The hon. Member has put his case forward under several aspects, and the way in which he has dealt with the question renders it necessary for me to remind the House that he is hardly accurate when he represents that last year's reduction of the Vote committed the House to any particular application of this money. The hon. Gentleman represented that this sum of £1,500 would be lost to Thurso, but Thurso is now engaged in spending a considerable sum of money, £13,000, advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners. Of this sum only £6,000 or £7,000 has been spent, and the present object is to render the harbour available in all conditions of the tide and to give a depth of four feet. But there is now a proposal to make the depth eight feet, and a considerable further sum will be required. Therefore this sum of £1,500 is not in question at all, because there is already at the disposal of the Local Authorities more money than they are likely to want for the authorised purpose in the present financial year. Thurso has credit with the Public Works Loan

    1355
    Commissioners for the remainder of the £13,000, and therefore it is not in any sense fair to put the case as one between Thurso and Scrabster. When Thurso has used up all the money that has been advanced on certain securities, then will be the time to raise this question and to make inquiry whether Thurso ought or ought not to get a grant. It does not, however, seem very pertinent to the question before the House. With reference to what the hon. Member said about the undertaking to make an inquiry, I have only to say that the West Highlands Commission, after such investigation as they on their responsibility thought sufficient, pronounced for aid to Scrabster much on the lines which the Government are now proposing. There was absolutely no question as between Thurso and Scrabster, because Thurso was already provided for so far as the present financial year was concerned. It was a question between Scrabster or nothing. Either this £1,500 was to be granted to Scrabster or it must go back into the balances. It seems to me that the Commission have sufficiently considered the matter to warrant the Government in devoting this money to the improvement of the harbour at Scrabster. The Government are not likely to go back on their decision, and I think the hon. Member in pressing the case of Thurso makes a mistake. Thurso has ample credit to go on with, and when they have finished the present loan then will be the time to raise the question. At present I hardly think this is a subject for discussion.
    DR. CLARK: You will consider the matter, then, when this money is finished?
    SIR C. J. PEARSON: Certainly; it will then be open for consideration.

    THE EDUCATION GRANT.
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE,): I do not think it would be fair to accept these sparsely filled Benches as indicating the interest which this Parliament during the last six years has taken in elementary and higher education. It is well known to all of us that
    1356
    there is a certain period in the history of all hon. Members when they are subjected to a kind of chronic complaint, which takes the form of the education of their constituents. The vast majority of hon. Members have been inoculated with this election virus lately, and this furnishes sufficient excuse for the state of these Benches. The other day I was challenged as to whether I was or was not prepared to make any statement with regard to the Education Estimates, and in redemption of a promise I then gave I now propose to make a few remarks; and it would be unfair alike to this House and the constituencies, and the taxpayers of this country, considering the very large sum which we are now called upon to pay on behalf of education, if these Votes this year were allowed, on account of the approaching Dissolution, to pass sub silentio and without any explanation of the position in which we stand to-day as compared with the position, from an educational point of view, of six or seven years ago. I propose, therefore, to give to the House some statistics with reference to what has been done in the last educational year, and at a later period I will deal with the current financial year, and with the position in which we stand generally with regard to the question of education. First of all, the sum granted in the financial year 1891–2 was £4,725,357. The sum actually expended was considerably less; it was £4,659,269, leaving a balance in favour of the Exchequer of £66,088. The sum allotted for annual grants to day and evening scholars was £3,539,183, and the sum actually expended was £3,498,078. The grant for day scholars was 18s. 5d. per head, or one penny less than the estimate; the result being an increase of fourpence as compared with 1890–1, when the grant was paid partly under the old Code of 1889 and partly under the new Code of 1890. The surplus in the annual grant above the sum voted was owing, in the first place, to the average attendance having increased at a somewhat lower rate than we estimated; and, in the second place, to the fact that the payment under the Act of 1891 for free grants was not equal to the sum that we estimated. The

    1357
    payments made under that Act for a portion of the financial year were £775,222, or £31,000 less than the estimate, which was framed, of course, on data which was very difficult to arrive at with any degree of certainty. So much for last year from a monetary aspect. Coming to the Estimates for 1892–3, which will obviously be more interesting to the House and to those outside who take an interest in education, these Estimates of course include the payment of the fee grant under the Act of last year, and provide for no less a sum than £5,946,213, a sum of nearly six millions, which shows an increase of no less than £1,220,856 over the Estimate of the previous financial year. That increase is mainly due to the payment for fee grants under the new Act, which amounted to £1,111,275. I was challenged the other day to give some statistics with reference to the working of the new Act. That Act came into operation on the 1st September last, and we find that out of 19,600 schools in England and Wales, only 165 have declined to accept it, and it is estimated that out of the total mentioned fourteen thousand or fifteen thousand schools are to-day absolutely free. The number, of course, it is difficult to accurately ascertain, and will be difficult until we have arrived at the end of the school year in August next. Since the Act came into operation the Department have also sanctioned an increase of fees in the case of thirty-one schools under Section 4 (11) of the Act of last year, and have refused in nineteen cases similar applications. The remainder of the increase in the Estimate is owing to £90,163 extra for grants for day and evening scholars, and also £6,700 for annual grants to training colleges, which are mostly day training colleges. The increase for day scholars owing to the advance of one penny per head has now reached eighteen shillings and sevenpence per head, and there is an estimated increase of 73,000 in the average attendance of scholars. During the year which concluded on the 31st August the increase in the average attendance was at a much slower rate than we anticipated—only at the rate of one per cent., or thirty-two thousand scholars; but for the present year the increase is
    1358
    estimated at 2·2 per cent. On the subject of the Free Education Act I should like to say one or two words with regard to the challenge thrown out to me the other evening as to what has been the immediate result of the Act. The Act has not been in operation many months, but I think it is important that the House should know, and that those who have paid so heavily out of their pockets should know also, that so far as has been ascertained this Act has been in all its operations a most conspicuous success. The returns from our inpectors show this, and we took particular pains to ascertain from all our inspectors the immediate operation of the Act. The result of our inquiries points to the fact that during the first two months of the operation of this Act there was a great influx of children in our schools; and, therefore, I ask the House to understand that the estimate of 2·2 per cent. does not nearly represent what we estimate to be the increased attendance under the new Act. As hon. Members will observe, this is only an estimate and not a calculation under the Act. The school year varies in different schools, and therefore in a vast number we shall only pay on the results of the new Act for a portion of the financial year, varying from seven to eleven months. Therefore it is only in the 1893–4 Estimates that we shall be able to see the full results of the increased attendance under the Act. I do not think there is much reason for regret that our inspectors have noticed that the large increase in the attendance is amongst infants, for all those who are acquainted with school management are aware that if you once get a child into the school it is not difficult to retain it there. It is therefore a very hopeful sign as regards the future attendance in our schools if we can get the infants who will subsequently go on to the higher standards. Some of our inspectors estimate the increase in the attendance at five per cent., and some as high as eight per cent. There is also a considerable increase noticeable amongst the older scholars, and in one respect especially we find that the new Act has worked admirably as regards attendance. Under the old system, where the scholars paid their fees on Monday

    1359
    morning, if they missed on Monday they generally missed school for the whole week, whereas under the new Act a child may miss on Monday and perhaps on Tuesday, but still attend on the succeeding days, and thereby we find a serious advantage gained as regards attendance. With respect to the work of inspection, the schools inspected by the Department last year numbered 19,508, an increase of eighty-nine. The scholars on the registers numbered 4,824,000, or 20,000 more than in 1890. The average number in attendance was 3,750,000, or 32,000 more than in the previous year. I think the statistics I have given will prove conclusively that the operation of the new Code has been eminently successful, and I need hardly allude to the increase in the grant per child to show what results the new Code has borne. I need not remind hon. Members of the changes embodied in the new Code—the examinations by sample instead of by individual examination, the freedom of classification of scholars and the substitution of principal, and organisation and discipline grants for fixed and merit grants and those upon individual examination. The average rate of the grant per child in infant schools was 15s. 5d., as compared with 15s. 3d. in the previous year, thus showing a steady increase in the grant. The average rate for the older scholars is 18s. 11½d. as against 18s. 7¼d. in the previous year. To this we must add also the grants to pupil teachers for schools in small districts, and the allowance for half-time scholars; and the net result per head for all scholars is 18s. 4d. as compared with 17s. 10¾d. in the previous year. This shows conclusively that it is only for the Department to secure that the sum paid is adequately earned, and it is clear that the new Code is doing a great work in furthering the cause of education in our elementary schools. As regards the financial results of these vast changes the schools must have largely benefited, for a grant of 1d. per head per child represents £16,000; therefore the increase which I have already noted is really not far short of £100,000 per year. I have now nearly done with statistics. With regard to the state-
    1360
    ment that I have usually made with respect to the progress of the children in standards, now that the examination is made chiefly by sample, I have no statement of the kind to make this evening. Another important matter I should like to allude to is the steady increase in class and extra subjects going on in our schools. As has been frequently stated in the course of the Education Debates, what we are endeavouring to do is to give a more practical and more useful education to our children: that our education should be less essentially bookish, and that we should not turn out these children overcrammed with learning exclusively, but endeavour to give them an education which will make them practical and useful subjects of the Queen in whatever part of the country they may be employed. Therefore it is satisfactory to note that there is a steady increase in the number of schools teaching class subjects. We find that 16,149 departments have been examined in two class subjects and 4,413 in one class subject. With respect to the teaching of cookery to girls, which I think is a most important part of their education, I may state that the number of girls qualified in 1886 for the grant was 24,500 in the elementary schools. In the year with which I have been dealing, 1891, the number was 68,291, which shows a very extraordinary and steady increase in the numbers. But in spite of the figures which I have given to the House, I must say we have arrived only on the threshold, as it were, of the result of the changes which I expect will be produced in our educational system. But before I leave these statistics there is one point of vital importance which I ought to allude to, and that is that whatever future changes may be made we should keep steadily before our eyes the question of securing at all hazards the attendance of children in our schools. Considering the large sum now charged to the taxpayers for the education of these children, I think it is of the utmost importance that every effort should be made to see that we get as much as we can in the way of attendance for the money that we spend. For myself, it may be that I am prejudiced, or it may

    1361
    be that I am taking a sanguine view of the increase of the attendance; but if I am disappointed it will be for the House at some future date to look after the large gaps now existing between the accommodation provided for children and the children who enter the schools; and, in the meantime, it will be for us to bring proper pressure to bear on Local Authorities, with a view of improving the attendance. Before I leave statistics I should like to say one word with regard to the Science and Art Department and its incidental reference to technical education. There has been a steady increase in the good work done in this Department. In the year 1890–1 the number of papers worked in science was 179,549, and the next year showed an increase of 20 per cent., the papers in 1891–2 being 214,603. In art during the same period, 1890–1, the number of papers worked was 107,438, and here again there is an increase of 15 per cent., the number for 1891–2 being 123,708. These figures I have given show that not only is elementary education pure and simple advancing by considerable strides, but that throughout the whole country, so far as England, Wales, and Scotland are concerned, a similar success is attending the operations of the Science and Art Department. I should like to say a few words with reference to the position of education generally, and especially with reference to what we have been doing to improve the education of the children in the elementary schools. One word with reference to the Free Education Act. I see an hon. Member opposite who made a very fair demand of me the other night as to whether I had any evidence that I was not taking an over-sanguine view of the Act when I said that, so far as I could discern, the first result of it was to increase the attendance steadily, and that it was teaching thrift to the children. As regards the attendance, I need hardly say that I am content to point to the fact that we are estimating for an increase of attendance during the current year of 2·2 per cent.; but that only represents a portion of the true attendance, because it is only an estimate, and in the case of many
    1362
    schools will deal with only a portion of the year. As far as I can gather from the Inspectors and observations I have made myself, I believe that the Act will result in a very large increase of attendance in the elementary schools. Several hon. Friends of mine in the Debates on the Act prophesied very evil things of education and the future effect of the Act. I should like to assure them and the House, and I have offered sufficient proof, that those predictions have been falsified so far as we can discern at present. It is a curious point that, so far as this Act is concerned, there has been only one complaint to the Department with regard to it, and it occurred in this way. In the first three or four months of the working of the Act there was an enormous increase in the attendance in elementary schools—itself a very satisfactory indication of the success of the Act—and what happened was this. The Department believed, and, I think, rightly believed, that in assessing the grant they should deal with the attendance of the whole year. In consequence of that considerable complaint has been raised in several schools, especially in Lancashire, that they were assessed for the whole year instead of for the three or four months only. It is important to notice that the only complaint arose in consequence of the immediate enormous increase in attendance. I should like to say a word in reference to the thrift, to which I alluded the other night. In these days we hear a great deal about the so-called pauper question, about workhouses; and schemes for old age pensions are promulgated. I am one of those who think that the right way to deal with that difficulty is to go to the root of the matter and inculcate thrift among the children of the country while we have them in our schools. It was with that view—finding how well the Act was working—that I thought it a fair and right opportunity for the Department to issue a Circular to all schools in the country pointing out how easily a penny bank system might be adopted, and our Circular was seconded by one from the Post Office of a like description. I will tell the House what has been the experience of a few months in reference to thrift. I have

    1363
    had a Return carefully prepared for me in the Post Office, dealing with equal periods before and since the Act came into operation. It shows that the new penny banks opened in 1890–1 were 230; during the same period of 1891–2 that number has risen to 2,806, representing an increase of no less than 1,120 per cent. The deposit books supplied for the use of penny bank depositors in 1890–1 were 151,500, and in 1891–2 they had increased to 610,050, an increase of 302 per cent. This is not all. By the co-operation of the Post Office we find that in connection with the schools there has been brought into operation a stamp deposit slip scheme, and no less than 1,350 of our schools had adopted that scheme up to the 1st May. There have been supplied 386,000 stamp deposit slips, representing 275,000 new accounts, for a sum of £13,750. That represents the success of five months only; and as the number of schools is increasing at an enormous rate, it is estimated that by the end of the year 1,200,000 slips will be sent in, representing over £60,000. I may be told that that is a very small sum considering the vast amount of the reduction of fees, but I venture to assure the House that it is no light matter as regards its influence on the future thriftiness of the people of this country. If we can popularise thrift by bringing the children to practise it under the guidance of their parents in connection with the elementary schools we shall have made a vast stride in regard to the comfort, happiness, and well-being of our people, and we shall get into the banks the pennies which might otherwise be spent in the public-house. There is one incidental advantage of this Act to which I should like to allude; it is this, and I regret that we have not had time to pass a short Act in reference to the matter. We find that a large number of funds have been freed by the Act which were previously applied by schemes under the Endowed Schools Acts in providing free places. It is held that these sums which have been freed can still be used for educational purposes; they might be utilised in freeing the evening schools and classes in the locality, or in providing prizes and awards for proficiency, or in
    1364
    establishing scholarships to retain children at school who have reached the standard of exemption. I should like to say a word or two about popular control over voluntary schools. It is a very thorny matter, and I shall say very few words about it. I am glad to find that parental control is spreading largely in our voluntary schools. I know personally many cases in which the parents have been invited by the managers to select a certain number of themselves to assist in the management. I have always been in favour of this addition to the managers. I know that many hon. Members opposite are anxious for the control of the ratepayers; but it has often been urged—and cannot be too often urged—that the control of the ratepayers means the annihilation of the voluntary system. That is a question on which we are here as supporters of the voluntary system, and we will fight it to the death. I shall be interested to know how far hon. Members opposite will place in the forefront of their election addresses this question of the ratepayers' control of voluntary schools. One of the greatest luxuries, from an electioneering point of view, would be their taking such a course as would enable us to show the country how many millions, in a capital sum, it would involve, and how many millions a year the annual charge on the country would be. It has been often urged that by the fee-grant we should pour money into the laps of the managers of voluntary schools without obtaining adequate results. I think the figures I have given will show that as far as education is concerned there has been an improvement all down the line. Since the Act of last year and the new Code we find that voluntary contributions have been steadily increasing, and that meets the allegation that we are paying the taxpayers' money to save the pockets of those who voluntarily contributed. The voluntary contributions have increased by no less than £21,000. Further than that, the reductions under the unfortunate 17s. 6d. limit have diminished, which shows that subscriptions have been raised to meet the increased sum earned by the schools. Out of the £39,000

