Sitting of 24 February 1893

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.): I do not wish to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but there are one or two points in it which I think require serious attention. First, there is Clause 15, which gives power to the County Council to spend money on investigations and negotiations—
    "to obtain such advice and assistance to make such investigations and to carry on such negotiations on any subject as they may consider desirable in the public interest."
    I think these are large powers. It is true the County Council have issued a statement in which they endeavour to minimise these powers, stating their intention is only to spend sums of limited amount on inquiries in relation to certain specified subjects. If these words were in the Bill itself, I would have nothing to say against it; and I hope the matter will be attended to by the Committee upstairs. There is another matter of considerable importance. Clause 19 of
    290
    the Bill gives power of a very drastic nature to the County Council to re-arrange the wards in different parts of London. It says—
    "The Council may from time to time upon the application in writing of the Vestry, or of not less than 500 rated householders of a parish within the County of London by order under their seal, re-arrange the wards in such parish, and determine the number, extent, limits, and boundary lines of such new wards."
    That is a strong power to give the County Council over the heads of the Vestries on the requisition of 500 ratepayers. Five hundred may seem a large number, but in the parish of Islington, which I represent, we have 40,000 houses and a population of 350,000 persons; so that after all 500 is a very small portion of the residents to have the power of inducing or moving the London County Council to re-arrange the wards, even against the wishes of the Vestry, which is elected by a representative body of the ratepayers. It is quite true that there is an appeal to the Secretary of State; but that is a very cumbersome procedure, and I think there should be some restrictions inserted in the clause which would prevent a small portion of the residents of a district from over-riding the wishes of the Vestry.
    MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, that with reference to Clause 21, dealing with sky signs, street advertisements and hoardings, it seemed that the County Council had not yet made up their mind as to the nature or the scope of the clause, and that being so he thought that persons affected by the clause, such as street advertisers, should have the opportunity of giving their views to the Committee. If, as he understood, the time for presenting Petitions had expired, he thought these people should have the opportunity of attending before the Committee and have their interests represented.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I can assure the hon. Member (Mr. Bartley) that the London County Council are not desirous to spend unreasonable sums of money in obtaining the information they require. But when proposals are made a careful inquiry is often necessary in the interests of economy, and we desire to be ready for such emergencies. As to his other point,

    291
    we think there must be some ultimate authority as to the re-arrangement of the wards. We think our proposal is a very reasonable mode of dealing with the subject. We desire to co-operate with the Vestries in the matter, and it is very improbable that we should endeavour to force the Vestries into a re-arrangement of the wards against their wishes. To guard against any arbitrary re-arrangement, we make it subject to an appeal to the Local Government Board, but the County Council will have pleasure in meeting any objection on that point that may be raised. As regards the request of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton), the Council have taken no steps to shut out Petitions. We should not object to Petitions being referred to the Committee. I hope, under these circumstances, the House will consent to the Second Reading of the Bill.
    COLONEL HUGHESsaid, he thought the London County Council should not be entrusted with arbitrary power to sub-divide the wards as the population increased. With regard to inquiries, and the amount of money that might be spent on inquiries, he thought the County Council would have power under the Bill, if it passed without, amendment, to make inquiries anywhere—in Berlin, or in any other part of the world; and in the interest of all the ratepayers of London at large some strict definition should be given to the words and limitation of expense in order to prevent the County Council from going beyond their statutory powers.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of Nine Members, Five to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection.
    SIR A. BORTHWICK (Kensington, S.)moved—
    "That all Petitions against the Bill presented in conformity with the Standing Orders be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill."
    My desire that this Bill should go to a larger Committee than a Select Committee is entirely based upon a consideration of the principles involved in it, and not upon any wish to oppose the general measures of the County Council. The
    292
    County Council is a very large and important body, which has in many respects done its work well, and I am certain that the wish of the House of Commons and the public generally is to encourage it in doing its work as efficiently as possible. From time to time, however, the Council comes to Parliament for further powers, and my complaint against it is that, instead of asking definitely for what it absolutely requires, it it too apt to open its mouth too wide and ask for powers which hardly ought to be conceded to it. In this very Bill it asks for powers to raise any amount of money for any investigation without laying down any specific definition whatever. In another clause it proposes—I do not use the term at all offensively—to invade the Thames Conservancy, which is a very old body and thoroughly well administered. The County Council now ask for a sudden and large representation upon that body, but while the Thames flows for 20 miles of its course through the territory of the London County Council, there are many more miles where the County Council cannot possibly claim to have any authority over the river. I am not contesting the point as to whether or not the County Council ought to be represented upon the Thames Conservancy, but I must point out that the Council are putting forward a sudden and large requirement without any apparent justification. The Council seek power to build a bridge, and also to establish a large ferry, across the river, in both of which cases they ignore the existence of the Conservancy altogether. The subject of sky signs has been alluded to, and it is very difficult to arrive at an exact definition of what constitutes a sky sign; but here again the County Council take power to interfere with all mural advertisements, and insert a clause in their Bill which I am sure will certainly be excised in many of its details by any Committee before which it may come. The Bill likewise deals with the question of music. The Council has already spent £4,000 a year for bands in open spaces, and under this Bill, instead of getting an estimate from the Vestries or District Boards as to what particular bands they require, they take power to ask for any amount of money, and to provide any quantity of music anywhere. This may give rise to suspicions, because there is a proposal on

    293
    the part of the County Council to take over the Albert Hall, and we may have the County Council plunging into speculative entertainments at the Albert Hall. I may be told the rate payers would object to that, but I am not so certain upon the point. The rate payers are very long-suffering, and many of them are very full of the wish for entertainment. It is certainly evident that such a large power of providing amusement in competition with other amusements might lead to very considerable abuse. I am not alluding to the matter in any carping spirit, but I think a case has been made out for the reference of the Bill to such a Committee as I now propose.
    MR. W. F. D. SMITHseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That all Petitions against the Bill presented in conformity with the Standing Orders be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill."—(Sir Algernon Borthwick.)
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I quite agree with the hon. Baronet when he says that he has not moved this Motion in any carping spirit, but it appears to me that he has done so under a misapprehension of the facts. Take the question of music, for instance. He said we are asking for powers to spend additional sums of money in providing music for the people. That is not so. At present we have powers to spend any money we please on bands in the parks, but we have no power to place a band in any of the open spaces which are under the control of the Vestries. The people who live near those open spaces in different parts of London very properly think that they should share in the pleasure of the bands as well as people who live near the parks, but we are precluded from carrying out their very natural wish, because these open spaces are not under the control of the County Council, but under the control of the Vestries. As to the point about the amount of money to be spent on inquiries, I have already replied to that. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are not desirous to undertake any inquiries which may end in wasting the ratepayers money; but we think that when we have entered
    294
    on an inquiry which we see will be of advantage to the ratepayers, we should not be precluded from carrying it to a successful issue because of the insufficiency of our powers. The hon. Baronet seems to think that our proposal in respect to the representation of the County Council on the Thames Conservancy Board is a new and subtle proposal; but really we are only carrying out a recommendation of a Committee of this House. When we made a similar proposal in 1890 it was referred to the Committee upstairs, and they gave us a representation on the Conservancy of the Lea, which was agreed to by the Lords and is now law. The Committee also gave us a representation of five Members on the Thames Board, but when the Bill came down to this House again the question was raised that as it was undesirable to deal with the question of the Thames Conservancy as a whole, it was, under the circumstances, undesirable at that moment to make any change in the constitution in the Thames Conservancy Board. We think we should have some voice in the control of the great river which flows through London, and I hope the House will think that that is only fair. At any rate, the whole question might be considered if the Bill goes to a Committee. As regards the County Council, we have no objection to the Motion of the hon. Baronet, with a certain Amendment which will be moved later on by the hon. Member for Hoxton Division of Shoreditch (Mr. James Stuart) Speaking, however, as a Member of this House, I am not sure that this Motion is desirable; it seems to me that an ordinary Committee would be quite sufficient, but if the House thinks that a Hybrid Committee is desirable, so far as the County Council is concerned we have no objection to offer.
    MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, the Amendment he wished to move to the second paragraph of the Motion was in order that certain people who are affected by the clauses in this Bill and who have not presented Petitions because they do not really know what the County Council intend to do—even the County Council themselves have not made up their minds as to the scope of the clauses—should have an opportunity of petitioning. He now proposed that that should be effected by this Amendment to the second paragraph of

    295
    the Motion: After the word "presented" in the first line to omit the words "in conformity with the Standing Orders," and insert "within five days from the Second Reading," so that the clause would read, "that all Petitions against the Bill presented within five days from the Second Reading be referred to the Committee."
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out the words "in conformity with the Standing Orders," and insert the words "within five days from the Second Reading."— (Mr. Thomas Henry Bolton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    COLONEL HUGHESobserved that such an Amendment would exclude the Petitions that had already been lodged.
    MR. T. H. BOLTONintimated that he should be willing to include the words "and already presented," so that Petitions already lodged should not be excluded.
    MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest that the words should be "within one week of the meeting of the Committee." I do not know whether the hon. Member will accept that.
    MR. T. H. BOLTONthought that if the Committee were to meet within a week from the present time that would shut out Petitions. Howver, he was in the hands of the Chair.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Committee cannot meet until this day week.
    MR. T. H. BOLTON: If that is so, I will accept the suggestion.
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon Member will accept the words "within seven days of the meeting of the Committee," I will put it to the House—that the words proposed to be left out be omitted for the purpose of inserting the words "within seven days of the meeting of the Committee."
    Amendment put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Words "not later than six clear days before the meeting of the Committee" there inserted.—(Mr. Thomas Henry Bolton.)
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I think the Amendment my hon. Friend is now moving goes a good deal beyond his first suggestion. What I said was that the Committee would no doubt receive the Petitions, and certainly there was no desire to exclude anyone interested. To that I still adhere, but I think it would be a dangerous thing to depart from the rules of the House, to allow further Petitions to be handed in, and the petitioners heard by counsel.
    MR. T. H. BOLTON: I cannot see what objection there should be to allowing any persons affected by this clause to have their views represented. We have been told that the County Council themselves have not yet made up their minds what this clause is to be, and yet these people are to be shut out from having their views represented by counsel before the Committee! I am surprised that the right hon. Baronet has raised any objection to the course I have suggested.
    MR. SPEAKER: I hardly like to make another suggestion, but I think it would be better if the notice were "not later than six clear days before the meeting of the Committee."
    MR. COURTNEY: Allow me to point out that it does not matter what Petitions are referred to the Committee; but what Petitions are allowed to be heard, and it is upon the next point that Debate may arise. On this point I think my right hon. Friend might allow Petitions to be presented up till within six days of the meeting of the Committee.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I agree to that.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. JAMES STUARTthen moved, in reference to the words "the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel," &c., that the words "the Petitioners" be omitted, and the following words inserted in their place: "such Petitioners as would otherwise have a locus standi." If such an Amendment were not adopted, the Bill would be thrown open to any amount of Petitions to be heard by counsel, and persons who had no locus standi under ordinary circumstances might apply that their Petitions be presented and considered by the Committee.

    297
    The Committee might take the question under their consideration, and considerable expense might be thrown upon the City.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out the words "the Petitioners," and insert the words "such Petitioners as would otherwise have a locus standi."—(Mr. James Stuart.)
    MR. T. H. BOLTON: The words "otherwise have a locus standi," taken in connection with the alteration made in the first paragraph, might confine the petitioners to those people who have already presented Petitions. That is not what is intended; and with reference to the suggestion that the altered clause, taken in conjunction with the alteration made by my Motion, would let in all sorts of people to petition, and would let in a number of Petitions that would not come in under the Standing Order, that is not a good objection. The provisions of this Bill are so very exceptional in many of their aspects that it would be unfair to important interests to lay down a hard and fast rule, made to apply to ordinary cases, but not to extraordinary cases such as this. There is a good deal in this Bill besides what appears on the face of it. This sky-sign clause unquestionably may very seriously affect a very important and useful trade, and I am not at all sure that that trade, as a body, could present a Petition with reference to this particular clause under the Standing Orders of the House. That being so, if the Amendment which my hon. Friend now proposes be carried, the result might be to shut out that important trade; and there are other interests affected by this Bill which, by any hard and fast rule confining the Petitions within highly technical rules, would shut out important interests that have a right to be heard on a measure of this kind. I am not desirous of throwing any difficulties in the way. I only wish, in regard to this Bill—which the County Council themselves admit is confessedly imperfect and ought to be supplemented by corrections in many places—that it should be open to Public Bodies and persons prejudicially affected by it to have an opportunity of presenting Petitions upon it and of being heard by the Committee. As to the question of expense, I may point out that no person would petition Parliament,
    298
    fee counsel, and bring witnesses before the Committee at considerable expense unless he has some serious case. Under these circumstances, I object to the Amendment, and I trust the House will not assent to it.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: My hon. Friend says he wishes that these important interests he represented should have an opportunity of appearing before the Committee. But these interests have had the usual opportunity. They have had the full and ordinary notice that the Bill was going forward and of petitioning in time if they chose to do so. My hon. Friend said that I admitted on behalf of the County Council that this Bill was imperfect and must be modified. What I really did say, as representing the County Council, was that with the permission of the House we should not object to send the Bill to this Committee, and that the Committee would carefully inquire into the clauses. We have made up our minds on these clauses before this, and we desire to carry them if we can, but we are ready to consider any suggestions in a fair spirit. My hon. Friend asked me if we were prepared to agree that the Committee should consider these clauses, and I said we would gladly do so, but that is a very different thing to allowing Petitions not yet presented to be brought forward in this unusual manner. I am surprised to hear the hon. Member say that such a matter would not involve expense. We hope the House of Commons will agree to the Amendment of my hon. Friend, which seems very reasonable. We have even stretched a point beyond what we were asked for—we have agreed that those persons not represented by Petitions should still have a right to petition, and those Petitions may go to the Committee upstairs and be considered. Under these circumstances, I submit we have already gone beyond what is usual in these cases; we have never admitted that there is anything in the Bill which we do not approve, all that we have said being that we shall be happy to consider the evidence and representation that may be made to the Committee upstairs. I hope, under these circumstances, that the House will support us in our endeavour to oppose being put to unnecessary and unusual expense in this matter.
    Question put, "That the words 'the Petitioners' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: — Ayes 98; Noes 229.—(Division List, No. 12.)
    Words inserted.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented not later than six clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee, that such Petitioners as would otherwise have a locus standi, praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
    Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Sir Algernon Borthwick.)

  MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.(by Order)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. HOWARD: I rise to move the Second Reading of the Middlesex County Council Bill, which is promoted by the Middlesex County Council, and seeks to acquire additional powers for that Body. The first two clauses are simply clauses to remove the inconvenience which Middlesex suffers as against other counties which have not the same position of affairs to contend with. I do not think these two clauses contain any contentious matter. As to the 3rd clause there is no doubt it is somewhat more contentious, but the object of it is simply to overcome schemes promoted by outside authorities, and which reduce or destroy the rateable value of property in Middlesex. Middlesex has been a great sufferer in this respect, and the rateable value of property has been thereby considerably reduced. This is especially the case in my own division, that of Tottenham. Only during the last year an infectious hospital has been placed amongst us. Now, Sir, I venture to submit it is a travesty of Local Government if outside authorities are to come in and over-ride every Local Authority in the district. What we ask by this Bill is simply to give power to the Middlesex County Council to say whether or not an outside authority should come in in this manner, and I
    300
    think that the House will feel that we are right in coming here to protect a county like Middlesex from having a London Infectious Hospital planted in our midst without our being able to say a word in our own defence. I therefore beg to move the Second Reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Howard.)
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I rise to move the rejection of this Bill. As my hon. Friend has said, it is a Bill promoted by the Middlesex County Council, and it applies to, or rather, I should say, it is directed, against all Local Authorities having jurisdiction, wholly or partially, outside that county from coming into Middlesex for any purpose whatever except under one or two alternative conditions, either by getting a separate Act of Parliament or by obtaining the consent of the Middlesex County Council. In opposing this Bill I am mainly interested, in so far as it interferes with the necessary operation of the London County Council; but I am informed that the Bill is not purely directed against the London County Council, but against the Metropolitan Asylums Board, with the object of preventing the acquisition by that Board of land in the County of Middlesex for the erection of a hospital for infectious diseases. Of course, the presence of a hospital for infectious diseases in a district is not a desirable acquisition to that district. But a hospital must be erected somewhere, and it seems only reasonable that such a hospital should be erected, more or less, in the open country rather than in the dense population of London. If burdens of this character have to be borne by the County of Middlesex, I would point out that that burden, whatever it may amount to, arises out of its proximity to London, and that that proximity, on the whole, confers on the County of Middlesex the balance of advantage. But Middlesex is not the only county surrounding this great Metropolis. Kent and Surrey stand in exactly the same relation to the southern part of London as Middlesex stands to the northern portion, and why should an exemption be granted to Middlesex that is not also extended to Kent, Surrey, and Essex? It is obvious that if