    1365
    odd which has been usually deducted under the limit, we must take off no less than £4,700. Putting these two sums together I think we have a good and healthy augury, not only for the future of our voluntary schools, but for the future of our whole educational system. Another point of great value is the large increase in the number of scholars examined in specific and extra subjects. In 1890 the increase was only 5,830, or 8 per cent.; whereas in 1891, though the new Code had only just come into operation, that number was more than doubled, and the increase reached 11,476, or 14 per cent. I should now like to say a word or two with reference to teaching. With all these changes in our educational system, one of the first and most prominent reforms which we urged as necessary was the improvement of our teaching staff, and the securing of a good staff of teachers in our schools. I am not here to say for a moment that in every school there is a satisfactory staff, but there is a steady improvement from day to day. I would also remind the House that one of the most difficult reforms we proposed to carry out by the new Code was to secure the real efficiency of our teachers by weeding out from the pupil teachers the more inefficient at an early stage, and so giving them a chance of taking up some other mode of life. No less a number have been weeded out than 1,479. I have heard from time to time that there is a dearth of assistant teachers. It is impossible to carry out large changes of this kind without friction or difficulties here and there, but I think it will be found that this is only a temporary difficulty, and that before many months are over it will have disappeared. With regard to the schools warned for inefficiency, 115 have been so warned, and it may be thought that is a small number considering the number of schools which receive grants. But the system we have adopted under the new Code is something of this kind: besides these 115 schools, a large number have been informally warned. We thought it better to give informal warnings in the first year before proceeding to give formal warning in the second year, and suspend the
    1366
    grant in the third year. I should like to quote several of the inspectors' reports with regard to the improvement under the new Code. Mr. Routledge says—
    "Since the introduction of the last Code I have spent a considerably larger number of hours in school than I ever did before."
    That is an important point, as it points to those unexpected visits which are so valuable. Mr. Brodie, another inspector, says—
    "I have no hesitation in saying that the Code of 1890 has produced a most salutary effect all round on children, teachers, managers, and inspectors. The abolishing of the fallacious percentage system alone is an immense benefit. While the teacher is not so hard pressed to produce a maximum of minimum results, he is much more at liberty as regards methods, choice of subjects, and classification."
    Mr. Barry, another inspector, says—
    "Certain advantages of the new Code have been well explained by Mr. Brodie. Other advantages are freedom of classification, which, as far as I have observed, has not been abused—the fact that now the mass of the grant is fixed, and does not fluctuate with the varying results of inspection, thus giving a certain amount of financial stability to all schools of fair efficiency."
    I may point out that an incidental result of the managers knowing what their income was likely to be has been the increase of subscriptions. Mr. Barry also says—
    "The financial results of the Code of 1890 in the Bath district is that 203 departments, or 79 per cent. of the total number, have received larger grants than they did in the previous year."
    Mr. Coward, another inspector, says—
    "If the nation compels its children to go to school, it incurs the responsibility of seeing that they are provided with accommodation in which their health can be maintained in vigour. The new Code has in this matter taken great strides ahead."
    With regard to classification, he says—
    "The new principle of complete freedom within very moderate and reasonable limits enables the teacher to consider the scholar's interest as the main motive of his classification. It enables him to weigh fully his health, physical and mental development, and other circumstances before determining his place in the school. My own experience in the Manchester district, with its 100,000 children, enables me to say confidently that it has been used, on the whole, moderately and wisely; and the experience of my colleagues agrees with mine."

    1367
    So much for the reports of the inspectors as regards the new Code. Now I should like to pass to the question of drawing in our elementary schools, with regard to which extraordinary strides have been taken. I may remind the House that we are asking under the Science and Art Department Estimate for an increased sum of £48,050 in connection with drawing in elementary schools. In 1881 the number of schools examined in drawing was 5,907; in 1891 it was 6,210; but in 1892, under the new Code, it had increased to 18,693, out of a total of 19,600 schools. I think it is now admitted that pen and pencil should go together in our schools, and one of the first objects of our system is to train hand and eye together. Considering the great interest in technical education, it must be admitted that drawing lies at the root of all progress, and it is a matter of congratulation that we have practically secured the teaching of drawing in our elementary schools. Questions have been raised with regard to the older teachers in our schools and the position they hold, and I have to-day answered a question on the subject. There seems to be some impression abroad among teachers that we intend to bear hardly on some of our older teachers who are not able at once to teach drawing. I may take this opportunity of saying that we are so satisfied with the splendid results we have already achieved that there is no intention on the part of the Department to bear hardly on these teachers. Provided steps are being taken to teach it, we shall be satisfied to wait for results. In the evening school system, however, lies the largest field for educational reform. We must all ask ourselves, What becomes evening after evening of the great mass of our youth in London and other large towns? The question has often been referred to before in this House, and it should be a matter of great concern to us to endeavour to bridge over the hideous gap between the passing of the fifth standard at eleven years of age and the time when the youth is able to take up some useful employment. That is the problem we have been trying to solve during the last six years. We have
    1368
    made some strides in the right direction, and we have adopted reforms and changes which will secure what we want in course of time. In 1880 the average attendance in evening schools was 46,069; in 1885 it had dwindled to 24,233; in 1886 it was 26,089; but in 1891 we had precisely doubled those figures—they had reached 51,974. That is good, so far as it goes, but I believe we are only at the beginning of the change we shall achieve by having freed the curriculum of our evening schools. It is observable that since we have provided that any child who has passed standard five may learn any subject, we have found a considerable increase in the attendance. We have also had a large increase in the number of those who have taken extra subjects—in 1890 only 15,000 were examined in extra subjects; in 1891 the number was 27,546, an increase of 83 per cent. But we hope we have taken the best step of all in connection with the evening schools by publishing and circulating an Evening Continuation School Code. That has not been issued many weeks, but hon. Members will observe that it gives far greater facilities for evening schools, and has a syllabus large enough and wide enough to suit the exigencies of any body of managers and any teacher. We believe by the adoption of this Code we shall be able to secure the attendance of a satisfactory number of pupils. I should like to say a few words with reference to the working of our schools hitherto under the Technical Education Act of 1890. With regard to the important subject of technical education, a Return obtained in another place shows that in a great number of cases the County Councils in England and Wales have applied the whole of their share of the residue under the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890, to technical education; and only in four instances, in England, has the money been applied solely in aid of the rates; while in some instances the grant has been supplemented out of the rates. Well, so far as it goes, that is eminently satisfactory, as it shows that this new system of technical education has been spread like network throughout the whole of our counties in England and Wales. But I think I would be doing

    1369
    wrong if I were to pretend that I am perfectly satisfied with the actual education given and with the present adoption of the Act. I am nothing of the kind. In many cases I believe our County Councils have had the greatest difficulty in knowing what to do with this sum which was allocated to them for technical education. This is not to be wondered at. In the great industrial centres, in Lancashire and Yorkshire and elsewhere, they have splendid practical institutions in which technical education has been carried on for years; but there is no doubt that in many places in the rest of England it has been a new thing altogether; and it is not to be wondered at that in some cases the County Councils have gone astray in the application of this fund. If I might urge one thing of the greatest importance it is this—that there is no use in spending this money on lectures, going around from place to place to different halls and institutions, unless you have antecedently, or accompanying the lectures, provided practical teaching. Therefore, I would urge this at all events: that this money had better be spent for some other purpose than spent upon lectures. I think what we ought to supply first is practical teaching, and then, after practical teaching has been provided, lectures may be supplied with the greatest success. Having said so much, this criticism as to the application of this Customs Fund to technical education leads me to consider another topic upon which I should like to touch, and it is a very important one. It brings to view one thing which demands very serious consideration, and it is this: Considering all that has been done during the past six years for our elementary system of education, not only as regards the sums which we have spent, but the large alterations which we have made in regard to our whole system of teaching, I think it would be well if we were to leave our elementary education alone, so as to test the reform we have made thoroughly, and allow our elementary system to fructify as it stands; and if we were to turn our attention to what I consider a subject of the greatest importance to all of us, and
    1370
    that is to endeavour, as speedily as possible, to fill up the gap which now exists between our elementary system of education and our University education by establishing a proper system of secondary education. In urging this at the very end of a Parliament, it may be said that I am recanting what I urged some years ago at an earlier period of this Parliament with reference to secondary education; but whether I am recanting the opinion which I expressed before on this subject or not is a very small matter indeed. What is a matter of importance is that those of us in this House who have been at work on this great question for six years past are not afraid to say what they think would be best for the educational future of the country. That, after all, is the important matter. I hope the new Parliament, when it is elected, will consider how best to bring into focus and to co-ordinate all these scattered efforts and place them all under one Department, which shall be responsible for the whole of our educational system; and, in considering how best that can be done, will frame some scheme to utilise the great endowments which we have in this country. Wales out of her poverty has set a great example. Wales out of her poverty came to Parliament, said her endowments were few, and asked for assistance in establishing a system of secondary education. Parliament came to the rescue, and very late one night some years ago passed a scheme of secondary education for Wales. From all I can gather from all parties in Wales, both from those who are engaged in working it and from those who are reaping benefits from it, that Act has been already, and will be in the future, of enormous benefit to Wales. Well, having tested it in Wales, why should not richer England diffuse the benefit of her rich endowments for the cause of secondary education? I should like to read one short paragraph from the Report of the Charity Commissioners, in which they state what they think ought to be done. The Charity Commissioners say:—
    "In our dealings with the County Councils with regard to moneys placed at their disposal for educational purposes under the Local

    1371
    Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890 (53 and 54 Vic., c. 60), we are still checked by our inability (except in Wales and Monmouthshire) to treat as permanent endowment any yearly sum which a County Council may be disposed to devote for education under a scheme of our Board. We suggested in our last Report that legislation on this point would be advantageous. In the meantime, all we can do in such cases is to arrange the scheme on the presumption that the County Council grant will be continued, and to leave the contingency of its withdrawal to be dealt with, if it should occur, as and when occasion arises. But we have felt ourselves justified in basing our action on the assumption that the deliberate intentions of a County Council in regard to a continuing educational grant will not be suffered to miscarry; and on this view of the matter we have entered readily into a large project promoted jointly by the County Councils of Kent Surrey, and Sussex (East and West), for the establishment of a fully-equipped school and college of agriculture for the benefit of the three counties, the basis of the arrangement being that, while a site and buildings are provided out of an ancient endowment, the entire cost of maintenance is met by funds to be provided by the three Councils. As the law stands, we have no power to clothe the yearly payments from the Councils with a permanent trust for the school and college; and yet without such payments the scheme would be financially impracticable. The scheme can, therefore, be operative only if and so long as the three Councils find the necessary funds. Apart from the project above referred to, the County Council of Surrey have determined to aid the endowments of several grammar schools within their area by yearly grants varying from £150 to £250 a year, conditionally upon the due representation of the Council upon each Governing Body. A draft scheme is now in progress providing for the required enlargement of the several Governing Bodies, and otherwise adapting the schools aided to the requirements of the Council in respect of the provision for scientific and technical instruction."
    This evidence only shows that, in all parts of England, the people are alive to this great question; and that it is only for Parliament to meet these local efforts by an effort of its own. It seems to me that one of our chief objects, at all events, should be to utilise the endowments wherever they exist. In many cases where there are small endowments but good buildings, it seems to me that the County Councils could apply the sums at their disposal for technical education, either under a scheme or under an Act of Parliament. There is also the great question of the inspection of endowed schools, coupled with the question of the registration of our teachers. These
    1372
    are all subjects which will have to be dealt with in the near future; and I trust for myself that one of the very first acts of the new Parliament, whatever its complexion may be, when elected, will be to frame some such scheme as I have indicated to make the ladder complete, so as to enable every child in our elementary schools to mount steadily up this ladder, through our secondary system of education, to the very best University education. I have only to apologise to the House for having made this very long call upon its time and patience. I should like also before I sit down to say this: that whatever our future struggle may be or whatever the educational issues may be, or whether it may be my lot to take part in them or not, I shall never forget that during the six years I have undertaken the management of this Department I have met from all quarters of this House, from every section of this House, generous sympathy and consideration, which will live in my memory at least as long as I live. When the new Parliament is elected and the great struggle is over, when the wounded and the dead are carried away and our weapons have been again placed in their sheaths, I trust the new Parliament, like its predecessor, will not be unmindful of this great educational question. I trust that the Members of this House, being steady believers in this question, will act practically upon their belief; and however large this great charge may be which their fellow-countrymen and the taxpayers may have to pay towards the cause of education, surely this great sum ought to represent, after all, the best and safest policy of insurance for the stability of our country and the future happiness and prosperity of our people.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I am sorry there are not more Members present to listen to the statement made by my right hon. Friend. I am sure that those of us who are present, and have heard this interesting and valuable statement, must congratulate ourselves upon the great progress that has been made during the past year. No doubt some had entertained fears that the practical abolition of fees

    1373
    in our elementary schools would really have the effect of diminishing the attendance; but experience shows that all such fears have been found to be entirely visionary; and I think we may congratulate my right hon. Friend both on the increased attendance which he anticipates on such good grounds, and also on the fact that this very great change has been carried through with remarkably little friction. My right hon. Friend has said that one of the defects of our educational system hitherto was that it has been too bookish, and not sufficiently practical, and I am afraid that is the case still. My right hon. Friend referred to the increase in the number of children who are going in for the special subjects, but I think that those who will look through the figures will agree with me that, although no doubt there has been a considerable increase, still that increase has been rather with reference to the bookish subjects than to the more practical ones to which my right hon. Friend has referred. So far as elementary science in our schools is concerned, last year only between thirty and forty schools presented children for examination on these subjects; and when we consider that there are some twenty thousand schools altogether, I think we must feel that this is a very unsatisfactory position in which to find ourselves. On the other hand, it is no doubt true that science schools in connection with the Science and Art Department are making most satisfactory progress. That is a matter in which we must all rejoice. At the same time I should very much like to see more attention given to that subject in the elementary schools also. As regards evening schools the increase in the attendance during the past year has been very considerable; but at the same time the total number of children in the evening schools is still very small in proportion to the whole of the country, so that I hope my right hon. Friend will continue to direct his attention to that most important part of the subject, and that whoever makes the educational statement next year—whether my right hon. Friend or anyone else—will be able to tell us that the number of children in the even-
    1374
    ing schools has continued to increase. So far as drawing is concerned, the statement of the Vice President left little to be desired. But the particular point to which I beg to draw my right hon. Friend's attention, especially because he said that we might leave the Code to stand for a time and make no further change as regards our elementary schools, is the exclusion of elementary science to such an extent. I, for one, could not altogether subscribe to that hope so long as I find that elementary science is so much excluded from our schools. I hope my right hon. Friend will direct his attention to that point, which I cannot but think is a very great blot upon our system as it at present stands. Until some change is made in this respect we cannot say that our elementary schools are in a satisfactory position.
    SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I join with the right hon. Baronet who has just sat down in offering my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education upon the statement he has made. No doubt I am one of those few who do not always agree with the educational policy of my right hon. Friend. Still, I must admit the general excellence of the educational administration. No doubt there has been a great increase of popularity as well as of efficiency. Our schools are improving all along the line. There has been an increase of the actual attendance and an increase of the average attendance; and the House will know that there is a great difference between these two things. There is also a satisfactory increase in voluntary subscriptions, and also in the numbers of, and the attendance in, evening schools. There is, no doubt, a great improvement also in the teaching of elementary science — I can answer for that at all events within the Metropolitan area. But there is one particular point of the greatest interest to practical educationists, to which I venture to direct the attention of my right hon. Friend. The House is aware of the great interest which parents in the working classes attach to the manner in which their children shall be able to leave school in order to go to work.

    1375
    Accordingly the existing law prescribes that a child must have passed the fourth standard before it can go to half-time work, and the sixth standard before it is allowed to work full time. It will be observed that the law prescribes that a child must pass these standards; and that means that it must pass them in all the subjects which are included in these two standards. Now, that might have worked extremely well so long as there was a system of individual examination; but other hon. Members and myself impressed upon the Government the importance of modifying the system of individual examination, and in the year 1890 my right hon. Friend was so good as to modify that system. He did not go certainly so far as practical educationists desire, but still he went a considerable length, and in so far has conferred a signal benefit on all those who are interested in the work of education as well as upon the scholars themselves. But now this benefit is seriously threatened, and if a remedy is not applied much of the advantage which my right hon. Friend desires and has actually secured to the cause of education will be lost. Now that the system of individual examination is done away with, we have an examination of the general condition of the schools by Her Majesty's Inspectors, and we have superadded to that what is called "sample examination." A scholar is moved from one standard to another, not upon individual examination but upon a general classification arranged by the master according to the system which I have mentioned. Now, when a working man finds that his child has been promoted from the fourth to the fifth standard, he naturally says, "Why, the child can now work half-time." But not so. There is an objection thereto—namely, that the child has not actually passed; though he has been promoted from the fourth standard to the fifth upon the general system now arranged, he has not technically passed, and therefore cannot go to work. This is becoming a very serious grievance among the parents; and there is but one mode of rectifying it. It is not a question of improving the Code; it is a question of the
    1376
    law. There are several Acts concerned in this matter which must all be modified or repealed; and this is a matter which can only be dealt with by the Government, and it is worthy of the consideration of my right hon. Friend. I may remind him, as he properly lays so much stress upon attendance, that this would be a means of improving the average attendance — because what form should the remedy take? We shall have to prescribe by the law that the children shall be considered to have passed these standards, and to have been promoted from one standard to another, not upon individual examination, but upon attendance plus the general tests of the inspection. I think everybody concerned in teaching will admit that the true test in these cases is attendance. Here, then, would be a potent motive supplied to every parent to secure the attendance of his child so that it might fulfil the prescribed attendance, and so qualify to obtain that certificate which is necessary in order to enable it to go to work and earn wages. I hope I have not unduly laboured this matter, but I assure the House and the Government that it is one of pressing importance. I should like to say one word about the drawing. I entirely concur with everything which has fallen from my right hon. Friend regarding the importance of this branch of art for practical purposes. Having practised it all my life, I should be the first to magnify its importance; but there is no doubt that in the country a great number of elderly schoolmasters and schoolmistresses are being sorely troubled in this matter because they cannot teach drawing; and all these elderly—I will not say antiquated—schoolmasters and schoolmistresses who cannot teach drawing are exactly the people who ought to be superannuated; and I earnestly hope that this matter of superannuation will be seriously taken up by the next Parliament. Already a full and complete Report by the Committee, mostly experts in education, has been presented to this House, and I earnestly commend it to the consideration of Parliament and of the country. I am sure it is a subject which is regarded with the utmost

    1377
    anxiety by the 50,000 teachers who are now employed in England and Wales. As regards the evening classes, I was one of those who hoped that once the new Code was liberalised in respect of the evening class schools, and we had a popular curriculum, then all would go well, and our evening classes would advance by leaps and bounds. But such, I grieve to say, is not the case. Of course they are growing; we were increasing gradually before the new Code, and are still increasing, but somehow or other the best intentions of the new Code have not quite answered expectations. We seem to halt somewhat, and I am afraid some other measure will have to be devised. I know this is a subject in which the Member for Flintshire takes the greatest interest, and I hope he will be able to enlighten us upon it this evening; but I am sure we shall have to take some additional step in this behalf. It is absolutely essential, as my right hon. Friend admits, that something further should be done in this respect, and I fear that something in the shape of compulsion will have to be adopted if evening classes are to be rendered efficient. But, on the other hand, if there is to be a disadvantage of that kind, we shall have to offer some corresponding advantage or facility or easement, if I may use that term, which shall reconcile the working classes to any such change. I must express my regret that the Bill for relieving the voluntary schools from rating has somehow fallen through. We had hoped that, if the schools were to be thrown open to political meetings and used for all sorts of electioneering purposes, at all events they might be excused from the payment of rates. That was our hope, and it has been disappointed, and I must express my regret that this measure has fallen through. The right hon. Gentleman properly alluded to the bridging over of the gap—of the interval between our elementary education and our University system. Surely that refers to secondary education. I would remind the House that in this matter
    1378
    of secondary education a measure for the registration of teachers—a measure which is fraught with the direst consequences both to the qualification and the status of the teachers—has been before the House now for two Sessions. A Select Committee, presided over by my right hon. Friend himself, sat last Session. In accordance with the Report of that Committee, a Bill has been drafted and introduced by me this Session. It was supported by two educational authorities on the other side—the hon. Member for Eccles and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds—and I think it had the approval of the Education Department itself. This has been brought repeatedly before the House, and to my great regret it has been impossible to obtain a Second Reading. I have to thank the House for listening to these practical observations, and to express my thankfulness to the right hon. Gentleman for the statement he has been able to make, and my confidence that it will greatly strengthen the cause of education in the country at large.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  GALWAY INFIRMARY (re-committed) BILL.—(No. 350.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I hope the House will allow the Third Reading to be taken. This Bill has passed through a Select Committee. It deals with a matter of great urgency, and there is barely time to pass it through.
  MR. SEXTON: I was just about to make an appeal in the same sense, and I hope the House will agree to it.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  WITNESSES (PUBLIC INQUIRIES) PROTECTION BILL.—(No. 365.)
  CHANGED FROM

  WITNESSES (ROYAL COMMISSIONS AND PARLIAMENT) PROTECTION BILL.—(No. 287.)
  CONSIDERATION.
  As amended, considered.
  New Clause—
  (Application to Scotland.)
  "In the application of this Act to Scotland the following modifications shall have effect:—(1.) A court of summary jurisdiction means the sheriff; (2.) If the complainant or the party charged, as in section three of this Act mentioned, objects to the case being dealt with summarily, it shall be sent for trial by the sheriff with a jury, or by the High Court of Justiciary, as Her Majesty's Advocate shall direct; (3.) Judgment debt means a civil debt, and such debt may be recovered in any competent court,"—(Sir C. J. Pearson,)
  —brought up, read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS BILL [Lords.]
  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  On Motion of Sir ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.) the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Page 1, line 10, leave out all after "instruction," to end of Sub-section (1), and insert "within the meaning of 'The Technical Instruction Act, 1889.'"
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 3 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  LAND COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 396.)
  CONSIDERATION.
  As amended, considered.
  MR. SEXTON: The Bill proposes that the Purchase Commissioners shall not receive their increase of salary until the Fair Rent Commissioners have
  1380
  cleared off their arrears of work. That is a very indefinite period; and as the right hon. Gentleman has expressed the opinion that the arrears might be cleared off in nine months, I would propose that the equalisation of the salaries should come into force on the 1st January of next year. I therefore move—
  In page 1, line 9, after the word "of," to insert the words "or after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-three, whichever date shall first occur."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): What was contemplated in regard to this arrangement was that there should be an equalisation of work as well as an equalisation of salaries. I think it was also intended that the equalisation of salaries should take place from the date when the duties of the Commissioners should become interchangeable, or rather when the arrears had been overtaken both by the Fair Rent and the Purchase Commissioners. I would suggest that 1st June, 1893, would be a better date than 1st January. The 1st June is perhaps a somewhat sanguine estimate as to the period when the whole of the fair rent appeals will be cleared off, although they may be overtaken in less time; but there can be no doubt that the purchase arrears, as now shown by the Return which has been made to the House, are such that even by that date the Purchase Commissioners will be behind with their work. I think the suggested alteration is one which the hon. Member will accept, for it will give a considerable advantage to the Purchase Commissioners, as it anticipates the date probably by some months, if not by a year, when their work will have been brought up to date. I think the hon. Member will agree that I have not only considered his suggestion, but that I have met it in a reasonable and fair manner. I would venture now to suggest that it would perhaps be better, looking to the wording of the clause, if the Amendment should read—

  1381
  "Or from or after the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-three, whichever date should first happen."
  Perhaps the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment, or alter it as I have suggested.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman, in referring to "arrears," has introduced a new term which is not covered by the Bill. I doubt whether his Amendment will confer all that it ought to confer on the senior Commissioners; but it is better than nothing, and I will therefore withdraw my Amendment in its favour.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SPEAKER: I will now put the proposition in its amended form—
  "Or from or after the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-three, whichever date should first happen."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  MILITARY LANDS CONSOLIDATION (re-committed) BILL.—(No. 184.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 24.
  On Motion of the FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Brodrick, Surrey, Guildford) the following Amendment was agreed to:—Leave out, in page 11, line 17, "et cetera."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 25 to 27 agreed to.
  Clause 28.
  On Motion of Mr. BRODRICK, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Page 13, at the end of Clause, insert "and any bye-law made under any enactment shall be deemed to have been made under this Act."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 29 agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.—(No. 418.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GORST,): This Bill has not yet been printed.
  MR. SEXTON: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to take the Bill off-hand, I have no objection.
  SIR JOHN GORST: It is a Bill of great importance, and I think it should first be printed.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think we have great reason to complain that a Bill of this kind should not have been printed when the Second Reading was taken last night.
  Committee deferred till to-morrow.

  ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 213.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to move that the Order be discharged and the Bill withdrawn. In consequence of the legislative activity of the Government supporters and the persistent opposition with which this Bill is met, I have been obliged with great regret to take this course. I express sincere regret that, in the interests of the landlord class—to which I myself belong—and in the interest of what I call really a legitimate sport, it has not been found possible to legislate in some way to meet the wants and wishes of a large section of the people of Scotland. The course I am obliged to take will not, I am sure, do us who represent the northern constituencies any harm, because when we talk to our people we should have to lay before them what I may call a very interesting drama. The first act was the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) and the apparent acceptance of it by the Government in order to avoid an inconvenient Division. Act No. 2 was the introduction of this Bill which I am now obliged to withdraw; and act No. 3 was the Bill introduced by the Lord Advocate, which everybody

  1383
  who understood the subject must have seen really made matters a great deal worse than before by supporting a close time for tourists and the bye-law preventing people doing what they are now permitted to do unless prohibited by interested parties. That Bill was eventually withdrawn because, bad as we thought it, it was even too much for the squeamish stomachs of hon. Members opposite, and with this act I will let down the curtain.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order be discharged, and the Bill withdrawn."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Order discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  SCHOOL BOARD FOR LONDON (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.—(No. 96.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I object.
  MR. SPEAKER: The objection is not sufficient.
  MR. DIXON - HARTLAND: Considering the great sums which are paid to the teachers in connection with this School Board in comparison with other teachers in other parts of Middlesex and the United Kingdom, I do not think there should be a Superannuation Bill in their behalf. The Bill is strongly opposed, and it is considered that they have sufficient means of providing for themselves.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  WATER COMPANIES (REGULATION OF POWERS BILL [Lords.]—(No. 4.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  *SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I beg to move the Second Reading. It is a Bill which places some impediment in regard to the Water Companies cutting off the
  1384
  supply of water. It passed through the other House with general approval, and without any serious opposition.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir John Lubbock).
  BARON DIMSDALE: I hope the right hon. Baronet will postpone the Second Reading, as I believe there are many gentlemen who oppose it. They are not here to-day; but if the Second Reading is taken, there is no doubt but that they will take every opportunity at a future stage of opposing it.
  *SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: At any other period of the Session I would agree; but it would be useless to attempt to pass the Bill unless I took this stage now.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am afraid we are now attempting to take Bills possibly of a very controversial character without warning. The understanding was that the Government would cease to occupy the time at twelve o'clock, and the consequence is that Bills which come on before that hour, and which are not Government Bills come on quite unexpectedly, and when it is not possible for the gentlemen interested to come down and make their observations at this stage. I should put no obstacle in the way of unopposed Private Bills being taken before twelve o'clock, but I think my hon. Friend will see that it is not desirable to take a Bill at this time to which I gather there is considerable opposition without giving sufficient warning. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not press his Motion.
  VISCOUNT GRIMSTON: I join in asking the right hon. Baronet to postpone the Second Reading of this Bill. Although a large amount of sympathy must be extended to him for his efforts to give to the London County Council powers which they desire, still this Bill excites a great deal of controversy, and it would be to the advantage of his own views to postpone this stage.
  *SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: This Bill gives no powers to the London County Council; the advantages it gives are to

  1385
  the users of water. After the right hon. Gentleman's expression, however, I cannot press the Motion, and I will, therefore, put the Bill down for To-morrow.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  GENERAL POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER [INVERNESS] BILL.—(No. 403.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.—(No. 346.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.—(No. 375.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed,
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.—(No. 341.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  CORN SALES.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed].
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 279.]

  WATERMEN'S AND LIGHTERMEN'S COMPANY BILL.—(No. 144.)
  Reported from the Select Committee, without Amendment, with Minutes of Evidence.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 280]

  TELEGRAPHS BILL.—(No. 377.)
  Special Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
  Bill reported, with Amendments.
  Bill, as amended, to be printed [Bill 423]; re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.
  Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 278.]