    301
    Middlesex is to be favoured as the hon. Gentleman suggests, the burden on other counties surrounding London will be trebled. This is not a question concerning only the hospital for infectious diseases. It may be a question whether some limitation might not properly be placed on the powers of a Local Authority to acquire land in another district for objects which are offensive or unpleasant, such as hospitals for infectious diseases or the disposal of sewage; but that is a question that I have no doubt will be fully considered when raised in a proper manner before this House. But justice imperatively requires that limitations of this kind should be granted and imposed, if at all, by a Public Statute, and not by a Private Bill introduced as this is. I desire, as a member of the London County Council, just for a moment to point out to the House how this Bill would cripple the operation of the London County Council. This Council has powers conferred by Public Statute to obtain land for at least six distinct public purposes, and those are—open spaces, lunatic asylums, industrial schools, main drainage, fire brigade buildings, and the housing of the working classes. These are powers conferred by Public Statute—general powers to acquire land anywhere; and if this Bill became law, then it would be impossible for the London County Council to acquire a single yard of land in the County of Middlesex for any of the purposes I have mentioned without either by obtaining a special Act of Parliament, or, in the alternative, the consent of the Middlesex County Council which might, on the one hand, be arbitrarily withheld or, on the other, granted subject to an arbitrary bargain. I will give to the House a practical illustration of the mischievous effect of this Bill in relation to one of the most important of the subjects I have stated—namely, the housing of the working classes. Many of us think one of the most effectual modes of grappling with this great question is to provide dwellings for the working classes some miles out of town, and that view the House confirmed on Wednesday last. The House is no doubt aware that, under part of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, the London County Council has power to acquire land and erect workmen's dwell-
    302
    ings out of the locality; and there is at this moment a project before a Committee of the London County Council to erect such dwellings some miles out of town. It is very probably the most convenient site we could find for the purpose and be situate in the County of Middlesex, and if that Bill becomes law we could now proceed without either the expense of a special Act of Parliament or with the consent of the Middlesex County Council, and this interference with the beneficent powers conferred upon the London County Council by Public Statute is to be brought about by a Private Bill. But, Sir, it is not only the London County Council that is deeply concerned in opposing this Bill. I am glad to see that the hon. Baronet who represents the Uxbridge Division (Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland) has put down a notice of opposition to the Second Reading in terms similar to my own, and many Local Authorities—I may mention amongst them the Vestry of Hampstead —have petitioned against this Bill. I do not for a moment suppose that this Bill, so monstrous as it is, has any chance of going successfully through the ordeal of a Committee upstairs, but I do not think the petitioners should be put to the trouble and expense of further opposing it, and, therefore, I ask the House to take upon itself the responsibility of rejecting it. Just one word upon what my hon. Friend the Member for the Tottenham Division (Mr. Howard) said regarding the provisions for music and dancing licences. I have nothing to do with them; but I may point out that one hon. Gentleman, whose name is on the back of this Bill, with a wise idea as to the fate of his Private Bill, has taken the precaution to put these licensing provisions in a Public Bill, so that the House will have another opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon them. I now ask the House in the terms of my Motion to reject this Bill.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Pickers gill.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    COLONEL HUGHES: I feel that this Bill ought to have the attention both of the Home Secretary

    303
    (Mr. Asquith) and the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler), because it is putting in the hands of the Middlesex County Council a power that is already vested in the two Departments I have mentioned. For instance, many of the cemeteries in the Middlesex district are used by people from London; many of these cemeteries will require to be enlarged; but under this Bill that could not be done without the consent of the Middlesex County Council; and if that consent were refused, I suppose the dead would have to be buried in some of the already overcrowded cemeteries of Loudon. As has been well said, why should Middlesex be able to exclude these Public Bodies? Middlesex ought to bear its share of this necessary public work. Then the County Council of Middlesex, in regard to licensing, asks to be allowed to grant licences for music and dancing at any period of the year. They have, in common with other County Councils, that power once a year, and any application made at any other time has to be made to the Home Secretary; but if the County Council of Middlesex is to grant licences all the year round, the same thing ought to be extended to all the other County Councils. The 25th section of the Public Health Act gives power to a Burial Board to provide a cemetery within or without the limits of a parish, and that is desired to be altered only with regard to Middlesex. I think a Private Bill to alter a Public Act is a wrong way of proceeding; and then, if these alterations are really required, they should extend to all and every county. For that reason I support the Motion to reject the Bill on the Second Reading.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken, that these proposals are worthy the close attention of the Home Secretary, the President of the Local Government Board, and the House generally. The hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill made use of the stock argument that an Urban Authority should have power to place its nuisances connected with its administration, in the rural district, because less damage would be done to the community at large. But it never was intended by Parliament that any Urban Authority should be able to get rid of its nuisances
    304
    by putting them on another Urban Authority. The whole object of these powers was to give to those who had the control of the affairs of populous districts the power of placing sewage works, fever hospitals, and such like nuisances in places where there is a sparse population. Amongst the powers given three years ago was that of acquiring land in the County of Middlesex for certain purposes, but in the meantime the area of the County of Middlesex immediately surrounding London has become as populous as London itself. Though the population of London has rapidly increased, in no part has the ratio of population so rapidly increased as the area surrounding London. I can speak with some authority upon this point, because I have represented that area for some years past, and at the present moment it numbers more than 500,000. I do ask, is it fair an Urban Authority inside London shall have power to put its nuisances upon such a populous district, and that Urban Authority have no control over the matter? The hon. Gentleman says it is better to place a fever hospital in an isolated district rather than a populous one. But what do the Metropolitan Asylums Board do? They previously purchased a small piece of land in the most populous part of the metropolitan area, though there were many parts within the area less thickly inhabited; and having purchased that land, they put the fever hospital there in the midst of this populous part, which is a great nuisance to the neighbourhood, deteriorates the value of property, and produces disease in the locality; and the inhabitants who have to bear this nuisance are unable to avail themselves of the hospital because it belongs to another authority. It is cases like this that make the system of local administration a farce. In the same way, the London Central Authority has power to place cemeteries in any part of Middlesex, and when a cemetery is acquired it is only rated at its agricultural value. This Bill may, in the opinion of some, go too far. I do not press that the power of limiting, or the locus standi, of the Middlesex County Council, shall apply to the acquisition of land except in cases where the land required is for purposes which might constitute a nuisance, such as sewage farms, fever hospitals, or cemeteries, and I am quite ready to limit

    305
    the power which the Middlesex County Council ask for to those three purposes. I do hope the Government will allow the Bill to go to a Select Committee. It is a most important question, and one which every day assumes greater importance, so rapid is the increase in population in the area surrounding London that is not under the control of the London County Council that many of us may live to see it equal to, if not greater than, the population of the Metropolis; and, in the meantime, it is a monstrous injustice that upon this growing populous district, in consequence of an obsolete law, the London County Council should have power to put these nuisances. Now, I am quite ready to undertake that the powers shall be strictly limited to the three purposes I have mentioned. On that undertaking I hope the Government will allow the Bill to go to a Select Committee; and if they oppose it, I hope my hon. Friend will take a Division, as it is a matter that affects a very wide and important district.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.): One or two hon. Members who have spoken upon this question have appealed to the Home Secretary and the President of the Local Government Board to state their views; but the noble Lord deprecates any statement of our views, and says the primary course would be to allow the Bill to go to a Select Committee. There are one or two points I should like to correct in the statement of the noble Lord about which he must have been misinformed, as he would not intentionally mislead the House. He referred to an obsolete law under which the London County Council could inflict a nuisance upon another district. That is beyond my comprehension altogether. No Public Body has any power under any legislation to create a nuisance anywhere. No Public Body could acquire land except in one of two ways, either under Parliamentary powers which it had already received, and then by agreement with the owner, or compulsorily by the sanction of this House, either in the shape of a Provisional Order or an Act of Parliament; and no Bublic Pody can borrow money for any of the purposes the noble Lord has mentioned without the sanction of the Local Government Board, which
    306
    sanction is rarely given without a previous local inquiry, and I can only say from the experience of my short period of office that the protection afforded to the public by means of the inquiry and the action of the Local Government Board is at once economical and effective. I must correct the noble Lord with reference to the action of my predecessor in the establishment of a fever hospital at Tottenham. I am not going to embark upon that subject, but I can tell the noble Lord that he has been misled as to the facts. All that has been done has been done by Mr. Ritchie himself, who sanctioned for 12 months the erection of a temporary hospital to meet a temporary emergency, after which the question would have to be carefully considered. As to the death rate, that has rather decreased than increased. The proposal here is an attempt by Private Bill to alter the public law. If that law is to be altered, I am prepared to argue it at the proper time and under proper circumstances, but I think we have had enough of private alterations of public procedure. Public Bodies can, as I have stated, purchase by agreement, or compulsorily, if Parliament sanctions it; but this Bill proposes there is to be a new Body, entitled the Middlesex County Council, and they shall have the power to interfere with compulsory purchase, and are to be legally entitled to veto any agreement between a landowner and the London County Council for the purchase of land within their district. I say no such power has been asked by any Public Body before; it would be an entirely new departure in our legislation, and if it is to be made, let the other County Councils of England have the same power. Why is Middlesex to have it, and not Kent, or Surrey, or Essex, or Lancashire? The noble Lord has been for many years in this House a strong defender of freedom of contract, but this is the most extraordinary proposal to annul freedom of contract that has ever been submitted. I am authorised by the Home Secretary to say that, so far as his Department is concerned, he concurs in the views the Local Government Board take that this is a Bill the House ought not to allow.
    MR. STEPHENSsaid, that they in Middlesex did not know any reason why Kent or Surrey

    307
    should not have the power asked by this Bill; that was for them to say; but he thought that the outlying districts of London ought not to become mere places for the deposit of whatever was dangerous, infectious, or polluted. He could give the House an illustration of the extraordinary inconvenience to which some of the outlying districts were put. In his own parish of Finchley they had three cemeteries belonging to three wealthy London parishes—Islington, St. Pancras, and Marylebone. Those cemeteries derived a profitable trade, and yet were rated at an agricultural value. But around those cemeteries no building took place, the result being that the rating value was lowered, which was a great hardship upon the district which had to incur heavy expenditure. London should make provision within her own limits for all cases that had been mentioned. So far as hospitals for infectious diseases were concerned, the Local Government Board and all concerned ought to feel that there was no sound sanitary reason why persons suffering from such diseases should be transported from one Urban Sanitary or Local Authority to another. They could be provided for in London itself, and in a far better way than by having them sent to some other and more remote part of the district around the Metropolis. Taking them to distant parts appeared to him as likely to leave the germs of disease, or to cause its spread either from the patients themselves or from the passing to and fro of the attendants. That was a great danger which it should be easy to avoid. He did not see why provision should not be made within the borders of a county to look after the infectious cases arising within its borders, and he was of opinion that the Middlesex County Council could not do otherwise than it had done. He presumed, indeed, that its action would be followed by other counties. These outlying districts were supposed to be part of the Metropolis; but they would not be long part of it if they were to have these institutions placed in their midst. So far as open spaces were concerned, they had not been very successful as yet in their invitation to the London County Council; but while they hoped for their cooperation in the preservation of such spaces, they declared that, having heavy burdens of their own to bear, it was too
    308
    bad if they were to be asked to support the institutions of other authorities.
    MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)said, he would like to point out to the hon. Member who had just spoken that in his (Mr. Bartley's) district, which was smaller by far than the hon. Member's—being only a mile and a quarter in extent—he had a larger population, numbering nearly 100,000 persons; and to have a cemetery in such a district was simply, he maintained, an impossibility. It was carrying the idea too far to imagine that they could keep all these institutions within their own district boundaries.
    MR. J. W. BENNsaid, perhaps the House was not aware that the Middlesex County Council had a lunatic asylum in London, and that they had just erected offices for their own convenience in the Metropolis. Would the promoters of the Bill propose to remove these offices? He was rather astonished that they should hear those complaints from the Middlesex County Council of the burdens that were inflicted by the London institutions being sent out there. He would remind them that London received a large addition to her unemployed and paupers from the County of Middlesex, and the difficulties with which the London County Council were confronted were thereby aggravated and increased.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid there were one or two reasons why the Bill should be rejected. There was a tendency on the part of the persons promoting or managing asylums, industrial schools, hospitals, and kindred institutions to shift from the centre of the city or town as the population increased. The reason of that was that the health of the inmates was of considerable importance, and it was materially improved by the change, and, besides, economy of administration was marked in every case where transfer of hospital had been effected from the centre to the suburbs. Now, if that view were generally adopted, the Middlesex County Council should not have the power of determining that institutions of that class should not be erected in their county—they should not have the power without at least consulting with the London County Council. It had also been suggested that hospitals in London should be turned into surgical depôts, and that patients should be received in institutions

    309
    outside London. The County Council, however, under this Bill would not have the power to erect a hospital or any other building in any part of Middlesex unless the Middlesex Council approved. He regretted that the Chairman of the Middlesex County Council had not considered what were the relations between that Body and the London County Council. The Middlesex County Council wanted the London County Council to contribute £275,000 for the acquisition of the Alexandria Park for the benefit of the Middlesex people. Not three years ago they came to them and suggested that it would be more convenient for them to send their pauper lunatics to Wands-worth. The London Council at once transferred the Wandsworth Lunatic Asylum to the Middlesex County Council. In fact, the London County Council had shown a disposition to make concessions in every reasonable respect in their relations with Local Authorities. The proposal in the Bill meant practically to put a fence round London and give the Middlesex Council power to say whether certain institutions should be erected unless on conditions which they would impose. There was no attempt in the Bill to provide for the requirements of the London people who were pushing themselves out to the county districts beyond the Metropolis. The Bill was nothing more nor less than an attempt on the part of a comparatively small number of rich people who made their money in the City, and by living in the suburbs escaped the poor rate and the pauper lunatic rate, and enjoyed all the pleasures and amenities of the City, to throw on the London County Council all the burdens and physical disadvantages of looking after the poor, the sick, and the lunatic paupers. He only hoped that the remarks made by the last speaker on that side of the House would go home to every Member who had listened to them. He said it was perfectly possible for an infectious disease hospital to be erected in a crowded district without being a danger to the community at large. If that was applicable to Battersea, Chelsea, and other districts of London, it was doubly applicable to districts 20 miles from London, where the chances in the country of infection were considerably reduced. He trusted that this attempt on the part of the Middlesex
    310
    Council would obtain no support from the House—that it would be resisted by the House, and that, in the interest of 5,000,000 of people, it would meet with the treatment it undoubtedly deserved.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading put off for six mouths.

NOTICE OF MOTION.

  EMPLOYMENT IN NAVAL ESTABLISHMENTS.
  SIR J. GORST: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates I shall move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House no person should be engaged in the naval establishments on wages insufficient for a proper maintenance, and that the conditions of labour as regards hours, wages, insurance against accident, provision for old age, &c., should be such as to afford an example to private employers throughout the country."

QUESTIONS.

  THE NORTH BIERLY MAGISTRACY.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to certain correspondence, extending over several years, between the Clerk to the Guardians in the North Bierley Union, the Lord Lieutenant of the West Riding, and the Lord Chancellor, with respect to the serious inconvenience which is suffered in the said Union, owing to the insufficient number of county magistrates resident within it; and whether he will confer with the Lord Chancellor with a view to the appointment upon his recommendation of additional and suitable magistrates for that part of the West Riding which comprises the North Bierley Union?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): Yes, Sir; this matter is at present engaging the Lord Chancellor's attention; and as soon as he comes to a final decision upon it, I will inform my hon. Friend.

  POSTAL SERVICE REGULATIONS.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether any regulations exist in the Post Office by which any adult employés engage at any period of their service to enter the Army; whether there are any regulations affecting telegraph messengers which require them to do so; and whether there are any regulations for the admission of Army Reserve men into the service of the Post Office which affect the promotion of those who are already employed there?
  MR. SNAPE: At the same time, I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the late Postmaster General issued an Order that all telegraph messengers should, at the age of 16, leave the Service, and join the Army or Navy; whether, at present, the boys are being compelled to sign an agreement that they will conform to this Order; and whether he will give instructions that it be rescinded?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): No such regulation as that mentioned in paragraph 1 exists, but a limited number (about 200) of the Post Office Volunteer Corps are allowed to enlist in the Army, on the condition that in the event of warlike operations they may be called upon to perform postal and telegraphic duties with the military forces of the country. In answer to paragraph 2, I will read to my hon. Friend the following extract from the form which has to be signed by telegraph messengers on their appointment:—
  "If, at the age of 18, or on leaving the Post Office Service at 19, I enlist in the Army, and bear a good character on passing into the Reserve, I shall, before others who have not at any time been in the Post Office Service, be presented to the Civil Service Commissioners for a certificate, with a view to employment in an established capacity."
  My hon. Friend will see that enlistment in the Army is optional, and I may say there is no regulation requiring telegraph messengers to enter the Army. By regulations made in November, 1891, soldiers, either of the Reserve or time-expired, are accepted as candidates for the position of postman in preference to other applicants who have no special
  312
  claim based on past services, and subject to the reports as to character being good, and to their satisfying the requirements of the Civil Service Commissioners, they are appointed. I have received a large number of complaints against the hardship which these regulations inflict upon the class of telegraph messengers; and, although there has hardly yet been time to fairly test the system, the subject is receiving my careful consideration.
  MR. CREMER: Arising out of the answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a question? I wish to know whether the head of a Department has any authority to compel the subordinates and employés in his Department to perform duties and labours other than those for which they were engaged in connection with the Department; and whether, if the head of a Department imposes such obligations on the subordinates and employés, he is authorised to punish them for neglecting to perform such duties?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): Undoubtedly the answer to my hon. Friend's question taken generally would be in the negative; but, at the same time, it would be very difficult to make the answer applicable to a particular case without knowing the exact circumstances.
  MR. CREMER: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that the question refers to the authority now exercised by the Postmaster General, concerning which I give notice that I shall put a question on the Paper.