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Returns ordered—
  "Of the number of Private Bills introduced in and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in the Session of 1892, classed according to the following subjects:—Railways; Tramways; Tramroads; Subways; Canals and Navigations; Roads and Bridges; Water; Gas and Water; Lighting and Improvement; Police and Sanitary Regulations; Corporations, &c. (not relating to Police and Sanitary Regulations or to Lighting and Improvement Schemes); Ports, Piers, Harbours, and Docks; Churches, Chapels, and Burying Grounds; Inclosure and Drainage; Estate; Divorce; and Miscellaneous."
  "Of all the Private Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, which, in the Session of 1892, have been treated as Opposed Bills; specifying those which have been classified in Groups by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills; together with the names of the Selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each Selected Member has served; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed; the Bills referred back to the Committee of Selection, or to the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, as having become unopposed, and the Bills withdrawn, or not proceeded with by the parties."
  "And, of all Private Bills which, in the Session of 1892, have been referred by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.142, of Session 1890–91)."—(Mr. M'Lagan.)

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered—
  "Of the number of days on which the House sat in the Session of 1892; stating, for each day the date of the month, and day of the week, the hour of meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after midnight; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.143, of Session 1890–91)."—(Mr. M'Lagan.)

  PUBLIC BILLS.
  Return ordered—
  "Of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during the Session of 1892; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.164, of Session 1890–91)."—(Mr. M'Lagan.)

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Return ordered—
  "Of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in the Session of 1892; with the total number of Signatures in that year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.144, of Session 1890–91)."—(Mr. M'Lagan.)

  DIVISIONS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered—
  "Of the number of Divisions of the House in the Session of 1892; stating the subject of the Division, and the number of Members in the majority and minority, Tellers included; also the aggregate number in the House on each Division; distinguishing the Divisions on Public Business from Private; and also the number of Divisions before and after midnight (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.140, of Session 1890–91)."—(Mr. M'Lagan.)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  (DAYS OCCUPIED BY GOVERNMENT AND BY PRIVATE MEMBERS.)
  Return ordered—
  "Showing, with reference to Session 1892 (1) the number of sittings on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at which Government Business had precedence; (2) the number of sittings on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at which Private Members had precedence; (3) the number of other sittings at which, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, Government Business had precedence; (4) the number of sittings at which Government Business had precedence under a Special Order of the House; (5) the number of Saturday sittings; (6) the total number of sittings at which Government Business had precedence; (7) the total number of days on which the House sat; (8) the total number of Motions for Adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance; and (9) the number of days in Supply."—(Mr. M'Lagan.)

  ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. IX.
  Return ordered—
  "Of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. IX., showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing, the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon in Session 1892 (in the same form as, and in continuation of, Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.165, of Session 1890–91)."—(Mr. M'Lagan.)

  SHOP HOURS BILL.—(No. 26.)
  Special Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
  Bill reported, with Amendments.
  Bill, as amended, to be printed [Bill 424]; re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.
  Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 287.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.—(No. 345.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed].
  Bill, as amended, to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

  SUPERANNUATION ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) (re-committed) BILL.—(No. 275.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  BANKS OF ENGLAND AND IRELAND (PAYMENTS) BILL.—(No. 406.)
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  CIVIL BILL COURTS (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 313.)
  Order for Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [Lords] (No. 411.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  CASUAL WARDS BILL.—(No. 384.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES LAW CONSOLIDATION BILL.—(No. 143.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  NATIONAL DEBT (STOCKHOLDERS' RELIEF) BILL.—(No. 407.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 416.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 262.)
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BILL.—(No. 371.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  EAST INDIA OFFICERS BILL [Lords.] (No. 246.)
  Order for Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  GENERAL POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1862) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 188.)
  Order for Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn

  SMALL HOLDINGS BILL.—(No. 148.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  FOOTPATHS PRESERVATION BILL. (No. 161.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS REGISTRATION BILL.—(No. 241.)
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 405.)
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (RE-ARRANGEMENT OF ROOMS).
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 288.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Extracts Bill, Gas Provisional Orders Bill, Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under 'The Tramways Act, 1870,' relating to Bedford and Kempston Tramway, Perth and District Tramways, and Somerton, Keinton-Mandeville, and Castle Cary Tramways." [Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under 'The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870,' relating to Ross Water and Sevenoaks Water." [Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].
  And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to the county of London (a portion of), Southwark, and Wandsworth, [Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Bill [Lords].
  Clergy Discipline (Immorality) Bill,—That they have agreed to the Amendments to the Clergy Discipline (Immorality) Bill, with an Amendment, and with Consequential Amendments.
  Town Holdings,—That they do request that this House will be pleased to communicate to their Lordships a Copy of the Report, &c. of the Select Committee appointed by this House in the present Session of Parliament on Town Holdings:—Lords Message considered.
  Ordered, That a printed Copy be communicated.

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 426.]
  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 427.]

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 5) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 428.]
  MAURITIUS LOAN GUARANTEE.
  Resolution reported—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to guarantee, on the security of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, the payment of the principal, with interest at a rate of 3 per cent. per annum, of a loan of £600,000, to be raised by the Government of Mauritius for meeting the damage caused by the hurricane."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Baron Henry de Worms, and Sir John Gorst.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 425.]

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, 'That this House do now adjourn."
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman
  1392
  to the undesirability of proceeding further with certain Private Bills which might provoke some opposition. I hope he will adhere to the understanding that Bills of this nature should not be taken when hon. Members interested are absent.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I feel the extreme inconvenience of discussing opposed Private Bills, and I think they should not be proceeded with during the remainder of the Session. If I find that any Bill really meets with opposition I will endeavour, even before twelve o'clock, to prevent it being taken.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I would just point out that I think it would be extremely unfair if Private Bills, except those that are not opposed, should be allowed to be proceeded with at the present stage of Business, because in that case hon. Members interested in certain of those Bills who might wish to be away would have to wait here during the days Parliament continues to sit on the chance of these Bills coming on.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I hope the London School Board Superannuation Bill will not be allowed to pass as a Private Bill. It is one that affects many thousands of ratepayers in the Metropolis, and I do not think it should be allowed to pass.
  MR. BALFOUR: The understanding is that the Government should oppose any private opposed Bill that came up after 12.30. But I entirely agree with the observation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that we have now reached a period of our Business when it would be absurd to discuss opposed Private Bills; and under these circumstances I shall endeavour, if the Business of the House to-morrow is concluded considerably before twelve o'clock, as I hope will be the case, to prevent any Private Business from being taken.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Twelve o clock.

REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR IRELAND.
Writs and Returns electing the Lord Muskerry a Representative Peer for Ireland in the room of the late Lord Castlemaine, deceased, with the Certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed thereto: Delivered (on oath), and Certificate read.

ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN): My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill. The object of it is to extend to Scotland the provisions of the Allotments Acts of 1887 and 1889. I do not think I need detain your Lordships at all by going into the details of this Bill, because it has been framed, as far as the procedure in Scotland would allow of it, upon the two Acts of 1887 and 1889 which refer to England alone. The two English Acts were to a certain extent experimental; but, since they have been in force, a desire has been frequently expressed that the principle embodied in them should be established in Scotland as well as in England. There is another reason which makes legislation for such a purpose partly appropriate at the present time, because there is at present before your Lordships a Bill, to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading three nights ago, which has been framed with the object of promoting the creation of small agricultural holdings, and thereby preventing, so far as legislation of this nature can prevent it, the wholesale transference of the population from the rural districts to the urban districts. That Bill applies to Scotland as well as England; but the Bill which I now ask to be read a second time may be considered to be, in effect, another step, so far as Scotland is concerned, towards the end which
1218
your Lordships have in view in passing the Small Agricultural Holdings Bill for England—namely, to prevent, as far as might be possible, the migration from the rural to the urban districts. My Lords, to cultivate an allotment is no bad training for the cultivation of a small holding, and it may safely be said that the chance of creating a numerous class of small holders will be slight unless the class of labourers from which they should come has some chance, first of all, of gaining practical experience on a small scale. How far such opportunities already exist in Scotland, and how far Scottish labourers are willing to take advantage of them, is a question that I need not entertain at this moment; but if, without danger to anyone, it is possible to encourage the procuring of allotments, and thus to promote the cultivation of the soil, and to prevent, if only to a small extent, the migration from the rural to the urban districts, then I think Her Majesty's Government are justified in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to a Bill which has for its object that very desirable result; and the measure to which I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading is framed with that intention. I do not think I need enter upon the urgent necessity of a Bill such as this. It is not a fact that requires to be demonstrated. The Bill is an honest attempt to keep the labourer to a closer connection with the land; and, whether that closer connection is rendered necessary by the social conditions or not, it is I think a thing in itself desirable. Whether such a close connection can be achieved or not depends I think entirely upon the nature of the soil, and other circumstances that the Legislature cannot control; but the Legislature can remove the obstacles to any advance on the road that is desirable. In addition to this I think, so far as Scotland is concerned, your Lordships who are acquainted with the history of the agricultural labourer in Scotland will admit that there is one system in Scotland which it would be very desirable as far as possible to put an end to. I refer to the peculiar system in Scotland by which the labourers on the farms are apt, after a very short residence on one farm, to change masters and go to another. The object of the Bill, as I have stated already, is to prevent, as far as may be possible, the migration of the

1219
rural population into the burghs; but in addition to that we have in Scotland a system which involves the migration, not only to the cities, but the migration of the agricultural population from one part of the country to another. I have always held that this is a great drawback to our agricultural population in Scotland. I have no doubt it has its advantages; but, on the other hand, I think the disadvantages more than counterbalance any advantages which may be obtained from the system. In the first place we have what are called Hiring Fairs in Scotland. I think those in themselves are an institution which it is not desirable to continue, and if, by any means, they could be stopped, it would be much in the interest of the agricultural population. But if, under this Bill, the rural population can be induced to acquire allotments in their own district and in the neighbourhood in which they live, I think we may be certain that the result will be that gradually, not at first, they will be more inclined to remain in the places in which perhaps they were born, and in which at any rate they have passed a large portion of their lives. And looking to the present political state of the country, and the large amount of power that is given to the agricultural labourer, I feel convinced, as I think your Lordships will be, that it is very desirable that the agricultural labourer should remain fixed more or less by his own interest in one part of the country, and not be constantly migrating from place to place with interests affecting naturally himself only, and not with regard to the part of the country in which he lives. If this Bill has any effect of that description I am sure that that alone will be a great advantage to the rural population of Scotland. The system that I have alluded to does not affect the whole of Scotland; but it affects very largely the agricultural population in the south. My Lords, I do not propose to-night to enter into the details of the Bill, because it is identically, for all practical purposes, the same Bill to which your Lordships have already assented on the part of England, and therefore I think it would only be a waste of your Lordships' time to go into the details on this occasion. With these few remarks, I have to ask your Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
*THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: My Lords, I do not rise in any way to offer objection to the Second Reading of the Bill, but merely to remark upon its very great importance. I think the noble Marquess has not in the least exaggerated the importance of the subject, and I go rather further than he does in thinking that the Act will be a great boon in the agricultural districts of Scotland. I have been always very much astonished that when the Allotments Act was passed for England it was not also passed for Scotland. But as regards the many details of the Bill it would be impossible, in the short time we have had it before us, to criticise it. So far as I can see it goes entirely upon the lines of the English Act adjusted to meet Scotch law, and I look forward in the rural districts of Scotland to its being brought into operation at once. I think that the county I belong to was the foremost county in appealing to have the Act extended to Scotland, and I hope that in Aberdeenshire it will be made use of. My Lords, the only criticism I would offer is as to the election of managers in Clause 9. Do I rightly understand it to be the object of the Bill that if a parish wishes to elect managers of the allotments, upon petition to the Local Authority, that is the County Council, they may have the right, if supported by one sixth of the ratepayers, to take the management of the allotments out of the hands of the County Council?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, that is so.
*THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: I think that goes further than the English Act does. It is a very strong order that, by the petition of a certain number of the inhabitants of a parish, the whole management of an Act of Parliament may be taken out of the hands of the Local Authority.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I think the noble Marquess will find that that follows exactly the lines of the English Act, and is a course which has been followed by Parliament on a great many occasions—namely, to give to the people interested in a district the management of the district itself, or rather

1221
to take it out of the hands of the County Council. The interpretation put upon Clause 9 by the noble Marquess is quite correct. Whether the noble Marquess objects to it or not is another question.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: I do not know whether I made myself quite clear. Does the clause take the whole management only of the allotments out of the hands of the Local Authority, or does it take the control of the finances as well, or would they be entirely responsible under the Act for the management?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: They would be entirely responsible under the Act for the management.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

NAVAL KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
*LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, this is a very short Bill which I think I can explain in a very few words. It appears that in 1724 a Mr. Travers left a sum of money in aid of superannuated or disabled lieutenants of English men-of-war; he left a property of 1,140 acres in Essex, but coupled with certain conditions. The Knights were to be single, they were to have no children, they were to be inclined to lead a virtuous, studious, and a devout life, they were to live in a collegiate manner, they were to keep their mess together in the Common Hall, and were to attend divine service daily in St. George's Chapel. This bequest was some time after supplemented by Lieutenant Brathwaite, R.N., who left £18,000 for the same object, but the conditions imposed have been proved by the experience of over three-quarters of a century to be entirely inconsistent with and unsuited to the habits and wants of naval officers at the present day. My Lords, I think that the Memorandum at the beginning of the Bill will explain as simply as possible what the object of the Bill is. Owing to these conditions we have experienced great difficulty in finding officers eligible to fill the vacancies, which is shown by the fact that at present we have only four Knights
1222
instead of seven. Under those circumstances, as the Memorandum states, it has been decided to dissolve the Corporation of the Naval Knights of Windsor, and to appropriate the funds in a more useful manner, for the direct benefit of a large class of deserving naval officers in whose interest the Trust was originally founded. The income of the property thus transferred will be granted in the form of pensions to naval officers of the rank of lieutenant of the Navy or who have retired from that rank, and the arrangement so made by the Admiralty will be submitted for approval to Her Majesty in Council. That is really the whole Bill. I will only add that it passed through the House of Commons without comment or amendment; and under those circumstances I trust your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Elphinstone.)
VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: I wish to ask the noble Lord whether the Papers containing the Regulations will be laid upon the Table of the House?
*LORD ELPHINSTONE: The Papers have not yet been submitted to Her Majesty in Council.
VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: But after they have been submitted?
*LORD ELPHINSTONE: They will certainly be laid upon the Table.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I do not rise to offer any opposition to the Bill, the principal object of which is very much to be commended. The bequest of Mr. Travers, with the conditions that he imposed by the terms of his will, has been found very difficult to administer, especially of late year's, and the Admiralty are I think taking a very wise step in proposing new conditions for its administration. But I would like to call the attention of the noble Lord to the terms of the Bill, which I think do not carry out the object of the bequest in so strict a manner as they ought to do. These funds, whatever they are, belong absolutely and solely to the officers of the Royal Navy of the rank of lieutenant, or of the rank of lieutenant with the retired rank of commander; they ought not to be granted in the way of pensions to officers of any other rank, or to any other persons

1223
than lieutenants who are in the Royal Navy. My Lords, under Clause 2 I do not think that the Admiralty are bound, as the words now stand, to apply the whole of the property in the manner in which they wish to apply it. The words are that the Admiralty may out of this property grant pensions to retired officers of the rank of lieutenant; but it does not necessarily follow that they must do it. The word "may" I know is supposed very often to mean the same thing as "shall," but "shall" is a much better word than "may," and the noble Lord will see that the word "shall" is used in Sub-section 4 of the same clause; and therefore I think it had much better be used here. I would suggest to the noble Lord that Sub-section 20 of that clause should be altered in something like the following form: "That the Admiralty shall after deducting the necessary or proper expenses of management, expend the income of the said property in pensions to officers of the rank of lieutenant"; then the Admiralty will be bound to expend this money in that particular way and in that particular way alone. My Lords, I have a practical reason for making these remarks because there is reference made in the Bill to the property of Greenwich Hospital. I happen to have had some knowledge of the administration of that property at the time when very great changes were being made in its application, and in the conditions in which it was applied; and I know that there are occasionally claims put forward by persons who have no right whatsoever to these bequests, and that in any Bill which deals with a bequest of this kind, which is limited to a particular rank of officers, the most clear terms ought to be used so as to leave the Admiralty no discretion in the matter. The bequest ought to be applied to officers of that rank, of course on conditions which approve themselves to the Admiralty and to Her Majesty in Council. I would suggest to the noble Lord to consider the making of an alteration of that kind. It interferes neither with the principle of the Bill, nor with the objects of the Admiralty, but it carries out the proposal in a way which leaves no room for mistake. But there is one point further in Clause 2—the rents and profits of the lands vested in the Admiralty by virtue of the Green-
1224
wich Hospital Act are to be paid in a particular way. Now there is no reference in the Preamble to this Bill to the property of Greenwich Hospital. This Bill professes to deal only with the bequest of Mr. Travers and the Naval Knights of Windsor, and I do not think any person, interested in the property of Greenwich Hospital, could possibly have guessed that he would find that a regulation is laid down in a Bill relating to the Naval Knights of Windsor which is to apply to the whole property of Greenwich Hospital. I think those words ought to be struck out. I think all reference to Greenwich Hospital quâ Greenwich Hospital is quite inappropriate to a Bill which refers solely to the Naval Knights of Windsor.
*LORD ELPHINSTONE: Under Clause 2 the Admiralty are empowered to grant pensions to retired officers of the rank of lieutenant only.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: That is all right.
*LORD ELPHINSTONE: Or to lieutenants who have retired with the rank of commander. The noble Earl knows that lieutenants on being retired are very often lieutenants with superior rank.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Hear, hear!
*LORD ELPHINSTONE: In dealing with the new property the powers conferred on the Admiralty by the Greenwich Hospital Acts will give the necessary authority to defray all proper expenses for management before applying any of the income towards the pensions. The noble Earl was at the Admiralty this morning and I heard the objection that he proposed raising. We therefore referred the matter to the draftsman, and I think if the noble Lord looks at the last paragraph of the Memorandum he will see how impossible it is for us now to accept any Amendment to the Bill. The last paragraph says that all the persons interested in the Travers College have signified their concurrence with those proposals. This Memorandum from the draftsman was put into my hands a very short time ago. Touching upon that very same point that all persons interested have signified their concurrence he says—
"This being an agreed Bill should not be altered at the last stage."

1225
And then he goes on—
"The Amendments proposed by the noble Earl are unnecessary, and would make no real alteration. The word 'may' confers a power, but it is a power for the non-exercise of which a Public Department might be called to account in Parliament, and in that sense it is equivalent to 'shall.'"
Further he goes on—
"From an administrative point of view it would be undesirable that the hands of the Admiralty should be too closely fettered. Income derived from land is subject to fluctuation, and therefore it would be necessary to have a safe margin in reserve. The Admiralty have not finally decided upon the amount of pensions to be awarded to lieutenants of the Navy or retired from the Navy, but it has been agreed that the qualifications should be long and faithful service."
My Lords, I am instructed that we cannot agree to any Amendments now in this Bill, especially as it is already, as it stands, an agreed Bill.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am afraid I failed to convey to the noble Earl what my objection is; my objection is that there is no obligation contained in the Bill now to oblige the Admiralty to expend the total sum received, in respect of that bequest, in pensions to lieutenants of the Royal Navy. That was the intention of the bequest, and apparently that is the intention of the Admiralty; and I do not propose to make any alteration in the spirit of the Bill at all, or any alteration which can affect any of the persons who may have given their consent. All I wish is that the Admiralty should be compelled to lay out the money which will come to them. Under the Bill as it stands, and as the noble Lord has just said, there is a discretion left to the Admiralty. I say that discretion ought not to be left to them, because Mr. Travers left this money for this particular purpose. Everybody will be agreed that it is quite right that pensions should be given to officers of the rank of lieutenant of the Royal Navy. That rank is necessarily the rank from which by far the largest amount of retirements take place, owing to the impossibility of promoting all lieutenants, and therefore it is particularly undesirable that, in the case of a bequest of this sort, there should be left any loophole through which, either the lieutenants should not receive the money, or the money should be capable of being bestowed upon somebody else. My Lords,
1226
when I say this I have a reason; because in the year 1885 the Admiralty decided that officers who were active captains, and who would retire being active captains, were to count as if they were lieutenants. If I had happened to notice that at the time I should have opposed it, as this benefit is clearly intended for lieutenants, and it is intended that the money should be expended; it apparently is the wish of the Admiralty; and why the draftsman should object to words being put in to make it clear I do not understand. I assure your Lordships I have good reason for opposing this, because I have seen in practice in the Admiralty the difficulty of making it necessary to lay money out in the way in which it was originally intended; and, if your Lordships were to read the Bill as I have done, you would see that, by coupling the property of Greenwich Hospital together with this property, it is quite possible that a certain portion of the money would not be so laid out. The noble Lord says that the income arises from land and may fluctuate. My Lords, the Admiralty cannot expend money they have not got; but the net income of that property, whatever it may be, ought to be laid out in pensions for lieutenants of the Navy. And, my Lords, the second objection that I make—and I think it is a very pertinent objection—is that this Bill, which is a Bill about the Naval Knights of Windsor, contains a regulation which refers to the property of Greenwich Hospital—an entirely different matter. The noble Lord has not given me any answer upon that; and I should like to call his attention to the fact. It was merely by accident that, by looking at the Bills which he repealed, I found he was repealing the 48th and 49th Vic, cap. 42, sec. 7, and, on looking at that section, I found it was a section which had reference solely to the property of Greenwich Hospital, and had no reference whatever to this matter.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I must say that the answer given by the noble Lord opposite teems to me very unsatisfactory. He says that the Admiralty might be called to account in Parliament. We all know that that might be done; but here you are going to give the Admiralty discretion in a matter in which I do not think they ought to have discretion. The word in the Bill is

1227
"may"; it ought to be "shall." As to the amount of money, nobody expects the Admiralty will lay out money that they do not possess; but I cannot understand from the noble Lord's answer what the true reasons are. It looks as if there were something behind it which is not satisfactory. As to its being an agreed Bill, it cannot affect the persons concerned in this Charity unfavourably; because, of course, the securing positively by an Act of Parliament that the money shall be devoted to a particular class of persons cannot prejudice them. I hope the noble Lord will not object to put in the word "shall." My Lords, I do not attribute to the present Board of Admiralty any intention of doing anything otherwise than what is right; but this is an Act which is to be for all time, and it would be much better to make it clear and not to leave it to doubt. I know that "may" does sometimes mean "shall," but I am told on good authority that here it would be discretionary. I should bow to a legal opinion if I were told that it means "shall" here; but I am told that it does not; and I confess I should like to know a little more what is the reason for the Admiralty not being willing to alter it.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): A desire to do everything in its wrong place is one of the most powerful of human emotions, and the noble Earl, having the Committee coming on to-morrow or the next day, prefers to discuss now whether your Lordships should put "shall" or "may" into the clause.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I beg your Lordships' pardon; I thought we were in Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I abandon my observation if that is the case. It is really a matter which must be discussed in Committee, and I have no doubt that we shall be able to give a good account of the motives of the Admiralty, which I suspect are not tinged with any such dark intentions as the noble Earl suggests; and I hope we shall have that amount of legal strength in the House which shall enable us to discuss one of the most difficult questions in the British Constitution, namely,
1228
whether "may" or "shall" should be used in a particular sentence.
*LORD ELPHINSTONE: I would merely say, in answer to my noble Friend, that the noble Earl seems suspicious of the Department that I represent, but there really is nothing behind this. My instructions are, as I mentioned, not to accept any Amendment. All I can undertake to do is, if this Bill is read a second time, to confer with the authorities at the Admiralty.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: And will the noble Lord at the same time point out that Clause 2 deals with the property of Greenwich Hospital? It does, I can assure him; I have looked at the Act.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

GIBRALTAR SANITARY BOARD.
QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
*LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, before I venture to call the attention of the House to the recent change in the Sanitary Board of Gibraltar I wish to express my thanks to the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for having so expeditiously and fully furnished the Papers for which I asked. I shall only have to detain the House a very few moments while I call the attention of the House to the change that has taken place in the Sanitary Board. The House is aware that Gibraltar is a fortress and a Crown Colony under the Colonial Office with 20,000 inhabitants and 6,000 soldiers. From 1815 to 1880 the sanitary arrangements were looked after by a civilian Commission which practically represented the ratepayers. In 1880 the military being one-third of the ratepayers, as they paid rates as well, naturally claimed to have some share in the representation, and it was just and right that they should and they came in on the Board, four of the twelve Commissioners being nominated from among the officials on the Rock. That went on happily for three years when special powers were given to the Governor to alter the existing arrangements, and this went on for a few months, when Sir John Adye, the then Governor, found it unworkable. He came back to England; I believe he saw Lord Derby; he pointed out to him

1229
how unworkable those conditions were, and he got instructions to revert to the old state of things. That brings us on to 1890. I am not going to say that the drainage of Gibraltar was everything that might be desired, but at any rate the statistics, which I will just glance through later on, show that there was no bad health in the Colony. In 1890 Lord Knutsford told Major Tulloch of the Royal Engineers to make a Report about the sanitation of Gibraltar, and that gallant officer made a Report which is in the Blue Book on page 1, in which he remarks that the Sanitary Commissioners are quite incapable of dealing with the question. He says that they do not represent at all the wealth, the intelligence, the influence, or the business capacity of the civilians. He goes into detail about their maladministration, and he goes on to say that they laugh at the War Office and make them pay more than their fair share of the rates. To remedy this state of things Major Tulloch proposes to bore a great tunnel through the Rock from west to east through which the sewage is to be carried out to sea, which he says will have the double advantage that very likely he will be able, with good fortune, to strike upon water. If he does, this will produce a good water supply for the town, and if he does not he proposes to carry the sewage through the Rock into the sea from west to east. If he is fortunate enough to find any water, then he proposes to bore through the Rock south to bring the sewage out at the southern extremity which your Lordships know well is called Europa Point. He considers this a very good plan, and he suggests that the works shall be entrusted to Captain Buckle, whom he describes as a thoroughly practical and scientific man. I have not the pleasure of knowing Captain Buckle, but according to the Gibraltar Ratepayers' Defence Association, whose opinion your Lordships will find on page 18, this officer was removed from his office as engineer to the Sanitary Commission, because he did not give satisfaction, and he is reported to have been twice reprimanded by two Secretaries of State. Lord Knutsford does not seem to agree with that, because he writes on 11th December 1891, that he has every reason to believe that Captain Buckle has given
1230
every satisfaction, and he regrets that these reprimands should have been alluded to, as they had no connection whatever with his efficiency. My Lords, this brings us on to the next step in which the Secretary of State for the Colonies asserts that there has been neglect of ordinary sanitary requirements, and a lack of intelligence. Against this opinion I have to bring the opinion of Sir John Adye, the then Governor of Gibraltar, who on the 25th February, 1892, wrote—
"In my opinion the inhabitants should be fully represented. I have received great assistance and support from the members of the Commission; and as regards health—
I think this is very important—
the death rate of the civil population is very little more than that of London, much less than that of Liverpool and Manchester; and as regards soldiers, the garrison and medical reports prove that Gibraltar is one of the healthiest stations at home or abroad."
That is to be found at page 3 in the Medical Report. Lord Knutsford, in the same letter that I quoted before of the 11th December, 1891, suggested that the boring recommended by Major Tulloch should be begun at once under Captain Buckle, the Civilian and the Colonial Government each paying half. I see there is a question in the Paper from the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Sidmouth) about the cost of this tunnel. So far as I see in the Papers there is no cost mentioned. I am speaking under correction; but I believe it is the fact that not even a contract is allowed to be entered into, but the whole of this enormous work is to be undertaken by Major Tulloch, R.E., and his friend Captain Buckle. Those of your Lordships who have been soldiers know very well what it is to be handed over to the tender mercies of the Royal Engineers. Those who have been quartered in the Albany Barracks, and in those death traps in Dublin, know pretty well what it is. I do not want to say one word against that class in Her Majesty's Service; but your Lordships will quite understand from old experience how very apprehensive these civilians might be of having the whole of this great sewage operation handed over entirely, without their having a word to say about it, so far as I am instructed, to the Royal

1231
Engineers. In order to carry out this boring which is recommended by Major Tulloch and is to be begun under Captain Buckle, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies at once dissolves the old Board and creates a new one; and this new Board is composed of nine members. The Board is composed of the Commanding Royal Engineer and the principal medical officer of the garrison, two Government representatives, one Admiralty representative, two Grand Jury representatives, one Special Jury and one Common Jury representative, who are selected and appointed by the Governor himself. The Chairman of this nominee body is the Colonial Secretary, who has the casting vote; and I think this is rather a significant fact—and there may be not a consensus of opinion about the wisdom of this step—that the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Boyle, has not applied for any increase of salary to counterbalance this great and important increase of work that he will have to do. This Board is to come into power at once, and in fact it is a great deal more unworkable than the old Board which was pronounced unworkable in 1883 by Sir John Adye. Now, my Lords, this brings us to 1892, and I have done. The Colony of Gibraltar protested most strenuously against this, and they asked the Governor what he had to say to it. The Governor said he was precluded from discussing the question at all. Then they formed themselves into a Ratepayers' Defence Association, and they wrote to Lord Knutsford, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but they got very little redress out of that. Then three of them were appointed as a deputation who came over and stayed in London; they saw the Secretary of State several times, but they went away without any redress either, and the whole thing was finished by a despatch of Sir Lothian Nicholson, who is Governor of Gibraltar, on the 11th of April, 1892, in which he approves of the action of the Colonial Office, and he calls this retrograde movement "a most carefully considered measure of reform"; and he goes on to say in the despatch that he considers two-thirds of the civilians of Gibraltar are foreigners by origin, by connection, and also in language, and that they are only British subjects in name. Their very existence
1232
there, he says, is not an Imperial necessity, and they should not be granted the position which is held by colonial municipal leaders in other parts of the great British Confederation. Now those who happened to see the reception that those residents, "whose existence is not an Imperial necessity," gave to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales in 1876 are not likely to forget it. My Lords, they are just as loyal and just as devoted to the Crown of England as any other Colonist in any other part of Her Majesty's Dominions. My Lords, we shall be told now, of course, that Gibraltar is not a Colony, it is a fortress, and that it is of paramount importance that it should be treated as a fortress—we all say so, of course—all Gibraltar would say so too. But, my Lords, municipal improvements are not Imperial defences and Gibraltar is not defended by sewage works; and therefore I shall conclude these few observations by asking the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he approves of this language of the Governor, and I shall ask the House whether it approves of what I may fairly, I think, call the harsh treatment of our Colonists in Gibraltar by the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, I am in the first place desirous, in return for what the noble Lord is good enough to say of me, to thank him for his courtesy for having deferred this Debate from the first day on which it was put down. I confess I am rather surprised at the light way in which the noble Lord has passed over this case. He has admitted that there is a strong feeling in the Colony as regards the change that has now been made; but he has not really attempted to attack the Government for the action it has taken except by stating generally that Sir John Adye disagrees with the change; that the former Board with some slight exceptions did their work very well; and that on the present Board the ratepayers are not sufficiently represented. I hope before I sit down to show your Lordships that on every one of those points the noble Lord is wrong,—or rather I will not say the noble Lord is wrong, but those whose cause he represents here are wrong and have mis-stated their case.