  PROPOSED CHOLERA SHIP NEAR LONDON BRIDGE.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that an application has been addressed to the Thames Conservancy for leave to place a cholera ship near London Bridge; and if, before it is sanctioned, he will take care, having regard to the vast surrounding population and the number of passengers conveyed up and down the river by the Victoria Steamboat Association, that the possible danger to the public health is fully considered?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.): The Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London have under consideration the provision of hospital accommodation for cholera patients, and are in communication with the Thames Conservancy as to mooring a floating hospital in the river. The Conservators have not yet arrived at a decision on the question, and I am informed by them that they will give due attention to the question of any possible danger to public health which might arise from such a hospital.

  DUNGLOE COURT HOUSE.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN (Donegal, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Inspector of Weights and Measures for the Dungloe Petty Sessions District, County Donegal, was obliged to cease his inspection of weights and measures in the Dungloe Court House on the 7th of February, in order that the agent of the Marquess of Conyng-ham might have the use of the place as a rent office; is he aware that the Court House referred to is paid for and maintained out of the public rates; and whether he will direct that no such interference with the business of the public shall take place in future?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,)said, the facts were as stated in the first paragraph of the question. The rent of the Courthouse was, as he understood, paid by Grand Jury presentment, and it appeared that the Inspector of Weights and Measures had no statutory right to use the building for the purposes for which he acted as such Inspector. It did not look as if the agent had shown any good judgment in interfering with the public duty of the Inspector; but he (Mr. Morley) had no right whatever to interfere in the matter.

  THE CONVICT DALY.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that poison was administered to John Daly in Chatham by mistake, with the result that he suffered a severe illness;
  314
  whether it is usual in such a case to make some remission of sentence to the prisoner; and whether any remission has been, or will be, made in the case of John Daly?
  MR. ASQUITH: It is true that while John Daly was in Chatham Prison he suffered from taking a dose of belladonna, which was prescribed for him by the doctor. His illness was due to the abnormal strength of the tincture which had in mistake been supplied to the prison. The prison officials were entirely free from blame. The occurrence took place more than three years ago, and was fully inquired into by the Visitors of Chatham Prison, whose Report was laid before Parliament in 1890. Daly's health was not permanently affected, and it is not usual in a case of temporary illness caused by a pure misadventure to make any remission of a sentence. Every care is taken to adapt his treatment and prison work to his physical condition, and the state of his health is not such as to warrant any interference with his sentence.
  MR. J. REDMOND: May I ask whether it is not the fact that two doses of belladonna were at different times administered to Daly of such strength as to be poisonous, and whether he was not in consequence brought to death's door?
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not know as to the administration of two separate doses. If the hon. Member wants information on the point he can put a question on the Paper. Daly no doubt suffered severely, but he has recovered.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I wish to ask whether, so far from the prison officials being free from blame, the apothecary who mixed the medicine was not dismissed from his post for having made the blunder?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Report of the Visitors was to the effect that the prison officials were not to blame. I must ask for notice of any further question on the point.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to give notice that I will call further attention, as soon as an opportunity presents itself, to the fact that Daly has been brought to death's door by being given poison on two occasions, and that his continued imprisonment is likely to result in his death. I believe that if he is not released you will kill him.

  THE BRISTOL RIOTS.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the disturbance which took place in the City of Bristol on the 22nd December, 1892; and if he will appoint a Commissioner to proceed to Bristol to inquire into all the circumstances of the case?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am aware, from representations which have been made to me by various bodies in Bristol, that there is widespread desire in that city for some inquiry into what took place on the day in question. But no specific facts, either by way of information or complaint, have been as yet brought to my notice such as would justify me in taking the action which my hon. Friend suggests. I will give careful consideration to any written statement which may be furnished to me by persons acquainted with the facts; but until I have fuller knowledge of the circumstances I cannot decide whether the case is one in which the Home Office ought, in accordance with precedent and policy, to institute an inquiry.

  IMPRISONED SEAMAN AT BILBAO.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has had any Report from Bilbao with reference to the release of the seaman Shilling; whether he has been released; and, if so, upon what conditions; and if he could lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence which has passed between the Consul and the Foreign Office?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): Three seamen, an Englishman named Shilling, an American, and a Swede, belonging to the British ship Newcastle, were arrested on a charge of assaulting the Spanish police. The British Consul at Bilbao at once intervened on their behalf, and succeeded in obtaining the release of the two latter, against whom the charge was less serious. Their own Consuls declined to interfere, as they were serving on a British vessel. The
  316
  Fiscal originally demanded two years' imprisonment for Shilling, assault on the police being a grave offence in Spain, but in deference to the Consul's frequent appeals, the demand was reduced to two months, and a fine of £5. The time passed in prison before trial was reckoned in the sentence, and the man is now released and sent home. If it be thought worth while after this statement the Correspondence will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman as to what the duties of a British Consul are, what are the hours of labour, whether they can leave their offices entirely in the hands of Vice Consuls, and whether Vice Consuls can leave them entirely in the hands of clerks?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is clearly a question which the hon. Member should put on the Paper.

  VOLUNTEER EXPENDITURE.
  MR. BEITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that in many corps (especially Artillery) of Volunteers the capitation grant and other allowances fall far short of their expenditure necessary to maintain their efficiency; that to meet the extra expenditure for the erection and maintenance of drill-halls, batteries, and ranges, &c., the officers, in addition to supplying their own uniform, subscribing to prize funds, and other inducements for keeping up the strength of the corps, have undertaken heavy pecuniary liabilities, and that the obligations thus incurred prevent the filling up of vacant commissions; and whether the cost and maintenance of the necessary buildings will in future be borne by the War Department?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): The expenditure of Volunteer corps was carefully investigated in 1887, and the Report of the Committee on the subject was presented to Parliament. As a result, the grants to corps have been materially increased. I am, however, prepared to consider special cases where increased expenditure has followed changes of organization. I am now inquiring in to the expenses of field batteries.

  THE HOWE COURT MARTIALS.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether their Lordships' Minute on the two court martials arising out of the stranding of H.M.S. Howe, recently issued to the Fleet, can be laid upon the Table of the House for the information of Members?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY SHUTTLEWORTH,): The desire of my hon. and gallant Friend has been anticipated. I laid the Admiralty Minute on the Table on 14th February, and it is in the Vote Office to-day, for the use of Members.

  COMMISSIONS IN THE ROYAL ARTILLERY.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that evidence has been privately submitted to him that hardship will be suffered if the five commissions promised half yearly in the Royal Artillery to officers of the Artillery Militia be reduced to two in March next, he will re-consider his determination in the matter?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I regret extremely that disappointment should be felt at the unavoidable reduction in the vacancies in the Royal Artillery to be competed for by Militia Artillery candidates; but, in consequence of the small number of commissions which can be given in the regiment generally, and having regard to the claims of the cadets at the Royal Military Academy, I am sorry that I cannot see my way to extending the number.

  LOANS TO WORKING-MEN'S BUILDING SOCIETIES.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will lay on the Table a statement showing the number of working-men's Building Societies that have received loans from the Public Loan Commissioners, and the amounts so advanced; and whether, considering that the Commissioners only advance to the extent of one-half of the whole value of buildings, will this amount be extended to three-fourths?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,: A statement of the loans made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners for labourers' dwellings is already published every year in the Commissioners' Annual Report to Parliament, and on page 18 of their Report for 1891–2 will be found a list of such loans outstanding on March 31 last. Their next Report will continue this information up to March 31, 1893. The limit of one-half the value up to which the Public Works Loan Commissioners have power to lend is fixed by Statute; and in face of the decided opinion of the Commissioners, specially constituted by Parliament an independent body, against extending the limit, I can hold out no hope that the Government will propose legislation with that object.

  THE LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS.
  MR. CREAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many cottages were erected under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts in the Mountrath division of the Mountmellick Union, and cost of same; the number of cottages in respect of which schemes were adopted in said Union, but were not carried out, with the respective cates of adoption; and why said schemes were not carried into execution?
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid, that three labourers' cottages had been erected in the Mountrath Electoral Division of the Mountmellick Union at a cost of about £390. Various schemes for the erection of a number of houses had been submitted from time to time by the Board of Guardians, and the Local Government Board had made Provisional Orders, dated respectively 3rd February, 1887, 31st May, 1888, 12th March, 1890, and 26th June, 1891, authorising the erection of 61 cottages in the Union. Of these cottages 32 had been erected, and 19 were being built. Of the remaining 10, in two cases the Guardians had failed to get contractors at a reasonable price, in one there had been a difficulty in obtaining possession of the site, four had been abandoned by the Guardians, and, as regarded three, the arbitrators' award had only just been made.
  MR. CLANCY: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been directed to a resolution which has been passed by a great many Boards of Guardians in Ireland with reference to the excessive prolixity and cost of the present procedure for the erection of labourers' cottages; and, if so, will steps be taken to provide a remedy?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have more than once stated that there is no doubt considerable protraction in carrying out schemes under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, but my hon. Friend will remember that precautions must be taken in the interests of the ratepayers. At the same time, I quite agree that it is desirable that the procedure should be simplified if possible, and I will endeavour to consider any proposal that may be made to me on the subject.

  GUN LICENCES IN THE KANTURK DISTRICT.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether in the Kanturk district, County Cork, any magistrate other than Major Hutchinson, Resident Magistrate, is authorised to issue gun licences; and, if not, why is this authority confined to this gentleman; is he aware that Major Hutchinson peremptorily refused to grant a gun licence to Mr. John A. O'Connor, a merchant in Kanturk; whether he can state upon what grounds this refusal was based; and on what principle does a stipendiary magistrate act in giving or withholding an ordinary gun licence?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am causing inquiry to be made on this subject.
  MR. FLYNN: I will put the question down for Monday.

  RAILWAY RATES IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. JACKS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that many trades and industries in Scotland are being paralysed by the high rates now being charged by the Railway Companies; whether, in view of this serious state of things, the Board of Trade will use its influence to induce the Railway Companies to charge the old rates until the matter is finally arranged, collecting any difference between the old and new
  320
  rates then, instead of charging the new rates and returning any rebate after the settlement of the matter; and whether he could make this a condition of the extension to Easter of the time for the final adjustment of rates?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I have received a considerable number of complaints of increases in railway rates from Scotland. All that I can say now is that I am pressing the Scotch Companies in the matter through the Railway Association. But I have at present no power to impose conditions on them.

  APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the case of Mr. Andrew James M'Caughey, second class officer of Excise, Dublin, who died in August last of typhoid fever contracted in an insanitary station in the discharge of his duty; whether the application of the widow of Mr. M'Caughey for compensation for the loss of her husband has been refused by the Board of Inland Revenue, although the Board are responsible for the insanitary condition of the stores in which Mr. M'Caughey was employed, and although Mr. M'Caughey had served a period sufficient to entitle him to a pension if, instead of being killed, he had been merely incapacitated; and whether Mrs. M'Caughey's application for compensation will now be re-considered?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I have consulted the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on this case, and am informed that the Board have had a Report from the Sanitary Officer of the District, and have satisfied themselves that the station was not in an insanitary condition. In these circumstances, the Treasury have no power to make a grant to Mrs. M'Caughey.

  CLERKSHIPS IN THE LEGACY DUTY OFFICE.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the recent competition for clerkships in the Legacy Duty Office was confined to persons who had passed the final ex-

  321
  animation of the Incorporated Law Society of the United Kingdom; if so, why persons who had passed the final examination of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland were excluded; and whether, in view of the fact that the final examination of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland affords as good a test of the competency for the duties of the Legacy Office as that of the similar Body in England, he will take steps so to alter the regulations regarding candidates for the Legacy Duty Office as in future to give equal rights and privileges to English and Irish candidates?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The recent competition for clerkships in the Legacy Duty Office was confined to persons who had passed the final examination of the Incorporated Law Society of the United Kingdom. This course was considered advisable, as this competition—the first of its kind—was to fill vacancies at the Head Office in London only. The matter will again be considered before another competition is held.
  MR. CLANCY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state why advertisements were inserted in the Irish papers asking Irishmen to compete?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I cannot answer that question.
  MR. CLANCY: Are we to understand that in future this distinction will not be made between the two classes?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The question will be re-considered.

  THE CASE OF WARDER JESSETT.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether W. D. Warder Jessett was informed, on December 10th, 1891, at Aldershot, by the Commanding Royal Engineer, that he should then take the pension he had earned and cease from active employment; whether he is aware that, in consequence of this communication, Warder Jessett did resign on June 7th, 1892, but the War Office has refused to grant him the pension; whether he is aware that Warder Jessett enlisted in the Royal Sappers in 1847, served during the Crimean War, Indian Mutiny, and other campaigns, receiving medals for his services; and whether the War Office will grant Warder Jessett the pension to which the Commanding
  322
  Royal Engineer said he was entitled, and on the faith of which he resigned?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Warder Jessett was required to give up his appointment on account of age. His military service was not sufficient to give him a pension, and the civil appointment he subsequently held was not one which carried superannuation. The Commanding Royal Engineer only required Warder Jessett to retire on whatever pension he had earned. It turned out that he had earned no more than a compassionate allowance, which has been paid to him. I will, however, give the case further consideration, and I should be very glad if I found that anything could be done for him, although I cannot say I am hopeful.

  THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the event of the Home Rule Bill becoming law, the Resident Magistrates or other officials now having the power to call on British troops quartered in Ireland to assist the police on necessary occasions will still have the same authority?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not think me wanting in courtesy to him if I say tat this is one of those speculative and hypothetical questions as to which no good purpose can be served by discussions in the form of question and answer across the Table of the House. I hope, therefore, he will be kind enough to postpone the consideration of the difficulty until the Second Reading of the Committee stage of the Home Rule Bill.

  DEFICIENT FREE SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he can say approximately in how many cases representations have been made to the Education Department, in accordance with 54 and 55 Vic, c. 56, s. 5, that free school accommodation is deficient; in what mode have such representations been made; what action the Department has taken; and what has been the result?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): Representations have been made to the Education Department, in the mode prescribed under Section 5 of the Free Education Act, from 75 school districts. The number of children for whom free places have thus been claimed is estimated approximately at about 25,000, out of 1,125,000 who were still paying fees up to September 1 last; but it is impossible to give exact figures, as in some representations the number of children has not been given, and in others has been given inaccurately. In 25 of these cases sufficient free accommodation is now being provided without recourse having been had to the issue of notices. In six cases notices of deficiency have been issued as provided by the Act. In the remainder the local inquiries prescribed by the Act are still proceeding. As to the result of the working of this section of the Act up to the present time, it must be admitted that the process by which parents who desire it can obtain completely free education for their children is necessarily a tedious and difficult one in many cases, notwithstanding the efforts of the Department to make it as easy as possible. I fear that many parents do not yet know of their right to free education, and that even when they do know they discover in some cases that there are many difficulties in the way.
  MR. PICTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the demand has been fully met in Liverpool?
  MR. ACLAND: The demand has been met to a considerable extent by the opening of several more free schools, but I am not prepared to say that it has been fully met.

  DISCHARGES FROM THE 1st LIFE GUARDS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether eight non-commissioned officers have been discharged from the 1st Life Guards; what were the grounds for this; whether any inquiry was held respecting the allegations against these men; and, if so, whether any opportunity was given to them to reply to any such allegations; and whether, in view of these dismissals from the service of Her Majesty, any steps have been taken, or,
  324
  if not, will be taken, to inquire into the state of discipline in the regiment, and the responsibility of the commanding and other officers in connection therewith?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The non-commissioned officers discharged from the 1st Life Guards were discharged for the good of the Service, not on the ground of any specific charges, but on account of general neglect of duty. Steps have been taken to inquire into the state of discipline of the regiment and the responsibility of the commanding and other officers.
  MR. LABOUCH: Had these non-commissioned officers an opportunity of defending themselves?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No; I have said there were no specific charges made against them, and, therefore, they had no opportunity of replying. The neglect of duty was patent and obvious.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Have they lost the chance of a pension?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: They have lost no chance of pension to which they were entitled. Those of them who came within the pensonable age have received pensions.

  REMUNERATION FOR PETTY JURORS.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN (Carmarthen, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the expense, inconvenience, and loss of time incurred by those who have to attend and serve as petty jurors, he will consider the question of introducing a Bill to provide for their remuneration?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not prepared to introduce legislation on this subject. There is a Bill providing for the remuneration of common jurors in civil cases at the expense of the parties now before the House. As at present advised, I do not think that in criminal cases the existing practice should be changed.

  REGISTRATION OF TRADE MARKS BY FOREIGNERS.
  MR. FISHERI beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade by whose instructions the Comptroller General of Patents refuses to recognise the fourth paragraph of the Final Protocol in the International Convention

  325
  entered into between Her Majesty's Government and the United States of America; and whether he will take such steps as shall ensure applications for the registration of trade marks by foreign citizens being registered in this country according to the terms of the Convention?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Comptroller has statutory discretion under the Patents, &c, Acts of 1883 and 1888 to deline to register trade marks which he does not consider to come within the terms of those Acts, but an appeal lies from his decision to the Board of Trade or the Court, and if any applicant is aggrieved he can have no difficulty in obtaining the decision of the Court. There is no refusal on the part of the Comptroller to recognise the paragraph referred to by the hon. Member; but, having regard to the decisions of Mr. Justice Stirling in the Syrup of Figs case, and of Mr. Justice North in the Carter's Little Liver Pills case, I am considering whether any and, if so, what steps are necessary to bring the English law and the Convention into complete harmony.

  FOREIGN GAME.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the case that hares and other game imported from abroad can be sold without a licence; if so, whether anything can be done to place the vendor of foreign game and the vendor of English game on an equal footing?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): The fact is as stated in the question. I think that the distinction between the vendor of foreign game and the vendor of English game is not justifiable, and the Inland Revenue have the matter under their consideration.