1233
It is not necessary for me now to bring again before your Lordships the character of this place, Gibraltar. The noble Lord has admitted that it is a fortress primarily, and that on one side of this fortress no doubt a town has sprung up with a population of about 19,000 people, of whom 3,000 are aliens. It is also an important coaling station, both for Her Majesty's ships and for trading vessels. When the noble Lord says that this place is not defended by a system of sewage, I am prepared to grant that; but when I state that it is a fortress, and that there are a number of soldiers constantly on the Rock, I think it may fairly be said that it is a very important thing for the War Office that Gibraltar should be kept in a sound sanitary condition. And I now propose to show in what state that town has been left by the Commissioners whom I have superseded. The noble Lord, I think, was right in saying that up to the year 1883 the Commissioners consisted of twelve civilians; but in 1882 as the work was badly done, and in order to protect the paramount interests of the War Office and the Admiralty, there was a change made, and the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) in the strongest way pronounced in favour of a more direct influence being given to the Governor, and also to the Departments. That change was highly approved by Lord Napier of Magdala, who was then Governor of Gibraltar; it was approved also by Lord Derby, who succeeded the noble Earl opposite as Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Board was changed in this respect: that instead of twelve Commissioners all unofficial, four official members were appointed, and certain powers were taken away from the Board, and vested in the Governor, so that he might have a more direct control and influence over the important questions of sanitation, drainage and water supply in the Colony. It is true that afterwards a local opposition sprung up, and that Sir John Adye did think it best that the powers which were vested in the Sanitary Board should be restored to them. I am not prepared now, nor do I desire to find fault with that decision of Sir John Adye, which was confirmed by Lord Derby. But I cannot help thinking that the result has shown that the decision was a most unfortunate one. The Board
1234
did not improve in the work that they did. There were constant complaints by the Admiralty of the serious nuisance from the outfall of the sewer on the west side. There was no attempt made by the Board to deal with the sanitary state of Gibraltar, with the overcrowding, and the deficiency of water, or the general insanitary condition of the dwellings. It was difficult to get people of any position or influence to act upon the Board—indeed, in 1890, to fill up two vacancies twelve persons were pressed to act and declined to do so. It was difficult to get a quorum very often, and there was generally a very indifferent attendance. I am not saying that the unofficial Civil Commissioners are alone to blame; I think considerable blame attaches to the official members of the Board; I think they ought to have exercised more influence and insisted upon more attendances, and on the work being done. However, in view of that state of things and the repeated complaints of the Naval and Military Departments it was decided, as the noble Lord has said, to send out a thoroughly competent and efficient engineer in whose judgment and capacity Her Majesty's Government could have full confidence; and after consideration they selected Major Tulloch, who, as Engineer Officer for the Local Government Board, has had very large experience in sanitary questions. After an exhaustive inquiry, Major Tulloch made two Reports. The noble Lord has only referred to the Report which was of a confidential nature at first, but which I thought it better to include in this last Paper that has been presented to Parliament. The original Report is of great length and goes most exhaustively into the subject, and has a number of maps attached to it; copies of that Report were placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I regret to say that as I am defending the action of Her Majesty's Government in superseding the Board of Commissioners, it is my duty and it is necessary for me to refer to Major Tulloch's Report as showing the state of things in Gibraltar which had been brought about by the inefficiency and inaction of the Board. At page 6 of the first Report, that is to say the Report that is now in the Libraries of the Houses,

1235
Major Tulloch in describing the condition of the patios or courtyards says—
"Considering that these patios are used for all kinds of purposes, that mules and donkeys are often tethered in them, and that poultry are kept there, the state of things can be better imagined than described. The whole atmosphere is reeking with the constantly rising exhalations from filth. … In parts of the town some of the rooms also in the houses which are used as dormitories have only doors—no windows. When therefore the inhabitants retire for the night and close the doors, there are all the conditions for typhus."
But, my Lords, even such an elementary duty for a Sanitary Authority to perform as the removal of dry refuse, they were unable to carry out. At page 10, Major Tulloch says—
"The carts in which the dust is collected are often so over-filled that the lids cannot be shut down, and the refuse is then apt to be blown about in all directions. It is finally disposed of by being thrown into the sea, but without any reference to the state of the tide and current prevailing at the time. The shore on both sides of the shoot is littered with refuse, and a very objectionable state of things is produced."
Well, then, let us turn to the terrible evil of overcrowding — what does Major Tulloch report upon that? He points out that the density of the population in the town is as great as in some of the worst districts of London, while the accommodation, owing to the lowness of the houses, is very much less. Some idea of the state of things in this respect may be gathered from the figures of the recent Census. There are 1,036 single room tenements inhabited by 3,214 persons, or over one-sixth of the total population. Some of these single rooms are inhabited by as many as ten and eleven persons. One hundred and twenty-three of them are inhabited by 844 persons, or an average of about seven persons in each room, and 1,875 persons lived in 360 rooms, an average of more than five per room. Health, not to mention decency, in a climate like Gibraltar, is impossible under such conditions. If I turn again to the important question of water supply, Major Tulloch observes on page 16 that drinking water is charged for at the rate of 8s. 4d. per 1,000 gallons, and the total public supply of good water available for the civil population amounts to not two quarts per head per diem, while brackish water unfit for dietetic purposes is charged for at the rate of
1236
2s. 6d. per 1,000 gallons. That subject had been brought to the notice of the Commissioners by Colonel Cox in 1877, and he showed how the civil population was being relieved of rates at the expense of the War Office; but still those Commissioners did nothing. I admit that that is a difficult question, but they made no practicable attempt to deal with the question of the water supply. Then I turn to the system of sewerage. At page 31 of the Report, Major Tulloch says—
"The sewage from the northern and middle outfall cannot flow right away to the sea, but keeps zigzagging up and down the coast line, and gradually deposits most of its solid matter on the foreshore, which when exposed in summer to a hot sun makes the western side of the Rock so offensive."
And your Lordships will bear in mind that the most densely inhabited portion of the town is on the west side, and that therefore the alteration on that side is manifestly specially necessary. The main or southern outfall is only a few yards from the dockyard, and has almost since its construction been the subject of complaint from the Admiralty. Speaking of his inspection of it Major Tulloch says:—
"Although it was in December, the stink from the sewage which we smelt standing on the new mole, where Her Majesty's ships lie when coaling, was sickening. A nuisance of this kind cannot be continued with impunity. The people employed near the locality must suffer in health sooner or later."
Then he goes on (I will not trouble your Lordships with much more) to show that the sewers themselves are badly constructed, that some have too slight gradients, some are broken and leak, and so on. And, my Lords, the Commissioners cannot plead ignorance of these facts, because their attention was specially drawn to them in 1884 by the present Colonial Engineer, Captain Buckle, who was then the engineering adviser of the Board; but nothing was done. The Health Officer's Reports constantly pressed these questions upon the attention of the Commissioners; but for some reason or other no effective steps were taken to remedy any one of these evils. And perhaps one of the most striking proofs of their inefficiency was this: that during something like 25 years since the Sanitary Board was started, only one bye-law, I believe, was passed with the object of

1237
preventing infectious diseases in lodgings. My Lords, it must be manifest to anyone that a town cannot be kept in a proper sanitary condition unless the inspecting officers have some power of enforcing the remedies which are necessary. They can report; but they can do no more,—they can effect no amendment. I think this perhaps is one of the most striking instances as showing the inefficiency of the Board. There are some other subjects which are touched upon in the Governor's despatch of 22nd May which also show how sorely a new Board was wanted. In 1890 Major Tulloch reported as to the useless consumption of coal. He says—
"There is a large useless consumption of coal taking place on the north front, and the Commissioners have been perfectly aware of this for years, inasmuch as two experts, Mr. Melrose and Captain Jelf, R.E., investigated the subject in 1882, and having pronounced the pumping engine to be 'antique' reported 'that they were confident that the substitution of modern engines of the compound condensing type would result in a very considerable measure of economy.'"
Designs and tenders were sent out for those engines, but nothing was done. Now it has been stated in a Paper which appears in the Parliamentary Papers and is headed "Facts about Gibraltar" that after Major Tulloch's Report was published in the Colony the Board set to work to carry out his suggestions. I regret to say that that is a complete fallacy, which is put an end to altogether by a statement of the Governor in his Despatch of 11th April (on page 30) as to what this Board had done after Major Tulloch's Report. He says—
"It is scarcely borne out that 'the Board at once endeavoured to carry out Major Tulloch's recommendations as far as was possible.' The provision of new engines for the North Front was certainly taken in hand; some deodorisation of the main drain at Europa was attempted—and the preparation of the bye-laws was commenced, but these drafts were left incomplete, and in so crude a state that the present Board have practically to reconstruct them, a work which is still occupying their earnest and constant attention. Catalan Bay improvements were negatived by the late Board; the dust destructor was declared to be unnecessary; the engines both at Southport Ditch, and at the North Front, were run in a ruinous manner—ruinous alike to the machinery, and in the cost of coal, and little or nothing was apparently done to secure the many sanitary improvements in dwellings and amongst the community generally, which Major Tulloch had so exhaustively pointed out."
1238
And it also appears from the Governor's Despatch of 2nd May, 1892 (on page 34) how entirely they neglected the state of the engines and the machinery at the North Front—a neglect which the Governor very properly characterises as "discreditable." I have referred to the fact of the careless consumption of coal, and I may here observe that since the new Board came into operation they have in about four months saved no less than 248 tons of coal. I would further remark that the great number of nuisances that have been dealt with by the new Board, and which are referred to in pages 37 and 38 of the Parliamentary Paper, show how great was the neglect of the former Board up to the time of its dissolution. The noble Lord has referred to the rate of mortality, and he says that Sir John Adye has said that it was not at all a high rate, and that on the whole, as I understand, the noble Lord is satisfied with the rate of mortality. Now Major Tulloch, by the figures which he set out in his first Report, showed that the mortality was 24·5 per 1,000 among the whole population, that is to say the fixed and alien population, and that it was 25·0 among the fixed population. Those figures were disputed by the delegates, I think in their papers, but at all events they were disputed by them before me, and different figures were brought forward showing a smaller death-rate. But those figures were based upon the Report of the Medical Officer, and it would seem that the Medical Officer made a curious mistake in his calculation of the death-rate, because he took the deaths of the fixed population, that is to say he excluded the aliens, casual seamen brought in for hospital treatment and so on, but having taken the deaths of the fixed population, in calculating the rate of mortality, instead of dividing those deaths by the fixed population it would seem that he divided them by the whole population including aliens; and as a matter of fact the death-rate amongst the aliens is considerably smaller than the death-rate amongst the fixed population; and therefore by dividing the deaths of the fixed population by the whole population including the aliens he materially brought down the death-rate. Whether that

1239
is the explanation or not it is not necessary for me to inquire into it any further, because all the figures have now been carefully gone into by Surgeon Captain Macpherson, who has had the advantage of having the last Census before him, and his Report will be found upon pages 47 to 59 of the Parliamentary Paper which has just been presented. I do not intend now to trouble your Lordships with details; it is impossible to go into them; but there can be no doubt of this: that while he shows a good death-rate for 1891 (which was certainly a good year) the figures he brings forward, which can be found in that Paper, show a death-rate in 1890 of 22·17 for the total civil population, that is to say the population which includes the aliens whose death-rate is smaller than that of the fixed population, and of 24·71 for the fixed civil population.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: On what page does the noble Lord find that? On page 63, which appears to be the final account, those are not the figures; I admit that there is not much difference.
*LORD KNUTSFORD: I am not sure of the page, but the figures will be found correct. Taking the decennial period he finds a rate of 23·06 for the total population, and 25·83 for the fixed civil population which is rather higher than Major Tulloch makes it. No doubt the year 1891 was a satisfactory year, and though it is not quite safe to take it, looking to the ups and downs of former years in the death-rate, we may hope that, with the improvements that will be made by this new Board, we shall keep down the death-rate as in 1891. It is certain that this large mortality is due to insanitary conditions, because we find that the Health Officer of the late Sanitary Commission, in his Report for 1889, points out the abnormal death-rate among the infant population, and says that one-third of all the deaths in Gibraltar are of children under five years of age, and again that quite one-third of all the children born in the town do not reach the age of five. So much then for the rate of mortality, which I think is not a very good one, and is certainly capable of improvement if we can get the sanitary condition of Gibraltar in a better state, and diminish the difficulties and dangers from over-crowding, get
1240
a better supply of water and remove the drainage to the East. I may now perhaps deal with another point to which the noble Lord has referred, and which was very strongly pressed by the delegates—I mean the claim that they ought to be represented by two-thirds of the members of the Board on the ground that they pay two-thirds of the rates. That statement again is very misleading. There is a general sanitary rate of which the civil inhabitants do pay two-thirds; but there is a water rate which brings in about an equal amount with the general rate, and of that water rate the private ratepayers contribute less than two-fifths; and, if we take the total rates, the Government Departments contribute about five-elevenths of the gross revenue from the rates, while they have in addition given capital contributions to about one-third of the work done by the Sanitary Board. Therefore, taking those figures, the Departments could fairly claim a larger representation than they now have on the Board. They have now five members, as the noble Lord pointed out, against four. And as regards the work which is proposed by Major Tulloch—namely, the tunnel, it is said that two-thirds of the cost are to fall upon the general sanitary rate; but, as I have pointed out, the civil inhabitants only pay two-thirds of that rate; and therefore four-ninths is the proportion they ought to bear of representation on the Board. And that is about the proportion that they do bear. If you take the basis of population again at 19,000—it must be remembered that of those about 3,000 are aliens on permit—there again their proportion of representation on the Board is a fair one. But, my Lords, I desire to guard myself against admitting that in a military outpost like Gibraltar, and in a place where there is a large military garrison, the civil inhabitants have an absolute right to be represented either according to the rates they pay or according to the population. It is right, of course, that they should have as much representation as they can have consistently with the government and the character of the place, and with the paramount interests of the Army and Navy. My Lords, the principle that they contend for at Gibraltar is not upheld in

1241
Colombo, Singapore, or Hong Kong; in all those places the representation does not depend either upon the rates paid or upon the population. Another point that was raised by the noble Lord, that the Governor should not have the power to appoint the Chairman of the Board, is also untenable, because I believe it is without precedent in any of these places—places be it observed where the garrison and the Government bear a much smaller proportion to the private inhabitants than they do at Gibraltar—for in none of them is the principle admitted, and in none does the appointment of the Chairman of the Municipal Board vest in any other person but the Governor. I think, therefore, I have established two points: first that the Board which I superseded by the present Board did their work most inefficiently, that they were not equal to coping with the general sanitary requirements of the town, and therefore were still less fit to deal with the important sewerage work which is contemplated by Major Tulloch, and which has been pressed upon us by both the War Office and the Admiralty for many years; and, secondly, that whether we look to rates or population, the ratepayers are not unfairly represented on the new Sanitary Board. I must now turn to the grievances that have been brought under your Lordships' notice, some of them by the noble Lord, and some others which have been brought before me by the delegates. The first grievance, which I do not think the noble Lord mentioned, was that the Order in Council was published and put into force at once. That course was not without precedent, though I am ready to admit that as a general rule, except in matters of small importance, Orders in Council should be published in the papers so that objections may be raised and the opinions of the inhabitants made known upon them before they are brought into operation. But, my Lords, looking to the state of things which existed, looking to the deadlock which existed, looking to the complaints that were received from the Departments; looking to the necessity for improving the condition of Gibraltar, and especially by carrying out the important works recommended by Major Tulloch, I venture to think as was said by Lord
1242
Derby in 1883, or by the noble Earl opposite,—I am not sure which—
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It must have been Lord Derby; I was not Colonial Secretary in 1883.
*LORD KNUTSFORD: It might have been in 1882—
"The continued existence of conditions thus detrimental to the public welfare would be very undesirable, even if the circumstances of Gibraltar did not require an exceptional degree of efficiency in sanitary administration."
I say that this was a case, if ever there was a case, for at once proceeding to put the Order in Council in operation. It would have been impossible to delay until all objections which could be made to the Order in Council were disposed of; as it is, the Order was published in October last and the objections still continue to thrive, and have not yet been disposed of. All that time would have gone on, and the good work which has been done by the new Board would have been entirely lost. The new Board have, I believe, nearly finished their code of bye-laws. I have pointed out the nuisances that have been removed by them; the good that has been done in dealing with the question of overcrowding, and also in the great saving of coal and putting the engines and sewers in a fit state; and I would also observe that the Order in Council especially provides that if Amendments are desired they can be made by Ordinance. The Order in Council can, therefore, be very easily amended, and the objections removed if they are established to my satisfaction. The second objection was as to the mode of appointing the four unofficial members. As the noble Lord has pointed out the old plan was for the Governor to appoint the members out of the panel of the Grand Jury and eight names submitted by the Grand Jury. We thought it desirable that the Governor should have a larger area of selection, and therefore by the Order in Council he was empowered to take two members from the panel of the Grand Jury, one from the panel of the Special Jury, and one from the panel of the Common Jury; in this way it was thought we should get more representative members on the Board. But I have been anxious from the very beginning so far as I could to meet the delegates, and

1243
to meet the wishes of the inhabitants, and to get the opposition to the Order in Council withdrawn; and therefore I agreed that if opposition was withdrawn on other points, I would revert to the old plan and direct the Governor to choose from the panel of the Grand Jury and eight names presented by them. I do not think that is the best plan, but it was not so important a matter that one need hesitate about the concession; and the Governor, though still preferring the new plan, has agreed to it. Then the third objection was to the Colonial Secretary being a member of the Board and Chairman. Well, my Lords, I think it would be quite impossible in a place like Gibraltar that the Colonial Secretary should not be a member of the Sanitary Board; he is perhaps the most influential man next to the Governor, and it is most desirable that he should be closely in touch with all the important work that is going on in the Colony, and every question is important of course that affects the health of the Colony. I could not therefore concede the point that the Colonial Secretary should not be a member of the Board. But in addition to that the delegates when before me desired that they might appoint their Chairman out of the official members. I have pointed out to your Lordships that in all these cases the Governor does appoint the Chairman. But there would be an especial objection to the unofficial members appointing the Chairman out of the official members; because, if they chose to pass over the Colonial Secretary and the Commanding Royal Engineer, they would have to appoint one of the medical officers; and it is scarcely necessary to observe that the Colonial Secretary and the Commanding Royal Engineer would hardly be willing to serve on a Board of which the Chairman was their inferior in precedence and rank. Then the fourth objection which is most strongly urged is that which was brought before your Lordships by the noble Lord opposite, namely, the objection to the Colonial Engineer being the Engineer of the Board. And it is a two-fold objection; first on the ground that the duties of the Colonial Engineer and the Engineer of the Board are incompatible; and, secondly, on personal grounds to
1244
Captain Buckle. Now, as regards the general objection, the union of these offices of Sanitary Engineer and Colonial Engineer was very strongly urged by Lord Napier of Magdala when he was Governor of Gibraltar. Instructions were sent out, in conformity with his advice, by the noble Earl opposite in 1882, and were confirmed in January 1883 by Lord Derby. It is not true that Captain Buckle was removed from his offices. It is true that the duties were subsequently separated at the suggestion and instance of Sir John Adye, who succeeded Lord Napier of Magdala as Governor; but it is open to us to re-consider the question; and, upon the best reflection and consideration that we can give to the case, we have arrived at the conclusion which was arrived at by the noble Earl opposite and others and by Lord Napier of Magdala, that economy and efficiency are best secured by the appointment of the Colonial Engineer to act as Engineer of the Board. My Lords, here again I would point out that, being anxious to make any concession I could to the delegates and ratepayers, I agreed to this: that when these important works of the tunnel have been done, with which I consider the old Board was absolutely unable to cope, and supposing there is no other equally important work connected with the water supply going on, I think it reasonable, and I told them so, that they should bring up again this question of the combination of duties before the Secretary of State for the time being. I confess that if I were in office I should be very loth, unless a very strong case were made out, to saddle the ratepayers, who have now a very small sum to pay for which they secure a thoroughly competent and efficient officer, with the large sum that they would have to pay for the salary of such a thoroughly efficient officer if they determined to have an Engineer of their own. My Lords, as to the personal question, the committee of the Ratepayers' Association have made charges against Captain Buckle as to the performance of certain public works that he had to undertake as Colonial Engineer, and I thought it right, as they had made those charges, both in the interests of Captain Buckle as well as those of the ratepayers to examine into the subject, and I appointed a

1245
Commission to perform that work. The inquiry of that Commission has not yet been concluded; but I must say that, from the high opinion of Captain Buckle's professional qualifications which was formed from knowledge of his work both by Lord Napier of Magdala, by Major Tulloch, and by others, I have very little doubt that it will be found that the public works which he has executed have been executed with great efficiency and economy; and I think it is only due to Captain Buckle that I should read the high opinion entertained by Major Tulloch as to his capabilities—and that is the last quotation which I will make. In the first Report Major Tulloch shows that the tunnel scheme for the sewer outfall was practically Captain Buckle's own; and the passage to which I will refer is on page 4 of the Parliamentary Paper, in which the writer says—
"It is essential that the officials should be able men, and the Commission will certainly require an engineer of knowledge, experience, energy, and determination. The present Colonial Engineer is specially marked out for this post by not only his intimate acquaintance with Gibraltar after many years' residence there, which is simply invaluable, but by his high scientific attainments and practical skill as a civil engineer. My official position at the Local Government Board necessarily brings me into constant personal communication with most of the eminent sanitary engineers of England, and I have, therefore, rare opportunities of gauging the knowledge possessed by these men and their scientific attainments, but I am glad to say that I found Captain Buckle to be in no respects behind these gentlemen. He is a thoroughly scientific and practical man, and it was one of the great advantages I had during my visit to the Colony to be able to discuss every question of geology, water supply, sewerage, or any other subject which arose in my work with a man so well up in them."
Well my Lords I think I am justified with that kind of testimony to Captain Buckle, to express again, as I do most sincerely, my regret that the committee of ratepayers should have referred to the two cases in which Captain Buckle's action was not approved by the Secretary of State. They knew perfectly well that those questions had nothing to do with the efficiency of Captain Buckle as the Colonial Engineer; and yet they have thought it right to bring forward these questions and raise these points as against Captain Buckle in a question which is a question of engineering, whether he is a
1246
fitting person to be the Engineer of the Board. Another concession which I was able to make to the delegates was that Section 17 of the Order in Council, which gave special powers to the Governor, should be repealed. It was lastly urged that this tunnel scheme should be delayed for further inquiry by a competent engineer sent from this country to examine it on the spot. Well, I was not prepared to concede that. I stated to the delegates that very full and careful consideration had been given, and I added that further consideration should be given if necessary to the details of the scheme, and to the way in which it should be carried out. Let me observe that Major Tulloch had before him the Report of Sir Andrew Ramsay and Sir Archibald Geikie upon the geological formation of Gibraltar, and I suppose it is hardly possible to find two more eminent geologists than those two gentlemen; he had also the Reports of Mr. Roberts, C.E., Mr. Dixon, C.E., of Lieutenant Colonel Cox in 1887, of the medical officers year after year, and of Captain Buckle. All these Reports were examined into and carefully noted by Major Tulloch, and Major Tulloch's Report when it came to me was referred to and examined by a Departmental Committee in this country. The only criticism upon Major Tulloch's Report has been made by a Mr. Yockney, an engineer I daresay of eminence here, but who had very little information before him; he certainly had not all the Reports before him that Major Tulloch had, and he had never been on the spot; he was therefore unable to judge for himself of the character and condition of the rock at Gibraltar. I may add, as I have undertaken to present some more Papers in answer to the noble Lord, that there is a report by Colonel Fellowes, the Commanding Royal Engineer at Gibraltar, which to my mind completely disposes of Mr. Yockney's Report. My Lords a misapprehension prevails (I am partly now answering the noble Viscount behind me) as to Major Tulloch's Report and the action taken upon it. While Major Tulloch was making inquiry into the best way of diverting the sewage from the west to the east of the rock, he was of course fully aware of the enormous importance to the garrison, as well as to the civil inhabitants, of

1247
improving the water supply, and he had his attention directed to whether there could be any new source of water found. Now he admits himself he is not too sanguine as to the result of the experiment which he has suggested, nor can he guarantee a sufficiency of water; nor indeed that it shall not, if over pumped, be of a brackish quality. Yet the importance is so great of finding new sources that the experiment he has suggested is very strongly advocated by him; and I may say it has been twice under the consideration of the War Office and the Admiralty, and they have concurred with Major Tulloch. I would just point out exactly what Major Tulloch's practical proposal, as he calls it, is; it is on page 42 of his Report—
"Practically, my proposal is this: Drive a tunnel through the hill as if for a sewer. After it has been driven about three hundred yards, search for water. If water is found, continue the tunnel as a water conduit and intercepting channel. If water is not found, continue the tunnel through the mountain as a sewer."
That was the original plan of Captain Buckle, who was then only considering how to dispose of the sewage,—that it should be conducted from west to east by a tunnel; and the only difference is that Major Tulloch, thinking from his obser-servations that water may be found in the rock and feeling the great importance of finding it if possible, suggests that an experimental tunnel should be made, and that before it is decided finally to send the sewage through the tunnel from west to east, it should be seen whether there is a good chance of getting water and a sufficient supply of water. No doubt that will create some delay, and the present Sanitary Board, who are considering Major Tulloch's scheme, are so impressed with the importance of dealing with the sewage question and carrying the sewage through a tunnel from west to east, that they desire to abandon all chance of getting water, and at once to commence this tunnel at both ends so that within a short time the sewage may be diverted. That is the point of difference between the present Sanitary Board and Major Tulloch's Report; and as I said before the Report of Major Tulloch was referred both to the War Office and to the Admiralty, and within the last two days I have received the concurrence of both
1248
the War Office and the Admiralty in carrying out and giving effect to Major Tulloch's scheme. If there is one question that is important in Gibraltar it is the water supply. The water supply in the North Front is not altogether satisfactory; and in time of war it is a question how far it could be made use of. I hope, in conclusion, that I have shown your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government have not acted hastily in putting an end to a Board of Commissioners who had shown themselves unequal to deal with the sanitary condition of Gibraltar, and that on the new Board the ratepayers are fairly represented. I have shown also, I trust, that I have endeavoured in every way to meet as far as I could the wishes of the delegates, and have made all the concessions possible consistently with Imperial interests. And lastly I have shown that Major Tulloch's scheme is really the scheme that we must endeavour to put in force. The noble Lord is under some misapprehension in arriving at the conclusion that there are to be no specifications and no contract. There was a question whether this work might not be more effectively done by the sappers and civilians working together under the orders of the Board and the Colonial Engineer. But that suggestion has not been accepted, and the decision of the War Office is to the contrary. I think my Lords I have nothing more to add; I am only sorry to have kept your Lordships so long; but the question is one of very great importance no doubt,—it has been very strongly pressed upon me, and I admit fully that there has been considerable feeling in the Colony on the point.
*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords I do not wish to trouble the House with a detailed commentary upon the interesting explanations of the noble Lord opposite; but I think there are one or two points worthy of notice in his statement. First of all I should like to refer, as the noble Lord referred first to it, to Major Tulloch's Report. Now Major Tulloch's Report I have no doubt showed a great deficiency in the sanitary arrangements of Gibraltar; I assume that is a fact, and I am afraid that deficiency exists in a great many towns besides Gibraltar. But the urgency of the case must be judged of by the con-

1249
dition of the health of Gibraltar; and, notwithstanding the statistics to which the noble Lord referred, I cannot find any distinct proof that the condition of the health of Gibraltar was at all of an alarming kind, or indeed that it was inferior to that which you find in most towns. I am not going to draw the conclusion I might, but it almost seems to follow that, assuming Major Tulloch's descriptions are not too highly coloured, the existence of these extraordinary nuisances in a crowded town like Gibraltar are not incompatible with the very fair condition of health of the population; and I must say that that is so very surprising an inference that I am almost inclined to think that Major Tulloch must have been run away with to a certain extent by his sanitary enthusiasm. Now what is the death-rate? There has been a good deal of misunderstanding I believe about it. I take the figures from what I suppose is the final conclusion of the Medical Officer; it is in the Appendix to his Report at page 63, where he compares the death-rate as corrected in Gibraltar with the death-rate in a variety of large English towns: it does not differ much from the figures that the noble Lord quoted, but you will find the total civil death-rate in 1891 happened to be remarkably low. I do not lay stress upon that fact, but it is the fact that the death-rate was remarkably low in the year when this change was made.
*LORD KNUTSFORD: That was after the new Board got to work.
*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I know it was; but I do not think it could have produced that effect in that time. I think it would be very unwise to lay stress upon that particular year. No doubt the proper method is to take a series of years, as the Medical Officer has done, and he finds the correct death-rate of the civil population is 25·31, and the death-rate of the fixed civil population 25·83. Now let us compare that with the large towns here as the Medical Officer himself compares it, and I will just read some of the towns where the death-rate in England is as high, or was at least in 1891: Newcastle 25·1; Huddersfield 25·2; Sheffield 25·7; Sunderland 26·0; Blackburn 28·1; Salford 28·3; Oldham 28·5; Liverpool 28·6; Manchester 29·5; and Preston 29·6.
1250
When we find that with all our sanitary legislation in this country, in a considerable number of our large towns the death-rate is much higher than the average death-rate as shown here in Gibraltar, I do not think it can be said that there was a case of very pressing necessity. I do not for a moment believe that the sanitary condition of Gibraltar cannot be improved, and I daresay it is in many respects unsatisfactory; but I do not think there was any very urgent case in that respect. That bears upon the next remark that I desire to make, and it is this: that although the noble Lord has explained some points satisfactorily, I do not think he did answer the objection that has been made to the course he took in publishing this Order in Council without giving the usual opportunity to the populate in of Gibraltar to express their opinions upon it. I agree with the noble Lord entirely that if there is a case of urgency that interval cannot be allowed. But what possible urgency could there be in the present case of so extraordinary a kind when we find the death-rate, after all, was not so high as in many of the large towns in England? I do not deny that it may be very proper and right—I have no doubt it is—to bring about a better sanitary condition of Gibraltar; but why offend the population by what I must term very hasty and unnecessary proceedings; and why not pursue the ordinary course which the Gibraltar population are accustomed to necessarily and have come to consider a custom that ought not to be infringed except for strong reasons, instead of publishing this Order in Council without hearing what they have to say? I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord has brought about a great deal of the opposition and trouble that has come upon him individually in consequence of his not having adopted the simple expedient of letting the Gibraltar people say what they had to say and then deciding upon what he thought was right. Now the noble Lord said (and I agree with him entirely) that the case of a fortress like Gibraltar is a special case. You cannot deal with the population in a fortress like Gibraltar in the same way that you would with a civil population elsewhere. But all the more necessary is it where you have a considerable