  ALLOWANCES FROM FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  MR. BILLI beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, with a view to a better provision for old age in the case of persons in receipt of allowances from Friendly Societies, he will cancel the Minute of the Poor Law Commissioners, dated 27th March, 1840,
  326
  confirmed in a letter dated 5th January, 1870, which directs Boards of Guardians to take such allowances into account in deciding the amount of parish relief to be given in such cases?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Neither the Poor Law Commissioners nor the Local Government Board have made any Order which imposes on the Guardians any obligation to take into account allowances from Friendly Societies in deciding as to the amount of Poor Law relief which should be given in the case of persons who are receiving aid from such Societies. The principle, however, was laid down in the Minutes of 1840, and the letter of 1870, that, as destitution is the only ground of claim to relief at the cost of the rates, the income of the person applying for relief, from whatever source it is obtained, should in strictness be taken into account in determining the amount of relief that should be given by the Guardians. This is a matter for the consideration of the Royal Commission now sitting, and pending their Report I do not think it would be proper for me to issue any Order on the subject.

  SOLDIERS AT SHEERNESS.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the number of soldiers quartered in the barracks at Sheerness is considerably below the number for which accommodation is provided, and below the number usually stationed there; and whether, as this circumstance acts most prejudicially to the trade of the town, he will take steps to largely augment the force now doing duty there?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am afraid that the strength of a garrison must depend on the duties required from it, and not upon the effect it may have upon the local trade. The works at Sheerness require two companies of garrison artillery, and that force is maintained there. Some years ago a, depot was stationed at Sheerness, but it is not now required.

  TARGET PRACTICE SEAWARDS
  SIR WILLIAM PEARCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade on what day the Report of the Committee on Target. Practice Seawards will be issued?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Report is in the printer's hands, and we are pressing for it.

  DEEP SEA FISHERIES BILL.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Government will consider the desirability of including salmon in the Deep Sea Fisheries Bill, which they have announced their intention to introduce at an early date, especially as salmon is a deep sea fish?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G.TBEVELYAN,): The Government, after full consideration, has resolved not to include salmon in the forthcoming Fishery Bill.

  GLASGOW AND CARLISLE ROAD TRUST.
  MR. HOZIER (Lanarkshire, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland when the determination of the Commissioners in the matter of the Glasgow and Carlisle Road Trust will be laid before Parliament?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The determination in question was presented to Parliament on the 14th instant.

  THE EVICTED TENANTS COMMISSION.
  MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any further Supplementary Estimate will be submitted to the House for the costs of the Commission on Irish Evicted Tenants; and, if not, out of what Vote the costs have been defrayed?
  MR. HANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman also say what arrangement is made as to the remuneration of a Judge of the High Court of Justice who sits on a Commission of this kind? Does his salary run during the time he is absent from his ordinary duty?
  MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.): Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the salaries of Sir James Hannen and Justices Day and Smith were paid during the sittings of the Parnell Commission?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I will inquire into the way in which the question of Commissioners has been dealt with.
  MR. HANBURY: But how has the present case been dealt with?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I cannot answer offhand. In answer to the first question asked, I have to say that no such Supplementary Estimate will be submitted. The cost has been defrayed out of the Vote already taken for temporary Commissions.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the cost of printing necessitated by the Commission on Irish Evicted Tenants has been defrayed out of the Supplementary Estimate, "Stationery Office and Printing," of £35,500; and, if not, out of what Vote it has been paid?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The cost of printing was provided for in the Supplementary Estimate referred to.
  MR. BARTLEY: Am I to understand that the expenses of the Commission will be paid without any investigation, inquiry, or discussion in this House, and without the House having any knowledge of the circumstances?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I imagine the House is aware of the circumstances. I have answered the hon. Member's question and have said that provision for the expenditure will not be made by Supplementary Estimate.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: What are the items referred to as "temporary Commissions "?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It would be well to defer questions of this sort until the Supplementary Estimates are before us.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I will repeat the question on Monday.

  CHOLERA PRECAUTIONS.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I wish to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Government has had under consideration the resolution passed at a Conference of representatives of Port Sanitary Authorities on 17th February at the Guildhall, in which they state their opinion that inasmuch as special cholera precautions carried out by the Port Sanitary Authorities are for the benefit of the whole population, these precautions so far as they are special should be carried out at the Imperial expense; and whether, in view of the urgent necessity of protecting the inland towns from disease imported from foreign parts, the Govern-

  329
  ment will concur in this recommendation?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have as yet had no official communication with regard to the resolution referred to, but when it is received by me it shall have my careful consideration.

  THE INDIAN TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the officers of the Indian Telegraph Department have submitted Memorials to the Government of India and the Secretary of State exhibiting a general discontent with the failure of the Government of India to carry out the recommendation contained in a Despatch of the Secretary of State to the Government of India, No. 13 T of 25th August, 1887, providing for the division of all officers below the rank of Chief Superintendent into six classes, thus abolishing grades, but not reducing the number of officiating steps possible in the event of a senior officer going on leave; whether the object of the Secretary of State's Despatch was to accelerate promotion; whether the Government of India has added to the Secretary of State's Scheme a rule of its own, to the effect that officiating promotion should no longer be granted from grade to grade, whereby an opposite effect has been produced from that intended by the Secretary of State; and whether, in view of the continued discontent caused by this rule, the Secretary of State will direct the Government of India to carry out his own recommendations?
  SIR E. GREY (answering for Mr. G. RUSSELL): The answers to the first two questions of the hon. Member are in the affirmative; but the proposal to divide the service into six classes originated not with the Secretary of State but with the Government of India. Upon further consideration it was found necessary to make a rule that officiating promotion should not be granted from grade to grade; but it was considered that any loss thus caused was outweighed by the other changes, advantageous to the officers, which were made at the same time. There is no present intention of altering this rule, which has been approved by the Secretary of State in Council.

  INDIAN TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether it was intended that the Order of the Secretary of State in his Despatch No. 13 T, 25th August, 1887, for reducing the number of officers in the Indian Telegraph Department from 104 to 84, as the lowest number deemed to be necessary for efficiency, should be final; whether the Secretary of State is aware of recent action by the Government of India reducing the number of Assistant Superintendents in each grade with the effect of retarding promotion; and whether he will take steps to secure the immediate recruitment of the Department, now reduced to 74 instead of 84, up to its full strength, in order to prevent stoppage of leave and overworking of the officers in the Department?
  SIR E. GREY: The number, 84, has recently been increased to 86. This, under present conditions, is the normal strength of the Department. The Secretary of State has not received information as to any reduction of the number of Assistant Superintendents. For exceptional reasons the number of the staff has temporarily fallen to 74, but steps are now being taken to raise it to 86.

  THE CHARGES OF RETURNING OFFICERS.
  MR. TUITE (Westmeath, N.): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board is it the intention of the Government to include in their contemplated legislation relating to Parliamentary elections any proposal dealing with the charges of Returning Officers?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Registration Bill introduced by me does not deal with the charges referred to in the question. I cannot at present state the nature of any contemplated legislation relating to Parliamentary elections.

  PRISON WARDERS.
  MR. COMBE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a Petition from the convict warders of Her Majesty's prison at Woking; and, if so, whether he will give it favourable consideration?
  MR. ASQUITH: A number of Petitions have been received in the last few days from the officers of Woking Prison, which are at present under my consideration. As they are requesting a Tate of superannuation in excess of the Civil Service scale, and as this demand was fully considered and rejected by the Prison Warders Committee as lately as 1891, I cannot hold out much hope of their receiving a favourable reply.

  THE TREASON FELONY PRISONERS AT PORTLAND.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to visits to the treason felony prisoners in Portland Convict Establishment, whether, if an application for permission to visit those prisoners be renewed by the London Amnesty Association, and if an undertaking be given by or on behalf of the persons for whom the permission is sought that the Prison Regulations as to visits of this character will be strictly observed, he will now consider it favourably, in view of the fact that the prisoners referred to will otherwise be deprived altogether of the privilege of visits which they are admitted to have earned by their good conduct?
  MR. ASQUITH: As I stated yesterday, I am anxious that these prisoners should not be deprived of the privilege ofreceiving visits. If the names of the intending visitors submitted to me are those of responsible persons, who will give such an undertaking as the hon. Member suggests, and if the prisoners are willing to receive them, I shall be prepared favourably to consider the application.
  MR. J. REDMONDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the desirability of informing the London Amnesty Association of the precise matters of which he had had to complain; and also if he would instruct the prison officials to inform visitors, when a visit took place, of the Prison Regulations, so that they might know what they had to do?
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not think that any complaint was made in regard to the Association referred to—it was made in the case of some other Body. The suggestion made in the latter part of the
  332
  hon. Gentleman's remarks appears to me to be a reasonable way of dealing with the matter.

  LOUGH ERNE DRAINAGE.
  MR. DANE (Fermanagh, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many out of the 1,448 cases which came before the Irish Board of Works for increases of rent in respect of the Lough Erne Drainage were in respect of holdings upon which judicial rents were not fixed; how many in respect of holdings upon which judicial rents had been fixed; what were the reasons in respect of the 291 cases in which the Board declined jurisdiction that it did so; is there any objection upon the part of the Board to lay upon the Table of the House the details of the expenditure of £210,000, £106,000 of which is in excess of the estimate, and what is the reason why the accounts of this important work have not been published as by Law prescribed; and whether, having regard to the fact of the enormous expenditure of £106,000 over the Estimates, and the fact that no detailed accounts as prescribed by the Statute have been published, the Treasury will consent to a sworn inquiry respecting the expenditure of this excess?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: It has been impossible hitherto to obtain the information for which the hon. Member asks, but I am in communication with the Irish Board of Works, and if the hon. Member will repeat his question on Monday I may be in a position to give him an answer.

  THE HOME RULE BILL.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state whether the words "an executive Committee of the Privy Council of Ireland," as used in Clause 5, Section 2, of the Irish Government Bill, 1893, imply certain members of that Privy Council to whom the Council has itself committed certain matters, or whether the committal to this Committee of such matters is to be the act of some authority other than the Privy Council itself?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I apprehend that the natural form in which a Committee of the Council would be appointed would be by an Order in

  333
  Council, but that is a pure matter of form. The actual selection of a Committee of Council is never made, so far as I know, by the Council itself, but it is the function of the Executive Government. That is the practice in Ireland hitherto, and I presume it will be the same under the Home Rule Bill.

  TRIAL BY JURY IN BENGAL.
  MR. PAUL (Edinburgh, S.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Commission upon Trial by Jury in Bengal has yet been appointed; who appointed, or who will appoint, it; who compose, or will compose, it; what are its powers and the scope of its inquiry; when it may be expected to report; and when Papers on the subject will be laid on the Table?
  SIR E. GREY (for Mr. G. RUSSELL)A Commission has been appointed by the Viceroy, with the approval of the Secretary of State in Council, to consider, first, the classes of offences triable by juries in those districts of Bengal in which that method of trial has been introduced, and to report whether any, and, if so, what, changes in the classification now obtaining are desirable; and, second, to consider and report whether any, and, if so, what, modifications of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to the trial of offences triable by juries before Courts of Session are desirable for the purpose of preventing miscarriage of justice. The names of the Commissioners are as follows:— Mr. Justice Prinsep (President), Sir Griffith Evans, Maharaja Sir Jotendro Mohun Tagore, Sir Romesh Chunder Mitter, and Mr. Cecil Wilkin. The Secretary of State has desired the Viceroy to arrange that the deliberations of the Commission shall begin immediately, and shall be continued with as little intermission as possible; but he is unable at present to name the date at which the Report is likely to be received, or when the Correspondence on the subject will be ready for presentation to Parliament.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS' HOURS OF LABOUR BILL.
  MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E): I wish to ask the President of the Board
  334
  of Trade a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he still intends to move that the Railway Servants' Hours of Labour Bill should be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade, and what step he proposes to take to carry out his suggestion that my own Bill on the same subject should be read a second time, and referred to the same Standing Committee?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I should have been very glad if the House had allowed a Second Reading to the Bill of my hon. Friend; but it is objected to, and I cannot compel the House to read it a second time. As the hon. Member knows, this is a question of great urgency; it is very important that the proposed Regulations should come into operation as soon as possible. If he will embody his proposals in the form of Amendments, they shall have most careful consideration.
  MR. CHANNING: In view of the fact that the Bill will, in the opinion of many hon. Members, require amendment, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange to take it at a time when Amendments can be fully considered?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Of course, if Amendments are put upon the Paper they will be taken at a time when they can be considered; but it is desirable that they should be put down in good time.
  MR. CHANNING: I will put my Amendments upon the Paper to-day.

  THE SCOTCH SUSPENSORY BILL.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N. E.): We were informed that the Scotch Suspensory Bill would not be taken next week; but it has been placed on the Paper for Monday next. Is any change contemplated in the arrangements?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am not conscious of having stated that the Bill would not be taken next week. I think what I said was that we were not prepared to name a day for it. There is no intention of taking it on Monday. Ample notice will be given before it is taken.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  LOCAL TAXATION (METROPOLIS).

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. BARROWsaid that, as a new Member, it was with great diffidence that he rose to ask the favourable consideration of the House to so vast a subject as the incidence of the taxation of London. He was somewhat relieved, however, by the knowledge that the subject was by no means a novel one in the House; neither was it a new subject to Londoners outside the House. This morning, in reading the papers, he noticed a statement—he did not know if it was true— to the effect that the London Conservative Members, at a Committee meeting on the previous day called to consider what action they should take relative to this question, had arrived at the conclusion that they should oppose the Resolution which stood in his name, and which was as follows:—" That provision ought to be made for further equalising the rates throughout the Metropolis." ["No, no!"] He was quite prepared to accept the denial of hon. Members opposite. He had wondered whether the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Macdona) would be a party to such a decision as that, seeing that his constituency as well as his (Mr. Barrow's) own was heavily oppressed by the anomalies of the incidence of taxation to which they were subjected. He was very glad to hear this denial of the London Conservative Members, because he anticipated the support of all the Provincial Members, and if they got a consensus of opinion, and they could agree amongst themselves in London, this subject would very soon be removed from the attention of Parliament. He would remind the House that London had spoken out in a very emphatic tone of voice at the last County Council election, which was mainly fought and won by the Progressive members upon the unjust and unfair incidence of taxation. ["No!"] Hon. Members
    336
    said "No," but he could assert that this subject was in the fore-front of all his election speeches. It also occupied a place in his address; and he knew that it held an equally prominent position in the addresses and speeches of other candidates at the election. Not only had the decision of London been pronounced in that large progressive majority on the County Council, but he would remind the House that there were more than twice as many Liberal and Radical Members returned to Parliament for London as sat in the last Parliament. From this he would argue that London was fully alive to the importance of this question, and that the demands of London could not be dealt lightly with. London was practically unique on the question of the anomalous condition of taxation. He did not know that there was another town or city so situated in the whole realm, no town or city in which the Governing Body did not raise equal rates. Now, in London they had 84 distinct Taxing Bodies outside the City itself. All kinds of rates were levied on all kinds of estimates of valuation, and there was no consistency whatever. For the reason that London was unique in this particular, he claimed the support of all the Provincial Members, so that London might be brought in line with what they themselves would hold to be common-sense policy. His Motion was by no means a revolutionary suggestion. If asked that there might be further powers for the equalization of rates, by which, of course, was inferred that there were some rates which were levied in common throughout London—as, for instance, the rate for Police, School Board, County Council, Asylums Board, and Poor Fund. But with regard to the last of these, although an amount was raised for the relief of the poorer parishes, conditions were connected with that relief which certainly were irksome, for they were to the effect that relief should only be given to those who were driven inside the poorhouse. To that he and his friends took exception. The rates which were raised in common for all London amounted to 3s. 3d. in the £1 upon all property assessed for rating. Out of the total rating of London of £7,750,000 this 3s. 3d. amounted to-£5,000,000, leaving £2,750,000 which was raised by the 84 Local Bodies in

    337
    their respective districts, for the making and maintenance of roads and for sanitary purposes, for local lighting, local sewers, and for the payment of interest upon local debts. These rates varied so much as to create a glaring anomaly and inflict serious injustice. For instance, in Bow and Bromley these local rates amouted to 3s. 7d. in the £1, and in Poplar and Mile End to 3s. 8d., while in St. James's, Westminster, they were 1s. 0¼d., in St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, 1s. 2¼d., and in St. George's, Hanover Square, 1s. 3d. —or, generally, about one-third the amount of the poorer districts. Let them take another comparison—the rateable value per head of the population. It was in Bromley £3 5s. 6d., Bethnal Green £3 5s. 11d., and Bow £3 15s. 4d., while in St. James's, Westminster, it was £29 16s. 2d., in St. Martin's-in-the-Fields £35 17s. 3d., and in St. George's, Hanover Square, £23 11s. 10d.—that was an average of nine times as much as the three poorer parishes. To emphasise the inequality he would point out that a 1d. in the £1 in Bermondsey represented about £1,500; in St. James's, £3,104; in St. Martin's, £2,184; and in St. George's, £7,703. The total rate in parts of Whitechapel was 7s. 6½d. in the £1; in Bromley, 7s. 3d.; Bermondsey, 7s. 4d.; and Bow, 6s. 11d.; while in St. Martin's it was 3s. 10d.; St. James's, 4s. 2d.; in St. George's, 4s. 5½d., and Gray's Inn, 4s. 0½d. The average rate in the City of London was 4s. 8d., and he presumed the objection of the City to be absorbed in London arose chiefly from their favourable position in that respect. There was another fault in connection with the rating, and it was this: In the method of assessing property for rating purposes there were gross inequalities. In all the poorer districts the assessors were always under the obligation of making the property as valuable as possible, because rates being so high it was extremely inconvenient for them to increase the poundage. For the converse reason the wealthy districts of London did not need to raise their assessment value, otherwise their rates in the £1 would be infinitely smaller, and would attract, in a greater and more emphatic way than at present, public attention to the contrast between the way they were taxed and the way the poorer districts were taxed. ["No,
    338
    no!"] An hon. Member said "No." He would give a case to illustrate what he meant. At present there were several standing appeals by the London County Council against wealthy neighbourhoods with a view of requiring them to increase their assessments. He could give the Member who said "No" a positive instance. Bermondsey had appealed against the rating of Kensington and got the rating value increased by £35,000. He would give another illustration of the unfair way in which the existing anomalies worked as against the poorer districts. The cost of the roads in St. George's, Hanover Square, was £855 per mile, which only involved a rate of 4¾d. in the £1. In Bermondsey the cost was £311 per mile, which involved taxation of 5¾d. in the £1. In Whitechapel the cost was £592 per mile, requiring a rate of 7¼d. in the £1, and in Mile End the cost was £530 per mile, which necessitated a charge of 10d. in the £1. And similar inequalities existed in regard to the construction and maintenance of local sewers. They would be asked before the Debate was over, perhaps—not in exact words, but in a manner which would convey the same idea—what had the West got to do with the South and East. Had it nothing to do with the sanitary arrangements of London—had it not as much to do with those matters as with the cost of the School Boards? If the funds were not forthcoming for sanitary improvements it would be a matter of interest to all parts of London. The moral of the present position was this that the nearer to the workhouse the more stringent was the exaction of rates from the poor ratepayers. High rates meant high rents, and high rents led to overcrowding of tenants, and that meant unhealthy surroundings, disorderly conduct, poverty, disease, immorality, and crime. High rates meant labour handicapped, hopes and the spirit of thrift blighted, enterprise crushed. It was one of the most painful duties devolving upon him in his magisterial capacity to periodically hear summonses for non-payment of rates and and to see how the small shopkeepers and tradesmen—and those who let lodgings were in increasing numbers—requiring relief from the burdens of taxation and drawing nearer and nearer to the borders of the union. The Government

    339
    had promised in the Queen's Speech to give more complete power to the County Council. They were delighted to hear in the early part of the week from the Treasury Bench the promise given of the unification of London government, which would mean the getting rid of the dual control in the Metropolis. He wanted them now to give a third promise. He wanted them to promise to carry out this Resolution in spirit, if not in the letter. While giving Home Rule, peace, and contentment to 5,000,000 of Irish people, would they also add peace and comfort and justice to the 5,000,000 inhabitants of London? He thanked the House for the indulgent attention accorded to him, and would close his remarks by simply formally moving the Resolution.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "provision ought to be made for further equalising the rates throughout the Metropolis,"—(Mr. Barrow,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, the hon. Member who had just opened the Debate on this difficult question with so much lucidity had brought forward a number of specimens of the inequalities of the rating which they condemned. There was no doubt that what the hon. Gentleman had said was strictly correct as to the contest in March in regard to the London County Council having been fought mainly on the question of the rating of London. The same question, it would be admitted, was one of the principal questions before Londoners at the time of the General Election itself. London suffered from great anomalies. It suffered anomalies because of the methed of its growth, and perhaps the greatest anomaly was that of the incidence of its rates. They had had several points before them in connection with this matter, which he only mentioned to put aside. The Resolution before the House did not refer to that wider issue of the alteration of the incidence or class of persons on whom the taxation was to fall. There was a Bill before them which would render discussion on that subject at the present time
    340
    irregular in connection with the taxation of ground values. As to the question of assessment, he did not mention it for any other purpose than simply to put it one side—or to deal with it in conjunction with the subject of inequalities which were of a character that bore most heavily on the poorer districts. Whatever the reason, some of the richer districts were considerably under-assessed, and they hoped to bring before the House a Bill for the correction of the assessment of London. But what they had to do this evening was to deal with a totally different question—namely, the incidence of the rates in one locality as compared with another locality. He would not make the bold assertion that in other towns there was no inequality between one part and another. That question he would turn to in one moment; but in London the inequality was of a more remarkable kind—and not only that, but it was of an order entirely different. It had this peculiarity that where the people were poor the rating was high, and where the rich dwelt it was correspondingly low. That was general throughout London. In the poorest district of London, Mile End New Town, the rateable value per head of the population was only £2 13s. 1d. and the rate was 6s. 11d., the point at which it generally stood; while in St. James's, Westminster, one of the wealthiest districts, the rateable value was £30 per head, and the rates were only 4s. 2d. in the £1. Rateable value per head was taken as the fairest test of the riches or poverty of a district. He hoped the House would consider the general aspect of the matter. The average rate of London was 5s. in the £1, and there were 41 poorer parishes which had, without exception, a higher rate than the average. And it was a remarkable fact that of the 42 parishes in London which had a rateable value per head below the average, 41 had rates above the average, and only one had rates below the average. Nor was this all. The rates of the poorer parishes he had mentioned were not merely a little, but very much, above the average—as high as 7s. in some cases and 6s. 11d. in others. On the other side there were nine large and rich parishes in which the rateable value was £28 per head, and in every one of these the rates were below 5s., varying from

    341
    4s. 2d. to 4s. 11d. In other districts anomalies existed to a greater or less extent. Let them now glance at other centres of large population. In Nottingham and Norwich, for instance, inequalities in the rating of different districts of those places had arisen recently through local circumstances, but the anomalies were trifling in comparison with those that existed in London. What were the methods by which those other towns had remedied, or proposed to remedy, the evil? They did so by means of a Private Bill. London, however, was under the great disadvantage that it was not permitted, by the Standing Orders of the House, to take this course, and, consequently, the Members for Loudon were compelled to bring the 'grievance before Parliament. They had no other means of obtaining redress. This was a remarkable instance of the manner in which the hands of the great Governing Body of London were tied in matters in which they certainly ought to be free. The origin of the difficulty lay in this: that Loudon, in the process of growth, had absorbed a great number of separate communities, which had their own poor and rich residents and were governed by their own Vestries. When the reform of London government took place, the Vestry was made the Governing Body, and the rates imposed in the districts remained in the hands of the Vestries, so far as municipal purposes were concerned. The growth of London had been accompanied by a great change within the limits of those various districts. Some of them had become the homes of the poor alone, and others of the rich alone, and, the reform not going on along with growth, one of the results was that the poor were highly rated while the rich were not. In particular rates for local purposes the anomalies were very great and very unjust to the poor. Much had been done in connection with the equalisation of the poor rate, the amount raised in London for the relief of the poor—about £1,750,000. Of that amount all that affected the indoor poor and other charges was raised by a common rate of 8d. over London. Another amount of nearly £500,000 was equalised by the Local Government Act of 1888. The poor rate, however, was not completely equalised. He wished to call attention
    342
    not to the poor rate, but to those local burdens which were municipal in their character, and which included the sewers, lighting, roads, scavenging, and all sanitary work, the expenses of administration, and the payment of debt. These reached a total of £2,000,000, and the incidence was very unequal. In Bethnal Green it was 16½d. per head; in Camberwell, 18¼d.; inLambeth, 18¼d.; in St. George's-in-the-East, 22¾d.; and in Greenwich, 23d. Among the rich parishes, St. James's paid 8½d. per head; Kensington, 14d.; Paddington, 12d.; and St. George's, Hanover Square, 9d. He could show the inequality by the contrast between one of the poorest parishes —Bethnal Green, and one of the richest— St. George's, Hanover Square. In the former the rateable value per head was £3 5s. 11d., and in the latter£28; while Bethnal Green was nearly double St, George's in population, and had a total rateable value of only £425,000, as against £1,848,000. In 1890 Bethnal Green spent £1,400 on sewers, and St. George's, Hanover Square, which had the same length of streets, spent £3,600. The rate in Bethnal Green was nearly 1d.; that in St. George's was only íd. On street lighting Bethnal Green spent £3,300, representing a rate of 1¾d., and St. George's £9',400, representing a rate of a little more than 1d. If ever there were a matter of common interest in a Municipality it was the street lighting, for it affected the police rate, the poor rate, and a large number of expenses common to the whole of London. On the maintenance of the roads, paving and cleaning, Bethnal Green spent £11,000 and St. George's £36,000. Of that which was called the road expenditure of the parishes of London, amounting to close upon £900,000 a year, very nearly a half was for the sanitation of roads. On the removal of dust and refuse, on which the health of all London depended, Bethnal Green spent £3,300, representing a rate of nearly 2d., and St. George's spent £4,800, representing a rate of ½d. If they wanted a case for establishing a greater equality of the rates, the figures he had given made out such a case. The cost for lighting and common sanitary work came to about £900,000 per annum over the whole town; and if all the expense of managing that common work were added, the total would be

    343
    raised to considerably over £1,000,000. There were precedents for the equalisation which he ventured to urge upon the wisdom of the House. In the first place, they had certain annual rates all over London, which were managed by Central Authorities such as the School Board and the County Council. That was the method by which the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund was managed. He should mention that the first method applied to something like £3,000,000, the second method to £1,000,000, and the third method to £500,000. The third method, which was adopted in the Act of 1888, was that a common rate was raised by a Central Body and distributed amongst the Local Bodies in proportion to their poor. A very groat advantage was got in London from a certain amount of central administration, but a very great advantage was got, too, from a certain amount of local administration, and what they had got to do in London was to combine the two— certain subjects being more fitted for central administration, other subjects being more fitted for local administration. The ultimate relations between the Central Bodies and the District Bodies would be settled by a Bill which he hoped they would soon have—the London District Government Bill; but there was no necessity whatever for waiting for that Bill in order to carry out that equalisation of rates which partook of the character of a grant in aid, which was common all over the country —in London as well as outside London. In order that the method arrived at might be the proper one, there were only two possible suggestions really worth the consideration of the House. The first was, that the distribution of the rate should be in accordance with population. It was obvious that the rate raised according to rateable value and distributed according to population would exactly meet the needs of those poor parishes which were at present mulcted in high rates and whose poverty was a source of danger to the whole City. He did not venture to dictate to the House as to which of the methods he had indicated should be adopted, though he had a predilection for the third method—that of imposing an equal rate which could be distributed in aid of Local Bodies, because he thought it was
    344
    the simplest method and the easiest reform to carry out. No one could say that redistribution which he advocated was taking from the rich—at the expense of the rich—and giving to the poor. It was carrying out the idea that London sanitation was a matter of common concern; it was carrying out the idea that London was a town or community of existence, and it was carrying out the precedent that had been established year after year for the last 30 years. Now, what would be the practical result of carrying into effect the scheme he proposed for the equalisation of a certain rate, and its distribution according to population? In the case of Mile End New Town the rates would be reduced from 6s. 11d. to 5s. 7d., while in the case of St. George's, Hanover Square, the rates would be raised from 4s. 5½d. to 5s. 10½d. Therefore, the rise in the rates in wealthy parishes would be less than the fall in the rate in the poorer parishes. Again, taking the parish of Bethnal Green, the rates which now stood at 6s. in the £1 would be reduced to 5s.; and in St. George's, Hanover Square, the rates which now stood at 4s. 5½d. would be raised to 4s. 10½d. The change he had indicated would be general throughout London. The result would be an approximation to a more equal rating, and it would be an approximation also to that common burden which justly ought to be borne by the whole of London consistently with the Central Authority and the peculiarities of Local Vestries. He had had to deal with what he feared had been a tiresome mass of figures. But the House should remember that, though the figures might have been uninteresting, they were the very life-blood of some of the poor people of London. These figures were well understood throughout the poor districts of London; they went into the hearts and minds of the inhabitants of these districts—hard-working and poverty-stricken people in many cases—and in these figures lay their hope-largely for a better state of things. He urged this question upon the Government and upon the House, reminding both that it was not a claim for additional powers for the London County Council in the hope that that being so hon. Members opposite might lay aside their antipathy to that Body and view

    345
    the matter in an unprejudiced light. They had to deal with a question that lay entirely between the various districts of London; it was a question that had nothing at all to do with the County Council, but dealt with one of the most urgent reforms that the great town of London was confronted with. Some dealing with London taxation was an urgent necessity. He could say, on behalf of his colleagues in the representation of London, that they were unanimously of opinion that the reform which they pressed on the attention of the House was most urgent; that it had the great merit in the present state of Public Business that it could be embodied in a very short measure, and that it was also foundation precedents in London itself. It assimilated London rates to those of other large towns—a fact which should appeal for support to hon. Members from the country; it assimilated them in an essential manner, and it brought relief to London where relief was most needed.
    MR. ALBAN G. H. GIBBSsaid, he would not have taken part in this ebate—being a new Member— were it not for the attack made by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken on the City of Loudon, which he had the honour of representing. He begged to say that their objection to being taken over by the County Council lay far deeper than on any mere question of the equalisation of the rates. The hon. Gentleman had told them that the Government had promised him the unification of London. He believed the Government had only promised a Commission to inquire, and he and his colleagues in the representation of London would have many opportunities of expressing their opinion on that subject before the time came for action, if it ever did come. In May of 1889 a Debate took place in the House on a somewhat similar subject to that which was now under consideration—a proposal to unify certain parts of the poor rate. Many difficulties were shown to exist in the way of the proposal at that time; and he did not think the hon. Member had in any way removed these difficulties. He had expected that they would have had a great deal more stress laid upon the efficiency and the economy that would be
    346
    induced by this proposed change. As he had tried his best to follow the hon. Member as to the means by which he proposed to effect this unification, he had to say that he had entirely failed in grasping them. It seemed to him that it should be done in one of two ways— either the County Council must do everything and leave nothing whatever to the Vestries, the Boards of Guardians, or whatever Local Authorities Parliament would still allow to exist in the land, or else the Guardians or the Vestries must spend the money, and the County Council pay for it. He did not think there was anything like economy or efficiency in the scheme by which one Body would spend the money and another supply it. In the old Proprietary Clubs it was the fashion for all members to dine together, and it was the fashion for the spirited proprietor to give a grant in aid, in the way of paying for four dinners to assist in the economy of the performance. They had in that a system of the equalisation of rates; every member ordered all the wine he wanted for himself and the others paid for it, but it was found that the system did not lead to much retrenchment or economy, and so it was discontinued. Another reason had been advanced by the Mover of the Amendment in its support— it was a reason he had heard also advanced for the dismemberment of the Empire and the dismemberment of the Church, and that was that local opinion favoured it. The hon. Gentleman had not said how he had ascertained that local opinion favoured it, except it was through the medium of the County Council. Now, they had a very high authority which they were all bound to respect, and which hon. Members opposite were bound to follow—he meant the authority of the Prime Minister, who had on the previous night enunciated the following principle: "I have an old Parliamentary habit of looking to the statutory representation of a country as the proper, legitimate, and organised expression of public opinion." Now, had the constitutional Representatives of the Metropolis—namely, the Metropolitan Members of Parliament, or anything like a majority of them, expressed any opinion in favour of this change? He thought not; and he did not think that even the hon. Member opposite thought so, for he had considered it

    347
    better to appeal to the Provincial Members to aid him in getting his scheme adopted. This matter was thoroughly argued in 1889. The House then decided by a large majority not to proceed with it, and he trusted they would decide in the same way again.
    MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, if there were an equalisation of rates throughout London the people of the borough of St. Pancras would still pay about the same rate in the pound as they were paying now. Therefore, he could bring a disinterested judgment to bear upon the Motion. He did not think anybody would, in principle, deny the injustice of charging on one portion of the City a heavier rate than another part for purposes really common to the whole City, and there were a great number of purposes common to the people of London that ought to be provided for out of a common fund borne by the whole City, and this had been asserted and acted upon by the House over and over again. The common poor fund to which the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. J. Stuart) had referred showed that the House had made some provision for the equalisation of rates for purposes which they considered common to the whole City. The question now before the House was whether that principle which had been so asserted and acted upon should be pushed further—whether there ought to be a further equalisation of rates in the Metropolis. Speaking as a man who had had some little experience of Local Government in London, he believed that the principle could be extended, but he was free to admit that the extension of that principle brought with it considerations of a very much larger character. If representation and taxation went together, the people from whom the money was raised should control the expenditure of it. A rate raised throughout the whole of London should, more or less, have to be controlled by a Central Authority, and should be used for purposes that were essentially common to the whole City. There were matters at present in the hands of Local Authorities which could be better controlled by some Central Authority, and there were a good many things controlled by a Central Authority which might be much better managed by Local Authorities, and, therefore, when the Government came to deal with this
    348
    question thoroughly, they would have to consider the policy of readjustment of control as well as of readjustment of taxation. Dealing with a Common Fund was very easy. At Boards of Guardians when a proposal was made to raise the salary of an officer which came out of the Common Poor Fund, the Guardians, liking the officer personally and anxious to reward him, often said, "What does it matter? it comes out of the Common Poor Fund." That was the danger that necessarily existed in allowing Local Authorities to spend money out of a Common Fund raised over a large area—in effect, to spend money raised outside their own district. If the entire expenditure of London came from a common fund, it would have to be entrusted to a Central Authority, and he doubted whether a Central Authority could efficiently and economically control the expenditure in so vast and varied a community as the Metropolis. At present 3s. 3d. out of the 5s. 4d. average rate of London in various ways came from a Common Fund, but the expenditure of that Common Fund was tied down by very strict rules, and the Local Authorities had very little control over it. If the House extended the principle and brought in the remaining 2s. 1d. of the rate, they would have to still further restrict the power of the Local Authorities. The question was whether the principle of the Common Poor Fund and the equalisation of rates could be extended further. He thought there were some things that ought to be got out of a Common Fund, but he was not an advocate for the complete transfer of all burdens to a Common Fund, because he saw in it the destruction of local control, which was essential to economy. Take the Poor Law as an example. Indoor relief and part of the office and other charges were paid out of the Common Poor Fund; but outdoor relief was a local matter, provided for out of local rates and under the direct control of the Guardians. Now if they placed the outdoor charge on the Common Poor Fund and handed over the management to a Central Board they would at once destroy that personal interest which the Guardians now take in the individual persons who received relief, and destroy also that local control and management which was essential to effective and economical out-