1251
civil population (like Malta, where the noble Lord knows what difficulties there have been, as at Gibraltar) to be extremely careful to consult whenever you possibly can the wishes of the population, and not to offend their susceptibilities if it can be helped. Now I must comment upon what the noble Lord opposite is by no means responsible for, but what I think a most unfortunate circumstance—this extraordinary paragraph in the Despatch of the Governor. I must read the whole of it. The Governor in writing on this subject says—
"British subjects in name, fully two-thirds of the civilian residential population are foreigners by origin, by connection and in language. They cannot occupy, and should not be granted, the position held by municipal leaders in the Mother Country, and in her Colonies properly so called. Their existence here is not an Imperial necessity; their taxation, whether for purposes of municipal or general administration, is abnormally light, and their claims for self-government, which is practically what they seek, are in no way parallel to those which are, with reason, advanced, and with policy, admitted, in other dependencies of the Crown."
There may be something to be said for the latter part of the sentence; but what are we to say of a Governor who is guilty of the extraordinary indiscretion and impropriety of speaking of subjects of the Crown, as loyal men I believe as any in our Colonial Empire, in terms of the most insulting kind? Are we, who have an Empire largely composed of men who are not British born, to sneer at the subjects of the Queen as foreigners, and to say that they are not entitled to rights because they are foreign-born? And remember, my Lords, these foreigners are Europeans; they are not Asiatics whom perhaps you may think you can treat with less consideration, these are Europeans coming of a very proud race and occupying a town which we hold in circumstances of great peculiarity. I cannot conceive of any part of Her Majesty's dominions in which it is not necessary, in every point of view, not to offend in the slightest degree the susceptibilities of the inhabitants of the Colony; and the Governor positively in a public Despatch (and if it had come into my hands it never would have seen the light in a Blue Book, so exceedingly wrong do I think it) says that, because these men are foreign-born, therefore they are to be treated differently
1252
from British-born subjects! I can only say that I hope the noble Lord opposite has conveyed in some way or other to the Governor (who is a most excellent military officer and an admirable soldier I have no doubt) that such language can only be excused from his apparent entire inexperience of civil administration. I must say I regret extremely that the inhabitants of Gibraltar have not been dealt with in this matter with a little more tenderness. I am most willing to admit that on some points the noble Lord has met the delegation in a fair spirit, and has made concessions to them which are undoubtedly such as ought to a certain extent to give them satisfaction. The noble Lord has agreed to strike out of the Order in Council the seventeenth clause which gave to the Governor the complete power of ordering certain works to be done. I think that is a very considerable concession, and I hope the inhabitants of Gibraltar will regard it (for I am not at all desirous of promoting dissension in this matter, but the contrary) as a substantial concession on the part of the noble Lord. The noble Lord has also made a concession to them with regard to choosing from the panel presented by the Grand Jury. That also I think is a very reasonable concession; and although there may be opinions in favour of the other mode of selection, I cannot help thinking that the concession which the noble Lord has made will not at all impair the efficiency of his Sanitary Board. Then comes the question of the Colonial Engineer; and the noble Lord has told me, what no doubt is quite correct, that I was in favour of and directed the measure to be taken which he has now taken of making the Colonial Engineer the Engineer to the Sanitary Board. I have no doubt there are strong reasons in its favour; at the same time there is something to be said on the other side, and I am very glad to hear from the noble Lord that after these works are dealt with he thinks it may be possible to consult the wishes of the inhabitants on that point. I think that is a fair mode of looking at the matter, and I trust that also will be received with a certain amount of satisfaction. With regard to the Chairman I am sorry that the noble Lord did not see his way to make a concession. I do not think it

1253
can be essential for the working of the Sanitary Board that the Colonial Secretary should be Chairman. The noble Lord will observe that in some of the other Colonies to which he referred the population is not entirely European. I should have been inclined to think that upon that point some concession might have been made.
*LORD KNUTSFORD: The Governor has the power to appoint any one of the members official or unofficial Chairman; he might appoint the Commanding Royal Engineer if any particular objection was taken to the Colonial Secretary; but all I meant was I could not conceive that the unofficial members should appoint from the official members.
*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I think the whole body together might have presented a Chairman to the Governor (I do not lay it down as a necessary matter) the Governor having, as I think he must in any case have, a veto upon the appointment. It probably would have come to the same thing, but it might have been more agreeable to the inhabitants. Those are the chief points I believe of which the Colonists complain. Now the other matter is with regard to obtaining water for Gibraltar. My Lords, I have a lively remembrance of the questions which continually arose, when I was Secretary of State, as regards obtaining water at Gibraltar. The supply of water at Gibraltar, as everyone knows, is extremely unsatisfactory, and I remember various attempts being made, which unfortunately failed, to obtain a good supply of water. I do not think Major Tulloch was quite just to the old Sanitary Board in mentioning brackish water as a grievance. I do not think the present Sanitary Board, any more than any other authority, has been able yet to find out how to get a proper supply of water for Gibraltar.
*LORD KNUTSFORD: I do not think he laid that to their charge.
*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It was mentioned as one of the grievances of Gibraltar. All I would say is this: I understand that the inhabitants have a strong opinion that the particular mode in which it is proposed to conduct the sewage away from the harbour, which must evidently be a most necessary operation—namely, by a tunnel from west to east of the rock, is not the best
1254
mode if there is another way by which it can be conducted beyond Europa Point.
*LORD KNUTSFORD: That is a tunnel too. There is no objection to the tunnel as a tunnel; but the tunnel at Europa Point would cost nearly half as much again.
*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am correct in saying that they think an alternative scheme of some kind would be better, and they think it would be very desirable if an eminent engineer unconnected with the Admiralty, the War Office, or Gibraltar would give his opinion upon the scheme,—which I venture to think is by no means an unreasonable proposal. I have a vivid recollection of more than one occasion during the time I had the honour to hold the seals of the Colonial Office when schemes were presented to us, supported most strongly by engineers perhaps not of the highest eminence, which by careful examination afterwards were found to be entirely untenable. Very considerable expenditure will have to be gone into in this matter, which is a matter of great importance, and if the inhabitants who will have to contribute the greater portion of that expenditure really desire that some eminent engineer should be consulted, over and above the opinions that have been taken, I should have thought that was a matter which might be conceded to them. My Lords, I do not know that I have any further observation to make. I hope the noble Lord will not think I have been endeavouring to interpose difficulties in his way in settling the question; that is not my desire. I wish for harmony, and that he should be able to improve the sanitary condition of Gibraltar without exciting any discontent on the part of the inhabitants. One thing, my Lords, I will add, and it is this: that highly important as sanitation is (and no man feels the importance of it more than I do) there is something even more important, and that is the contentment of the inhabitants of our Colonies; and if I had to choose,—I should be very sorry to be placed in that dilemma,—between a perfect system of sanitation with discontent and an imperfect condition of sanitation with content, I should not hesitate to choose the latter.
VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: My Lords, the noble Lord has answered almost every question that I had put on the Paper except with respect to the expense of the proposed tunnel, and also as to the period when the work will be commenced.
*LORD KNUTSFORD: As to the period when the work will be commenced some doubt has been thrown by the observations of the noble Earl opposite; but as regards the expense it is roughly estimated that the cost of the complete scheme of sewerage recommended by him will be £26,000 if carried to the east of the rock and £36,000 if carried to the southern outfall, that is Europa Point. The Colonial Engineer estimates the cost of the actual tunnelling at £2,954 for the experimental tunnel for a water supply; then after that tunnel is completed if the water should not be found there would be £8,125 to add to that to complete the tunnel to the eastern outfall; but it would be £22,950 for a tunnel to the southern outfall; and as I told the noble Lord opposite further Papers shall be presented as soon as they are completed.

GIBRALTAR DOCK.
QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: My Lords I will not detain the House at any length, but the question of which I have given notice is a question that I have repeatedly had the honour of bringing before the House, and I merely wish to refer to the number of times on which promises on the subject have been made by the Admiralty, which promises are still unfulfilled, and which I had hoped by this time would be in course of execution. I think it is now five years since the subject of the dock at Gibraltar was brought before both Houses of Parliament. By the First Lord of the Admiralty in the other House, and by my noble Friend, who I am quite aware is not responsible but who represents the Admiralty in this House, we have been told, first, that plans were under consideration, then that they were matured, then that part of the work was being carried out at private expense, and two years afterwards the noble Lord in this
1256
House gave a complete statement of the plans which were intended to be immediately executed; and he gave very satisfactory assurances that the works would meet the wishes of all those who were interested in naval matters, and also that the harbour, which is one great object I know with the naval authorities, would be greatly improved by the construction of the dock and the lengthening of the pier. My Lords, we have waited and waited, and I own myself, after all these promises, I cannot at all understand what reason there has been for this delay. The sole objection I may have had to the proposed tunnel was for fear it should defer these works; but I will not now at this period, and after so many attempts, dilate upon the immense advantages of it further than to say that I only wish the Prime Minister, both Houses of Parliament, and the country could realise for themselves the immense advantages which would accrue to the naval defences of this country if a dock were constructed at Gibraltar. I need not call to your Lordships' mind the recent occasions within the last few years when vessels of enormous value have been on the point of being lost, and would have been utterly destroyed for the Public Service, if there had not fortunately been the dock at Malta at hand. I allude to the "Sultan" and the "Victoria." Had either of those accidents happened a little further off—for instance where the battle of Trafalgar took place, and there had been no dock at Malta, I think those vessels must have been altogether lost to the Service. Your Lordships are aware that after the accident happened to the "Victoria" she had great difficulty in reaching Malta, a distance only of some six hundred to eight hundred miles; but, if the accident had happened at a distance of fourteen hundred or fifteen hundred miles, and the only resource had been to take that vessel home to England, or to dock her at Malta, I believe she would have been utterly ruined for the purposes of service. I wish the country could understand that when they regard the fleet as an insurance for the navigation of this country, they should recollect also that it is absolutely necessary that we should have a proper assurance for their safety, and that we can only get that by having docks within reach, as all other

1257
nations have who have valuable interests in the Mediterranean. All the other countries have docks spread all over the Mediterranean, and our forces are not so greatly superior to theirs; in fact I believe in one instance they are only equal to those of the greatest Naval Power out there; and, should any accident happen, we should be placed in an inferior condition in case of warfare, which it is utterly impossible to say may not at any time arise. I hope the noble Lord may be able to give some assurance that it is the intention of the present Government, should they, as I hope, continue in office, to resume the works at the earliest possible period.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount is scarcely correct in the wording of his question in speaking of the promised dock at Gibraltar. This question has been before the House very often and I have answered it very often; but I do not think I have ever committed the Government by making any promise. Indeed the last official utterance in either House of Parliament was by myself in March of last year, when I said—
"No Vote therefore was proposed in the Navy Estimates for this year, there being so many more pressing, and, as the Admiralty think, more important matters to be considered. As regards next year, we cannot at present forecast what provision should be made for a dock at Gibraltar."
That is not a promise. I do not want to lay any stress upon it, but my noble Friend's question would imply that the Government were committed, through me as their mouthpiece, to the construction of a dock. I am not at all prepared to deny that all naval officers fully admit the desirability of a dock being built at Gibraltar; and indeed the Admiralty are quite of that opinion too. They admit the desirability, if not the necessity, of building a dock there; but they are not prepared, and they do not think it is desirable, to commence the work until they are in a position to push it forward rapidly to a conclusion. At present we are engaged in a great number of works of an even more pressing nature, involving very large sums of money; at Portsmouth, for instance, we are constructing two large dry docks entailing very considerable expense. With regard to Gibraltar we have already taken a Vote to extend the new mole for about 600 feet. In all
1258
probability a large gap will be left between the extension and the present mole which will enable the 600 feet to be carried out to perhaps nearly 700 feet; and the object of that mole will be to endeavour to create some sort of circulation to carry off the accumulation of filth which has been referred to and is an undoubted nuisance in connection with Gibraltar, and from which we suffer terribly in the Navy; the filth on both sides of the new mole, where our ships have to lie in hot weather, is something abominable. That work is going to be carried on at once. And the noble Viscount will remember that the Committee appointed in 1889 recommended the lengthening of the new mole as part of the general scheme of the dock. I do not mean by that to commit myself, or to commit the Admiralty, to the construction of the dock; but that part of it, at any rate, must be undertaken at once.
VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: My noble Friend is slightly mistaken, I think, in saying that there has been no promise; I think if he refers to the statement authorised by the Admiralty two years ago, not only was a full description of the proposed works laid before the House, but words were added that the works would be commenced immediately in the current year; and upon those grounds I think I have a perfect right to complain of the delay that has taken place.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: I still think the noble Viscount is mistaken in that, and I refer him again to the last official utterance in this House.
VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: I refer to two years ago.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: I will look back upon what has been said before.

CORONERS' DEPUTIES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 181.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow.—(The Lord Herschell.) (No. 182.)
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (BLIND AND DEAF) BILL [H.L.]
Order for the House to be in Committee To-morrow discharged.
PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS [H.L.]
Ordered, That Standing Order No. 39 be suspended for the remainder of the Session in the case of Provisional Order Confirmation Bills originating in this House.
PARLIAMENTARY DEPOSITS AND BONDS BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION OF EXCHEQUER BONDS) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
POST OFFICE ACT (1891) EXTENSION BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole house To-morrow.
TAXES (REGULATION OF REMUNERATION) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to order); Some agreed to; One agreed to, with an Amendment, and consequential Amendments made to the Bill; and Bill returned to the Commons.
BILLS OF SALE BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
COLONIAL STOCK ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Seven o'clock.