    349
    door relief. Therefore, in any extension of this principle of equalising rates in London the Government would have to consider how far it could be carried; so that while giving relief to local burdens there should be a margin left for the control of Local Authorities, which would stimulate them to exercise judgment and discretion. The question of lighting had been mentioned. The borough of St. Pancras had embarked on a large experiment with regard to electric lighting. They were one of the few communities in London who were determined to take the question of lighting into their own hands, and they had raised £100,000 for an installation in one part of the district. But was that to be transferred to a Common Poor Fund? Were the people throughout London willing to bear the risk of that experiment, and to contribute to the special lighting of a portion of the borough of St. Pancras? Were the people of St. Pancras not to reap the benefit of their enterprise, assuming this installation to turn out a success? He doubted, also, whether the principle of the Common Poor Fund could be practically applied to sewerage in relation to building speculations in new neighbourhoods. He was surprised to hear his hon. Friend appeal for sympathy to the President of the Local Government Board in asking for grants in aid. If there was one man in the House who had denounced the bad policy of grants in aid that man was the right hon. Gentleman. He did not think they could do much in the matter in the shape of grants in aid. When the Government dealt with District Councils, as he trusted they would in London before long, if not in this Session in the next, he hoped they would consider the policy of discriminating between the expenditure which was to be put on the whole of London and the expenditure which was to be raised locally. He admitted that it appeared hard that some of the rich parishes should escape to the extent they did, and that some of the poor parishes should be punished to the extent he knew they were, and therefore he would not object to some safe extension of the principle favoured by the hon. Member as a temporary expedient, and he believed it would be a relief which would be appreciated by the people; but above
    350
    all this must be borne in mind the policy of keeping the expenditure of the money under the control of the people who paid it, and of dividing the work between Central and District Authorities, with a view to keeping the government and finance of London on safe and sound lines.—[Cheers.]
    MR. B. L. COHEN (Islington, E.)said, he noticed that the hon. Mover and Seconder of the Resolution laid great emphasis on what they described as a cardinal and crucial question which they said was especially before their constituents when they returned such a large number of Progressive members to the London County Council. He believed it was true that the success of those candidates for the London County Council was due, to a great extent, to the promises which those colleagues of his gave, that they would do what they could—though he thought it was very little—in that arena so to vary the incidence of taxation that it would fall in a different way to what it did at present. But he wished to point out that there was a very great difference between varying the incidence of taxation and arguing for the equalisation of rates. This question had been a little obscured by its having been presented to the House as a question between rich and poor. It was by no means a question between rich and poor. The Return which was presented to Parliament in June last year, on the Motion of the Member for Bethnal Green, showed that the rates did not at all vary according to wealth and poverty. He found that the rates for Hammersmith and Fulham—not very poor districts — were 6s. 3d., or within 1d. of the highest amount; whereas the rates for Mile End Old Town and Lambeth were 5s. 9d. and 5s. 10d., and Clerkenwell 5s. 4d. He was not concerned to deny that there was a very considerable discrepancy between the amount of the various rates; but he thought that before Parliament committed itself to such a drastic proposal as was involved in the Resolution, it was well to see what had been the causes which had contributed to these various discrepancies in the rates. He found from the Return that the total value of rates levied in the Metropolis during the year ending 25th March, 1891, was £8,406,414 on a total rate-

    351
    able value of £31,630,017, or an average rate of nearly 5s. 4d. in the £1. Looking into the figures still further, he found there were 13 out of the 27 districts which were above the average, 12 below the average, and two whose rates were exactly the average. The margins above and below the average were considerable; but when he inquired into the causes of the discrepancies, he found they furnished of themselves the strongest possible argument against the Resolution. The causes were almost entirely those which they were justified in describing as being absolutely within the control of the Local Bodies. To give an example. Taking the parishes of Lambeth and Mile End, he found that their total rating was practically identical for the purposes of calculations, respectively 5s. 10d. and 5s. 9d. in the £1; but while there was a discrepancy of only 1d., the poor rate for Lambeth was 3s. 7d., and for Mile End it was only 3s. 3d. He cited that in order to show that whilst there was a difference of 4d. in the £1 in the poor rate of the parishes of Lambeth and Mile End, there was a difference of only 1d. in the total rating, showing clearly that the amounts spent on what he might call local reforms—lighting, paving, street cleaning, and other expenses — were those which were entirely within the control of the particular local administration, and which would be very lavishly and irresponsibly administered if complete equalisation were to be sanctioned for one moment. As regarded the poor rate, a great contribution towards the equalisation of the charge for the poor was made by the Local Government Act of 1888, which provided for a contribution of 4d. per day per head for each indoor pauper, payable out of the county rate. The effect of the payment of that county rate had been towards the equalisation of the rates. In the parish of St. George's-in-the-East the contribution from the London County Council for paupers was 12d. in the £1, owing to the large number of poor, while in the City of London it was only ⅝d. in the £1, owing to the small number of poor. The result of the discrepancy was that the county rate levied in the City of London was 12⅝d., whilst the rate levied in St. George's-in-the-East was a trifle less than
    352
    1¼d. So much for the statistical portion of the case; there remained the ethical or, perhaps, the equitable aspect of the question. The House might be aware that the incidence of local taxation formed the subject of a most able Report by the Local Government and Taxation Committee of the London County Council, presented to the Council in November, 1891, by Lord Hobhouse, who laid it down that local needs should be met, to a large extent, out of the value of local property, and that the persons who receive the benefit of local property should contribute to the local needs each his fair share. With that wholesome canon he respectfully agreed, but he thought the House would see that the Resolution directly violated it. Besides the equitable aspect of the question, as laid down by Lord Hobhouse, there was also an economic point of view, powerfully emphasised by the Member for St. Pancras, who last addressed the House. If there be any divisions of the County of London which were economically administered, they would have a stimulus to extravagance; and if there be any which were extravagant, they would have the pressure withdrawn, which would influence them to be economical. Finally, he came to the question of who was to be the Body upon whom was to be cast the duty, and the responsibility of levying this rate. He imagined they would be told it was the London County Council, of which he had had the honour to be a member since it was first instituted. He dared say it would undertake that duty; he never knew it refuse to undertake anything. The profession of "undertaker" was one which it particularly cultivated. But was it wise to concentrate this vast duty on one Body, be it ever so powerful or able, and was this the moment to legislate in the direction of such undue centralisation? They bore in mind the measure promised in the Queen's Speech dealing with District and Parish Councils, and the Prime Minister told them on the first night of the Debate on the Address that great expectations were formed concerning those Local Bodies. But the hon. Member who moved the Resolution could not share those expectations, as the Resolution went to deprive them of their first and chief duty, that of controlling the expenditure

    353
    and levying the rate in the district they would govern. Were it not that they were accustomed to inconsistency in the Party opposite, he should say that one of the most astonishing features of this Debate was that a Resolution such as they were debating, which, above all others, was opposed to and almost subversive of Home Rule, should be supported by the opposite side. He believed the principle of Local Government in its truest, wisest, broadest, and safest sense, was attacked by the Resolution which was now under consideration, and which he sincerely hoped would be rejected by a decisive majority.
    MR. W. SAUNDERSsaid, that in adjusting the incidence of taxation in London it would be necessary to consider not merely what was equitable between one district and another, but also what was equitable between one ratepayer and another in the same district. It was in those inequalities between ratepayers that the greatest evil resulted. If hon. Members who resided in the metropolitan area would consult the valuation lists in their own parishes they would find incidence that would surprise them. In his own parish a millionaire who enjoyed 10acres of land around his house as gardens and pleasure ground was rated for those 10 acres, which were worth £2,000 per acre, at £40 per annum, whereas a man of business, occupying two-thirds of an acre of land around his house in an adjoining locality, was rated at £60 for that portion of land. The hon. Member for East Islington told the House that this was not a question between the rich and the poor. He would, indeed, it were not so. But how could the hon. Member explain such facts as he would now bring before him? An owner of 30 or 40 acres of land in his parish died, and the land around his house had been purchased by the Artisans' Dwellings Company. During the owner's life it was rated at £4 per acre, but the moment it came into the possession of the working classes that identical land was rated inaddition to the value of the building, at £80 per acre. There could be no Member of the House who would not desire to adjust inequalities of that kind, and he sincerely hoped there would be cordial co-operation between Her Majesty's Government and the London County Council in re-
    354
    ference to this matter. The London County Council thought it their duty to examine the lists which were made at the last Quinquennial Valuation, and most surprising facts came under their notice. They discovered that the under-assessments, mostly of large properties in London, amounted to £2,000,000; so that, at the present moment, the poorer ratepayers of London were paying £10,000 a week, or £500,000 a year in consequence of the under-assessments of very large properties. Those properties consisted, to a very large extent, of mansions; but he might mention that the Bank of England was enormously under-rated, and nearly all the property of the City Companies in London was rated very far below what it ought to be. The County Council had been opposed at every turn, and the action they had taken had resulted mainly in enormous benefit to the lawyers. This was a case in which they wanted the assistance of the Government. They saw large properties under-assessed and small properties fully rated. A case was brought under his notice this week by a Member of this House, who explained to him that a mansion of very great cost was rated at £2,100 per annum, whereas a factory in the same district, which cost far less than the mansion, was rated at £29,000. These were inequalities which they wanted to adjust, and he believed that by the hearty co-operation of the Government and the County Council the adjustment, so far as the Metropolis was concerned, might very properly and easily be made.
    MR. BANBURYsaid, the hon. Member who had just sat down had made a speech which was really directed to assessments and not to inequality of rating. Supposing that this proposal was carried, and the Government lent their authority to some such measure as was indicated in the Motion, the inequalities which the hon. Gentleman had mentioned would not be altered, but the assessments would remain exactly the same. This was a question which had nothing to do with rich and poor, although he was very sorry to say that the speeches, with the exception of that of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, had all been in the nature of an attack upon the rich. This was simply a question of business, and

    355
    that being so he ventured to think that the old Liberal maxim that taxation should go with representation was one to which they should give due consideration. In order to carry out that maxim they would have to create some Central Authority, and that was the reason, he supposed, why they had heard nothing from hon. Gentlemen opposite as to this Central Authority because the aim of the Government and its supporters was decentralisation and not centralisation. One of the great remedies for agricultural distress which had been suggested by one of the Members of the Government in a speech delivered some time ago was Parish Councils. He did not himself think that Parish Councils would do much to improve the position of the farmer. If they were going to establish Parish Councils the first thing they ought not to do was to take the power of raising money and the rules out of their hands. Supposing this measure should come about, what would be the result? Poor parishes would be able to spend a large sum of money over which the people who provided that money would have no control whatever. He contended that directly they took the control of the purse out of the hands of the people who provided the money, and put it into the hands of the people who did not provide the money, not only waste and extravagance, but even perhaps corruption would ensue.
    SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEthought every Member on his side of the House who sat for the Metropolis would agree that if it was possible, without injustice, to give a benefit to the poor districts by the equalisation of rates it should be done. But how they were to do so was another question. They knew very well that as regarded the poor rate there was little or nothing to complain about. They knew that matters such as fire brigade expenses, registration fees, compensation to officers, vaccination fees, &c, and all subjects nearly, came out of the common purse, except matters of lighting, dust, and sewers. Nearly all other subjects were already equalised. Now, in St. Pancras they had a very large electric light installation for the supply of all who desired it, and for lighting the streets. Did hon. Members propose to. hand over
    356
    the lighting to the London County Council? Would not Bethnal Green and Shoreditch want to be lighted by the electric light? Where were they going to stop? Again, there was the question of the paving of the streets. They could afford in St. Pancras to levy an extra rate for wood paving; but if there was a common fund, every back street in London would be asking. to be paved with wood, and there would be no limit to the extravagance of the City as a whole. He believed that the Vestries in London and the Boards of Guardians did their best to manage the affairs of the different localities, and, generally speaking, they did it most satisfactorily. But if it was nobody's business and nobody's responsibility to look after the rates, extravagance would exist in all quarters. He had been looking through the expenditure of the different localities for 1891. He found that even in the locality of Bethnal Green they were most generous. They gave to the Vestry clerk, for instance, £700 a year, whereas in Chelsea they gave their Vestry clerk £515 per year. If the whole of the rates of London, however, were to go into one common bag, they all knew what would be the result. Vestry clerks would then none of them get less than £1,000 a year to begin with, with a large increasing scale. He was sure it was not necessary the House should be detained much longer with this question. They were all unanimous in regard to the general terms in which this Resolution was drawn; and they on that side of the House were not opposed to any equalisation of rates provided that that equalisation or contribution towards equalisation was done in such a way as not to bring discredit or injustice upon any class of the community.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.): Mr. Speaker, I shall only interpose for a very few minutes between the House and the decision which it wishes to arrive at. The hon. Member who has just sat down rather startled me by winding up with saying that all agreed in accepting the principle of the Resolution, although his speech was, in fact, couched in terms to show that the Resolution was impracticable and impossible. I should like the House

    357
    to understand that, so far as the words upon the Paper are concerned, and I think so far as the intentions of the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution were fully explained, this proposal has nothing whatever to do with the Poor Law. We need not trouble our heads about the management of the Poor Law in the Metropolis, about a Common Poor Fund, or about the mode in which the wealthy parishes in the Metropolis do undoubtedly contribute in aid of the poor parishes. But I should be slow not to recognise the value of the existing present system and not to recognise the value of what my predecessor did in 1888 for the Poor Law, when he made a grant of 4d. per head towards the poor of the Metropolis, which I think most just and fair. Just let me ask the House in one sentence what the principle of the Resolution is? The principle of the Resolution is that London is one great city, one community, one municipality, having common interests, and therefore liable to common burdens for the discharge of common duties. It is no question as between rich and poor, but the principle which my hon. Friend wishes the House to adopt is that there shall be a community of burdens in London in the same manner—they do not even ask to the same extent, but in the same manner—as exists in all other Municipalities. Hon. Members opposite have dealt with roads and lighting as if the proposition was that there was to be one common purse out of which all the streets of London were to be paved with wood, no matter what the locality; and all lighted with electricity, no matter what the requirements might be. If it were so, that would be a proposition open to severe criticism, but that is not the proposition of London Members at all. What they have based their case upon is the principle that London is one; and let me tell the House, as the responsible Minister for Health in this country, it is of vital importance to St. George's, Hanover Square, and St. George's-in-the-East that they should be as one. You cannot draw a cordon between the rich and the poor in that sense. It is our common interest that the health of London should be equally safeguarded, to say nothing of our duty to those
    358
    whose capital consists in their health and nothing else, that they should have that fair contribution which the whole community can give, in order to preserve that state of health. The state of things in London which is now complained of has grown up from the gradual aggregation of London, and from the sad neglect of this House and of Parliament in not giving to London that self-government and those municipal institutions which every other part of the Kingdom possesses. I quite agree that London should have a distinct as well as a general system of government; and if the present Government remain responsible for the affairs of the country, I have no doubt they will submit a scheme for the complete unification of London, and also a system for distributing amongst the various localities of London those separate powers of administration which are best administered in localities for efficiency and economy. This principle is no new principle. Already we have £8,000,000 of taxation in London, £5,000,000 of which are already administered upon the principle criticised to-day, and if it is good for £5,000,000 why should it not be good for the £3,000,000? There is no complaint of extravagance from the present principle. One hon. Gentleman has drawn a terrible picture of the result of a common fund, and of the County Council handing out money to localities regardless of requirements. That is not the principle upon which the House is asked to proceed or which prevails at present. Let us deal with the case of a Common Poor Fund. There is no handing round of a certain sum of money to each locality. What the Local Government Board does is this: They ascertain what is the entire amount necessary to be produced for the whole of London, and what that represents at a rate of so much in the £1. They say to one parish, say St. George's, Hanover Square, for instance, your contribution ought to be so much, your share out of the fund so much, and you hand over to the Local Government Board—which is a sort of Clearing HouseȔthe difference, if against you, so much. If St. George's-in-the-East, or the other side of London, is on the other side of the account, they have to receive so much, and, therefore, there is no handing out of money out of the

    359
    Common Fund, but simply a Clearing House arrangement, so to speak, of local taxation which continues to be administered locally in the manner for which hon. Gentlemen contend. So far as the Government are concerned, I say frankly we accept the principle of this Resolution. We believe the time has arrived for a further equalisation of rating. We pledge ourselves to no machinery; we pledge ourselves to no details. I do not disguise from the House that this is a very difficult question properly, completely, and satisfactorily to work out. Perhaps I may not be considered guilty of egotism if I say that at this moment I am at work on this question. I am endeavouring to consider it in all its bearings, and the House will admit that I have a good deal on my shoulders just now, whilst I am sure the London Members will afford me that consideration which I think I have a right to claim. I will proceed with this matter as rapidly as I possibly can, and I will endeavour to prepare a scheme which will stand the test of criticism and which will carry out what they desire without inflicting any injustice upon any locality. That, shortly and simply, is the case I wish to put to the House. I think it is very unnecessary to introduce into a question of this sort those clap-trap remarks about sewers which came from a certain section of the House. We have our Party conflicts; but when you come to deal with the administration of the great Metropolis of London, when you are dealing with the carrying out of that administration on fair, equitable, and just grounds, I am sure the present Government are entitled to claim the credit of being actuated by honest and straightforward intentions in their policy which we, on our part, never denied to the late Government. I do not accept the view of the hon. Member for the City at all. I say the principle he has laid down is in direct antagonism to the principle that has prevailed in every other Municipality in the world—the principle that a Municipality is one and has common interests, and that those common interests are best served by an equal distribution of the burdens, and having the expenditure under proper central and local control. We accept that principle, and we think the time has arrived for its further development. The details will
    360
    require most careful consideration. It is not necessary to assert that there will be either injustice, extravagance, or an imaginary raising of salary all round. All these things are trivial and unworthy of the Debate, and, so far as the London County Council was concerned, I think it was very unfair to them, because if they have erred at all in reference to the remuneration of their servants, it has not been an error in the direction of extravagance. I think no Public Body, in London or elsewhere, has administered that part of the machinery with a greater regard to economy than the London County Council. But that, perhaps, is beside the question. My hon. Friend does not ask us to accept the principle that anything is to be handed over to the London County Council. No increase of power is to be conferred upon them, therefore that terribly abused Body may be left out of consideration. He asks the House to accept the principle—broad, elear, and distinct—that there ought to be a further equalisation of rating in the Metropolis. If the House accepts that principle, it will then become the duty of the responsible Government of the day to consider what is the wisest and best mode of carrying out that proposition.
    MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, I will not detain the House for long, but I would like to say a few words on this very important subject. The matter is one that requires to be considered with extreme care, and should receive the attention of the Government. I am glad to notice that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has done justice to the arguments which have been addressed to the House from this side, and it is satisfactory to know that the Government are personally looking into the whole subject. I think, and I understand, that if this Resolution be adopted, they will consider themselves bound to do what they can to give proper and just effect to its terms. I am anxious to congratulate my hon. Friends of the Unionist Party upon the fact that this Debate has produced one or two important admissions from gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Gentleman, in referring to the work that was done by the late Government, did not altogether follow the views that we have heard in the country. We were told in the country that an enormous

    361
    sum was given by the late Government to the landlords. Yet to-night we find the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the head of the Local Government Board, and a responsible Minister, stating that it is the intention of the Government to follow somewhat similar lines to those of the late Government, and reminding the House that the late Government gave large sums in relief of rates. It is now admitted that the question of rating is not one for landlords alone; it is one for tenants and landlords. This is the first time we have been told that we have done anything for the working classes, and we welcome this tardy admission. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER dissented.] I am not referring to the right hon. Gentleman, who dissents, but to the hon. Members behind him, who stated in the country that we never did anything for the wage earners, but devoted all our attention to the landlords. We have heard the views expressed this evening with great gratification indeed; and I only wish hon. Gentlemen would speak outside this House as they do in it. I have only to add that we on this side accept the principle of this Resolution. We have no intention of dividing the House upon it. We cordially and heartily endorse the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has met the Resolution.
    MR.PICKERSGILLsaid, the subject of the Resolution was one in which he had taken a great interest, and he could not avoid expressing his pleasure at the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Government. The speech would be read with great satisfaction by the ratepayers of London. But they would be anxious to know when something was to be done to relieve them from the burdens under which they suffered. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to complete his scheme and introduce a Bill during the present Session.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That provision ought to be made for further equalising the rates throughout the Metropolis.
    Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

    TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION (STATE AID).
    SIR R. TEMPLEmoved the following Amendment:—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a National State-aided system of Superannuation for Teachers in Public Elementary Schools in England and Wales should be established at an early date."
    He said he rose at an inconvenient hour, perhaps (8.40); but he also rose with some anxiety, because he knew how anxious a large number of persons were regarding the question, and he was conscious, also, of the intensity of the hope with which they regarded the proceedings of the House this evening, when in the terms of his Resolution he said "an early date" he did not mean to pledge the House to any particular time; and if there should be any objection to these words they could be easily omitted. The point was really to obtain the general sanction of the House to the principle, at least, of a scheme for the superannuation of teachers in England and Wales. It would be in the recollection of the House that very early in the Session he put a question to the Vice President of the Council who was the Minister for Education on this subject, and he was told that the matter was one of great importance, that it would involve a large expenditure of money, and that no hope could be held out that there would be time to deal with it during the present Session. He hoped that did not imply that the House was unprepared to take the great matter up when the time arrived.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    SIR R. TEMPLEsaid that, in spite of the answer he had received from the right hon. Gentleman, he trusted that the House would on this occasion acknowledge the general principle of the scheme without pledging itself to carry it into effect at any particular date. The

    363
    late Parliament appointed a Select Committee, which sat for two Sessions and acknowledged the principle, and he hoped and trusted that the present Parliament would accept the policy of its predecessor, because he must remind his Parliamentary comrades that if they expected that their authority would be acknowledged by their successors, they ought to show some respect for the authority of their predecessors. Now, the Select Committee appointed by the last Parliament, which was composed of Members carefully chosen from both sides of the House for their educational ability, sat for two consecutive Sessions. They took the evidence of the very best educationalists throughout the country. They consulted Mr. Sutton, the Government Actuary for the Friendly Societies, who was especially selected for that purpose, and he was glad to record his testimony of the value of Mr. Sutton's services and of the elaborate and exhaustive inquiry which that gentleman made. An elaborate Report was presented; the matter was worked out by the Members of the Committee by the sweat of their brows. The right hon. Gentleman the present head of the Education Department was a prominent Member of the Committee. Therefore he (Sir R. Temple) was introducing the subject under peculiarly favourable auspices. At this moment there were some 107,000 persons, including pupil teachers, engaged in elementary teaching, and they represented the teaching power for some 30,000 schools; but it was not to be supposed that all these persons came within the scheme, which was carefully limited to certificated teachers, who numbered 50,000 only, though that, indeed, was a number large enough. Now, these certificated teachers felt with the utmost anxiety that some superannuation scheme should be passed, and they were prepared to submit to very heavy sacrifices, or, at least, sacrifices which would be heavy to them. As regarded the policy of superannuating teachers, he might argue that there were personal reasons in favour of it, because these persons formed a most useful, meritorious, and interesting class. He hoped that the House would have pity upon their narrow circumstances, and extend a merciful consideration to
    364
    all their toils, cares, and anxieties. There was no class of persons who deserved better the favour of Parliament than they did. But there was a further and equally great reason—namely, a public and governmental policy, because it was well-known to all educationalists that, after a certain time of life the teacher man or woman, lost his or her mental alertness, brightness, and vivacity, and ceased to be as efficient a teacher as he or she once was. Consequently, there were complaints already rising, and, in deed, they had arisen in the past, regarding the deterioration of a large number of our teachers as they advanced in life through no fault whatever of their own. The difficulty was not so great 20 or 30 years ago, when our schools were hardly one-third of their present number; but now that our schools had multiplied all over the land, this difficulty was increasing, and would shortly affect seriously the efficiency of the schools and imperil their educational vigour. Therefore, if they were to maintain the teaching strength of their teaching staff, there must be some mode of superannuation, because it was impossible to discharge and throw upon the world the teachers as they advanced in life. Of course, it it would be said, "Why should not the teachers provide superannuation for themselves?" Well, in the first place, their salaries were, unhappily, small. The House would be surprised if he went into details and showed how many teachers received salaries less than £50, £60, £70, and £80 a year. It was an extraordinary instance of the cheapness of purely intellectual labour in this country as compared with manual and skilled labour. And they had the fact that whether the teachers as a body ought to do so or not—he did not say they would not, because he believed that they would if they could—they did not make provision for old age. In their case there was almost a total absence of such provision. That was a fact which could not be denied, and they might almost say that unless some provision were made by State intervention many of the teachers would be brought in penury to the grave. Thus there was a real necessity for State intervention, and of such intervention they had not to go far to seek for examples. He believed that in almost every other

    365
    nation on the Continent of Europe that had a system of State education had also a system of superannuation added to it. In England, whether it was a Department of the Government Service, or a firm, or large Corporation, or Company, they all had a system of this kind. The Education Department for England and Wales, in fact, was one of the few Departments that had gone on up to the present time destitute of a superannuation system. Having said so much by the way of general preface in favour of the scheme, he would in a few brief words explain the principles of the plan as proposed by the Select Committee which reported last Session. In the first place, they proposed a compulsory organisation—that was to say, an organisation which every future teacher must join. Then there was to be a subscription, of course, for the teachers and a subvention from the State. Two superannuation funds would consequently be established, one by the teachers and the other by the State. The one by the teachers would, of course, be managed by the Education Department, but, besides that, a second fund would be set up by the State itself. Though the system would be compulsory in the case of teachers appointed after a certain date, it would be optional as regarded existing teachers. It would be impossible to compel persons to enter a system who had not been engaged thereto on their entrance into the service. The subscriptions from existing teachers, as he would presently show, would be different to those from future teachers. The rate of subscription for the teachers would be reckoned, at about 4 to 5 per cent. on their salaries. This would be a heavy rate considering the small salaries which were paid to the great majority of teachers. The subscriptions and the subvention together were expected to provide a pittance only for the lower-paid teachers, and a bare subsistence for those who were better paid. It would be found that the Government subvention offered to the teachers was but slight, though he admitted that it would prove costly on the whole. He did not conceal that from the House. Then as regarded the age of retirement, that would be made compulsory. The age proposed was really too late for educational proficiency, that was to say,
    366
    we should be retaining men and women in the service longer than they ought to stay if they were to teach with the energy he had already described. It was, no doubt, a hard condition for the teachers that they should be obliged to stay so long in the service in order to earn their pensions, but if we made the age earlier it would be too costly for the State, and would provide but too small a pension for the teachers. Nobody but those accustomed to actuarial figures could realise the difference which five years made when they got past 50 to the pension which a subscription would purchase, so they would propose an earlier age of retirement than the compulsory one, but that would be optional, and those who availed themselves of it would have to accept a reduced superannuation. Thus the two considerations would reflect one upon the other. To the teachers who would say that the provision they proposed was too low, they would say, "Ah, but look at the heavy cost involved to the State." To the House who might be inclined to murmur at the cost involved to the Treasury, he would reply, "Yes, but look at the narrowness of the provision which we have ventured to recommend." Thus these two considerations acted and reacted on each other, and one was justified by the other. He might add that they had not included in the scheme any provision for what was only too well known by the ominous name of "break-down." That was to say, they did not recommend any plan for those who were compelled to retire through ill-health through no fault of their own before the pensionable age. They had to their great regret found it difficult to make any such recommendation for this reason, that they could not reckon the cost. They had no actuarial data, and they hesitated to submit anything to the House which could not be justified in the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Besides, the Reference to the Committee was as to superannuation, and when they got to the question of a break-down they travelled beyond the limit of that Reference. Such were the main ideas which were in the minds of the Committee, They formed their scheme, in consultation with the Government actuary. He would now go into the business details, for hon. Members would at once say to

    367
    him, "All you have adduced is very fine in its way, the principles are undeniable, the groundwork is irrefragable, but what exactly do you propose; what are the rates and subscriptions; what are the benefits; what are the rates of the Government subvention; above all, what will the cost of it be ultimately to the Treasury?" Now, these several points he must advert to in the following order:—First, the subscriptions from the teachers; secondly, the subvention from the Government; thirdly, the benefits to be secured by the subscriptions and subvention together; fourthly, the conditions; fifthly, the cost to the State. Let hon. Members remember that the scheme referred only to certificated teachers, and it was assumed that the men entered the service at 23 years of age, and the women at 22. With regard to the definition of "future teachers," it would include those who were appointed after a certain date; but, in order to lighten the financial burden, they included in that category all the juniors now in the service and those who had less than ten years' service. The object was to lessen the category of existing teachers, because, as he would show, they were obliged to offer to them terms more favourable than those offered to future teachers. With regard to subscriptions, they proposed that every man should pay £3 annually, and every woman £2. This applied to all, whatever their salary might be, but those who enjoyed salaries of £80 a year and upwards were to pay £1 for every £25; that was, in fact, about 4 per cent. on the salaries all round. That was the calculation of the Committee, and he submitted that that was a heavy deduction. These deductions for men and women together would amount to over £150,000 annually. It would be nearer £175,000, in fact, and the House would admit that that was a large sum to deduct from the elementary teachers. He might be asked how he proposed that this sum should be collected from the 50,000 teachers scattered all over the country. It would be deducted from the Government grant to every school, and the managers would have confided to them the duty, which he was sure they could be trusted to execute, of seeing that the proper deduction was made from the salaries. As regarded the
    368
    existing teachers who joined the fund optionally—an option, indeed, which would be universally availed of—they would pay the £3 and the £2 annually as before. After considerable consideration, the Committee had been unable to propose anything in the way of back payments. It was impossible to expect people, who only receive a salary equal to their wants in a respectable position in life, to pay up any large sum on account of back payments which they had never expected to be asked to pay. But still, if any of them should be willing to pay-down a sum in order to purchase a larger pension than they would otherwise obtain, it was proposed to allow them to pay the sum into the fund on the condition that they should not be able thereby to purchase by this subscription a pension of more than £100 a year. These terms were undoubtedly easy for existing teachers as compared with future teachers, but it was impossible to omit existing teachers from the general scheme. Their case, no doubt, constituted a difficulty, but that difficulty must be faced, because these teachers were a most meritorious body of people; they formed an advanced and influential section of the teaching body of England, and their claims, hopes, and aspirations; could not be overlooked. He came now to the Stale subvention. It was proposed that for future teachers, when they arrived at a pensionable age, 10s. a year should be allowed for each year of their service. For existing teachers a sum of 10s. annually would be allowed after they had joined the fund. The great point with regard to existing teachers was that they would receive a pension equal to £1 a year for 30 years of service and upwards. This would apply to both men and women. As to those who had served less than 30 years, it was proposed that they should receive a pension at the rate of 15s. for each year. Next, the benefits would consist of the actuarial value of subscriptions plus the State subvention already described. The House might like to have an example of how this would work. For all those who received salaries of less than £80 a year, the men would receive a pension of £23 from the subscription and £18 from the State subvention, or say £43 or £44 per annum altogether. Surely this was a modest and humble pension. The women

    369
    would receive a pension of £11 from subscriptions and £16 from subvention, or £27 altogether, which was less even than a humble and modest superannuation. And, on the whole, about half of this would be derived from the annuitants' own subscriptions. This very low superannuation would comprise fully one-half of the total number of certificated teachers, or 25,000. The other, or better paid, half might, by their own subscriptions, only without any State subvention, be able to purchase pensions of from £70 to £90 a year. It would be found that the possibility of a man or woman obtaining a pension of £100 a year would be extremely rare. As to the benefits to be received by the existing teachers, the men would receive from £26 to £41 superannuation, and the women from £15 to £29. He asked the House whether anyone could propose to give less to people who were highly qualified and certificated, and who had spent their lives in the work of the education of the country. With regard to the conditions attached to the scheme, the men were to be retired compulsorily at 60 years of age, and the women at 55 years of age. He was sure the House would agree that it was but right to superannuate women a little earlier than men, considering the comparative tenderness and delicacy of their physique and the amount of nervous tension to which they were subjected. It was also proposed to give an option of retiring five years earlier, but in that case there would be reduced superannuation, and it would be found that the reduction would be so great that most teachers would probably be deterred from availing themselves of such option. The question of allowing teachers to withdraw from the service and to receive back either the whole or part of their subscriptions had been carefully considered. This was a matter which greatly interested the teaching world, for the House might be surprised to hear that 2,500 persons retired annually—the women no doubt largely upon marriage. It was proposed that if they retired with less than 10 years' service and in good health, they should be allowed to obtain repayment of their subscriptions subject to a certain deduction for cost of management. No other rebate was proposed—not even upon death, because it was
    370
    contended that the plan was for superannuation only, and did not touch life assurance. No doubt the teachers would be somewhat disappointed at this, but he was sure the House would see that the cost of what was proposed was so great that it was impossible to recommend anything more than was recommended. He now came to the last point—namely, the cost. The estimate of expenditure was based upon the actuarial calculations of Mr. Sutton, than whom he submitted it was impossible to find a higher authority in England. It was assumed after careful inquiry by the Educational Authorities, that 1,000 men and 1,500 women, or 2,500 teachers in all, retired annually. As regarded future teachers, the charge would begin of course at a very small sum and would rise gradually until after 30 years it would amount to £359,000 per annum, at which amount it would remain permanently as far as the present establishment of 50,000 teachers was concerned. This would amount to 5 or 6 per cent. on the present educational expenditure of £6,000,000 per annum. He thought it was not too much to ask Parliament to add 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. to its expenditure for the great public and personal objects which he was advocating. There would of course be an additional charge for the existing teachers. It was reckoned that this charge would be £191,000 annually, and that 17 years hence it would have risen to £279,000. It would rise above this rate during certain decades and fall again during other decades, but on the whole it would average £279,000 for 30 years and then would disappear finally. Of course hon. Members would be inclined at first sight to add the one charge to the other and say that the total amounted to over £600,000 a year. He would remind them, however, that the two charges would not arise quite simultaneously. While one was high the other would be low. When 30 years had passed away all the charge for the existing teachers would have disappeared and there would be only the sum of £359,000 left. Even £600,000 a year would be only 10 per cent. of our educational expenditure, and therefore the scheme would cost the State 10 per cent. upon that expenditure for a limited term, and 5 per cent. afterwards. He submitted, with all deference

    371
    to the august authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that this was the true way of stating a charge of this kind. He was quite aware that there were other modes of stating it. Those who wished to magnify it till it loomed so largely as to stagger the imagination, adopted this cheap and easy method. They took the whole charge for a generation or half a century, and by the simple process of multiplying the annual charge by 30 or 50 produced a perfectly alarming total. Any charge, even the most modest, might be inflated to enormous proportions by this very simple arithmetical process. For instance, if he were to say that within half a century of the present time we should have spent £300,000,000, or within one generation £180,000,000, upon elementary education alone in England and Wales, it would sound quite alarming, but after all it only meant an annual expenditure of £6,000,000. The true way was to take the expenditure for each year and reckon its relation to the total educational expenditure of that year. Supposing that the figures he had given were even approximately correct, he submitted that the result was not so terrifying as some people imagined. Possibly, when the scheme came to be looked into by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer this Session, or next Session, or the Session after, some further actuarial investigation would show that something further should be added. But even supposing that the 5 per cent. in one case or 10 per cent. in another to which he had referred turned out to be 6 per cent. or 12 per cent., there would be no essential difference in the proposition he had adumbrated to the House. He submitted that the figures were relatively moderate, and contained no alarming or terrifying elements whatever. He next craved permission to refer for a few moments to the break-down provision. The Committee admitted their inability to propose any plan for providing for those teachers who broke down from sickness or other infirmity during their term of active service, or to recommend any plan whereby they might receive back the subscriptions they had paid. Yet the case of those people was so very hard and pressing, and the justice of their claim was so plain, that the Committee felt that sooner or later something must be done
    372
    in the matter. Difficult as it was to make an exact calculation for superannuation purposes, it became still more troublesome to make one on the breakdown principle, and he feared that the experience, based upon the establishment of a similar fund in another part of the United Kingdom, would not be found favourable to any plan of this kind. His own personal belief was that the only way of dealing with it was to allot a certain sum annually for the purpose, say £30,000 or £50,000 a year, instead of the £6,000 which was now given, and which had proved to be utterly inadequate. If £50,000 a year were placed in the hands of the Education Department for this object he was sure the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President would be able satisfactorily to deal with the greater portion of the meritorious cases. The sum might be voted annually and no difficulty need arise in connection with it. He thanked the House with all sincerity for the remarkable patience with which it had listened to his laborious and intricate explanations. He could assure the House that he had laid before it only a small portion of the vast number of figures and statistics contained in the Committee's Report, which was indeed a perfect armoury of facts, and a quiver well stored with figures. It thoroughly deserved the careful consideration of every hon. Member who cared for the future education of the country. This was by no means a party question. The majority of the teachers possibly belonged to the Party to which he was politically opposed; but that fact did not diminish the zeal which he and his colleagues entertained for their welfare. Nor did this question relate to any one section of teachers; it included the teachers of Board schools and of voluntary schools of all denominations. He did not ask the House to vote for any particular plan. He had submitted, with some detail, the plan of the Committee, but he had felt that a business assembly like that House would have reproached him if he had ventured to bring forward the matter, without giving some of the principal figures and data on which the recommendations of the Committee were based. And although the House might not be able to do anything practically in the matter this Session, yet if hon. Members would only affirm the principle they

    373
    would gladden the hearts and raise the spirits of thousands of men and women all over the country, who were working laboriously for the welfare of the rising generation. It would, moreover, give great satisfaction to a vast body of school managers, and to large numbers of ministers and others of all denominations, as well as to the higher dignitaries of the Church and State, who were interested in the work, and it would shed a ray of hope throughout all branches of the Education Department. He could only, in conclusion, appeal to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education to remember the work of the Committee, of which he was a Member, and now to come into line, standing shoulder to shoulder with those who had sat upstairs with him.
    MR. MATHERsaid, he seconded the Motion with very eat pleasure. He agreed with the last speaker that this was not a Party question, for the welfare of the children of this country, and the welfare especially of the children of the working classes, came near to the heart of every Member of the House. The teachers, too, deserved their sympathy in the performance of their laborious duties. The recommendations of the Select Committee formed a material part of the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Kingston Division of Surrey, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have been somewhat appalled on hearing that in this his. first year at the Treasury he was to be invited to find £500,000 or more towards this superannuation scheme. But it was not for them to enter fully into the facts and figures placed before them by the Chairman of the Committee which sat upstairs. He had long felt that the status of the teachers of this country required their earnest consideration. They formed a body of men second to none in the Public Service. They had endured for something like 20 years the toil and difficulty of their work with an amount of patience which deserved the highest credit. No one could say that the teacher had received a salary which was more than his worth for the labour performed. It would be agreed that the great body of them certainly were under-paid, when their position was compared with that of teachers in other countries. In France,
    374
    Germany, Switzerland, and the United States provision was made to enable the teacher to save for old age, or else there was a State or Local Pension Fund for the same purpose, so that when they had been a certain number of years in the service they might be sure of adequate support. This had been very clearly set forth by Mr. Matthew Arnold, who, in 1886, at the request of the Education Department, visited Germany, France, and Switzerland in order to attempt to solve some important questions with regard to the pay and position of the teachers. He reported that in every country he visited the teachers had a retiring pension, to establish which a reduction was made from their salaries. In France, for instance, a pension could be claimed at 55 years of age, after a service of 25 years, and it practically amounts to three-fourths of the average salary. It was true that England began her system of national education at a later period than the countries mentioned, but that was no reason why we should delay longer than necessary the completion of our system in the sense in which foreign countries had completed theirs by providing pensions for those teachers who had spent their lives in the service of their country. Most hon. Members, probably, had something to do with employing clerks or skilled labour of some kind, but he believed there was no class of persons who were employed in skilled labour upon whom the mental and nervous strain was greater than it was upon teachers in elementary schools. The physical effort was not small, and when they considered that teachers had to carry day by day upon their shoulders the responsibility of forming the mind and character of the children committed to their care, they would agree that the anxieties of that occupation were not equalled by those of any other employment. If any further claim than that of humanity were needed to the consideration of this question, he would put it on the grounds of education itself. The elementary education of this country must be the foundation of the country's future progress among the nations of the earth, and the quality of the education must depend on the quality of the teachers employed. It was true that we in this country had not hitherto possessed the best possible

    375
    system of training teachers for their work in public elementary schools. But of late years there had been a considerable improvement in that respect, and the extra training had involved an increased strain and responsibility on the teachers, who had felt it necessary to exercise greater control over the character of the children committed to their care. The calling to which the teachers had devoted themselves should be made not only honourable but dignified in every way as regarded social position, and therefore it was imperative on Parliament to put the teachers in a position where they would be free from anxiety in their old age. They ought not to be made to feel that the provision for their closing years depended upon any accident that might occur. It was admitted on all hands that some scheme of superannuation, State-aided or otherwise—must be designed for this useful body of citizens. He could quite understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer looking with dismay on such a proposal as that put forward by the hon. Baronet. But he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there were other sources of money besides the Imperial Exchequer. In supporting the Resolution then before the House they were not pledging themselves to any particular scheme. All he could say was that from whatever source the money was obtained, whether from local rates or elsewhere, he hoped the House would declare that they were resolved that some pension scheme should be established in the future—and he trusted that the Government of the day, hearing the unanimous expression of opinion, would devote themselves to the question at once. The matter was urgent; it ought to have been settled ten years ago. A Royal Commission and two Select Committees by their Reports had sanctioned this demand, all interested in the public elementary education of the country had affirmed its justice. They could not sufficiently recognise the importance of teachers, male and female, in respect of the future interests of the country. It had been said that the hand that rocked the cradle ruled the world; that, speaking of mothers, was perfectly true; but it was equally true that those who formed the minds, the characters of the rising generation from infancy to the age of 14 or15 years, were at the same time
    376
    forming the destinies of this country. Those destinies depended on the employment of the best possible system of education, that education involved sympathy and earnestness of purpose on the part of those engaged in directing it, and to secure these qualities they should pay the teachers such salaries as would enable them to make provision for old age, or at any rate would insure their independence when their working days were over. With these feelings deeply fixed in his mind he seconded the Resolution, in the earnest hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Vice President of the Council would give the matter earnest consideration, and speedily place this deserving class of public servants in the position they were entitled to hold.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a National State-aided system of Superannuation for Teachers in Public Elementary Schools in England and Wales should be established at an early date,"—(Sir Richard Temple,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I only rise to take part in the Debate for a few minutes. The educational part of the question will be dealt with far better than I could by my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education; but it is my duty, after what has fallen from hon. Gentlemen, to say a few words on the financial bearings of the question. The objects of the Motion, I venture to say, could not have been better brought forward or seconded, and with every word that has been said as to the claim of this class of the community on the sympathy of Parliament and the country I cordially agree. No public servants are more deserving of attention than the elementary teachers; but it is my duty to lay before the House the real nature, as far as I understand it, of the demand that is made. I was a little relieved to find that my hon. Friends did not nail their colours to the mast of the Report

    377
    of the Select Committee, and was also a little astonished by the prudent deprecation of the hon. Baronet who made the Motion as to the system of capitalising values, because in another connection the House has heard of a sum of £17,000,000 which is taken as a capitalised sum. My hon. Friend apparently did not desire to alarm the House; but let me tell it the result of our examination of this question. It is that the cost of the proposal amounts to £25,000,000.
    SIR F. S. POWELL: The ultimate cost, not the present value.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The present value. But the State is bound to look to the whole charge, and not merely to the annual charge. The figures given by the hon. Baronet were £329,000 for the future teachers, and £270,000 for the present teachers. That gives a total sum of £600,000, which I am obliged to consider a large sum, though perhaps in better times it might be regarded as a trifle. If the sum is capitalised it will appear still larger. The hon. Member opposite has admitted that the figures he has given only represent a portion of the ultimate cost. The hon. Gentleman has not calculated upon an increase in the number of teachers, the cost of voluntary retirement, and a provision for teachers who have broken down. According to the information I have received, it would not be safe to capitalise the sum which the hon. Member asks for at less than £25,000,000. I do not pretend to say that you cannot afford to pay £25,000,000. This country is very rich—the rich are very rich, while the poor are very poor—and if this House thinks fit to incur a liability for that amount the country is capable of paying it. I do not say that you ought not to incur such a charge, and I am not going to offer any opposition to this Motion; but, occupying the position I do, it is my duty to tell the House what the consequences of agreeing to this Motion will be. There is one thing that the House ought not to do, and that is to consent to incur a charge of this nature and grumble when it is asked to provide the means for meeting it. I am afraid that the House, like private people, often likes to buy things, and afterwards object to pay for them. That is a tendency in human nature from which this House is not at all free, and,
    378
    therefore, all I can say is that having acquiesced readily and freely in this Motion, I hope to find the House of Commons as unanimous when the time comes for making this proposal—I do not say it will be this year, or the second year, or the third year—but when the time comes I hope the House will vote the taxes that will be necessary for the proposal, for it will mean additional taxation unless you are so fortunate as to have a large surplus. The matter is entirely for the House to decide—I offer no opposition to the Motion. The hon. Member has put the Motion on a very proper footing. He has only demanded that there should be a contribution from the State towards the object, without defining the contribution or binding the House to any particular scheme. On referring to the Report of the Committee with respect to local contribution I read with satisfaction the evidence of a gentleman entitled to a good deal of weight, Mr. Hance, the Clerk to the School Board of Liverpool, who expressed the opinion that not only the teachers themselves, and the State, but also the managers of schools, and the Local Authorities should contribute to this fund. It seems to me that is an extremely reasonable proposition. I do not pledge myself to the scheme, but it is worth consideration. As I have said, I entirely agree with the object of the Motion of the hon. Member, and as he has wisely confined himself to declaring the principle without endeavouring to extract any proposal from the Government I cordially support the Motion.
    MR. BRODRICK: I am sure that every body on this side of the House will not only agree in congratulating the hon. Baronet on the favourable reception he has secured for his Motion, but also in thanking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the extremely sympathetic way in which he has spoken of the Motion. Undoubtedly the sum the right hon. Gentleman dealt with is a large sum, and I only rise to suggest one or two observations in modification of the very heavy bill he has drawn against the future. I think it will be of considerable interest to the House to hear from the Vice President of the Council, in a little more detail, by what process the Government pro-

    379
    pose to deal with the Motion. It is clear that the country will have to bear the cost in one form or another if there should be a superannuation of teachers. It is well known to every school manager that the salaries of school teachers are rising every day, and that the difficulty of obtaining teachers at anything like the same rates as prevailed 10 years ago has very greatly increased. There are, roughly, 50,000 school teachers at the present time. A rise of only £10 in their salaries—not by any means an inconsiderable amount to take—would mean £500,000 a year; and that capitalised, being a charge for a time, brings us back to our old friend, the sum of £17,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that £25,000,000 is the final sum; and I am not prepared to say that the £17,000,000 represents the final sum to be paid by the British people. Therefore it is obvious that we shall be paying extra money in one form or another, and no one knows better than the Vice President of the Council that we shall not be achieving the same result. I am sure there will be sympathy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his warning as regards making school managers recollect that superannuation and salary go together. I venture to press on the Vice President of the Council that this subject should be treated without delay. We are in a rather peculiar position. Some years ago he brought forward a Motion in favour of teachers appointed between 1846 and 1851, in relation to whom the Treasury acted, I will not say absolutely illegally, but unhandsomely, as was admitted by the late Mr. Forster and by the present President of the Board of Trade, who was then Vice President of the Council. This fact bears on the present situation, that in 1884, when I moved that Motion, these teachers' pensions were recognised, though in 1870 that right was disputed by the Treasury. I think I am right in saying that half the teachers appointed between 1846 and 1851 are worn out and unable to continue their work, and the point of that observation is, that we have arrived at a period when there is a larger number more who have arrived at a time when they cannot work. My hon. Friend has not based his Motion on the ground of charity; but mainly on this ground—that
    380
    we have got in the schools a large body of excellent men, who have done long and excellent service, who would willingly retire but for the fact that in many cases they would have to face penury, and that you have school managers who are unwilling to dispense with their services on considerations of charity. One cannot doubt that if the Vice President were to announce to-night the acceptance of this scheme, we would have a large number of retirements to deal with in the next six months, but the longer these retirements are delayed the more the education of the children must be impeded and delayed. I hope the Vice President of the Committee will be able to give us an assurance either that he sees in the scheme of the hon. Baronet ground for action, or that he himself has been able to elaborate a scheme which he can lay before the country, so that we may feel certain that this great question of the superannuation of the teachers, in which the honour of this House is more or less engaged, will be properly and effectively determined.
    SIR FRANCIS S. POWELLsaid, he did not think that those who were in favour of the system of superannuation could complain of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought he might say of the speech that it was actuated by a sense of financial sympathy. The maxim which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have in his mind was that which they used to hear so frequently in the old days, Volenti non fit injuria; or, in other words, if the taxpayers were willing to endure the burden, then it was for him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to see that it should not be endured. He could not, however, help appreciating the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman, because while delicately suggesting that those provisions might sooner or later be painful to the taxpayer, he had suggested that a portion of the burden should be transferred from him to the ratepayer. He had seen the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions exhibit a tenderness which did not, however, always extend to the ratepayers of the country. He was not quite certain whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had entirely appreciated the recommendation of Mr. Hance, clerk of the School Board at Liverpool. Mr. Hance had,

    381
    according to the view of the Committee, exactly concurred with the view of the Committee, and his testimony ought to be quoted as entirely in sympathy with the advice of the Committee. He hoped before the Debate closed that the Vice President of the Council would afford some suggestions to the House respecting those unfortunate and melancholy cases in which teachers had broken down. The Committee had found it quite impossible to make any recommendation affecting those broken-down schoolmasters because they had no facts, and they were anxious to submit to the House in all things some basis for calculation. In the Report of the Select Committee it would be found that they proposed that the whole of the Superannuation Fund should be for the benefit of all the teachers alike, and there should be no preference or favour for voluntary school teachers or Board school teachers; and he was quite sure that in these days, when the work of education was shared by Board schools and voluntary schools, there must be complete fairness and entire impartiality between the two classes of schools when they come to deal with the subject of pensions. It was impossible to exaggerate the services of the teachers. He believed the teachers of this country in voluntary schools and in Board schools alike were equal to the elementary teachers of any country in the World. He had had the opportunity, not recently, but some years ago, of visiting many schools in America, and he could say that the result of these examinations was that the teaching and the teachers in our schools were greatly superior to the teaching and the teachers in the United States. There was no doubt that of all professions which were exacting and caused premature decay of vital forces, there was none so trying and none which caused decay more rapidly than the profession of teaching. This decay was very often of a sudden character; teachers broke down even before they knew that they were affected. He had often observed that the teacher would in one day appear to be in the possession of his full powers, and in the course of a week or a fortnight would become unequal to his duties. He need not say anything with regard to the effect of teaching on the scholar; that was obvious. They had, therefore, in this matter of pensions, to
    382
    have regard to the teacher on the one hand and the scholar on the other, and he thought the time had come when the proper and wise rule of forming systems of pensions and superannuation which existed in various professions, in the Civil Service, and in railways, should be extended to the profession of teaching, where, indeed, it was most urgently required. They should bear in mind that this system of pensions of teachers was not a new system. They had in this country a system of pensions for many years, but it must be admitted by all who had made inquiries on the subject that the present most limited system was at once imperfect, disappointing, and unjust. It was imperfect because it only applied to few teachers; it was disappointing because those who most deserved pensions failed to obtain them; and it was unjust because in many cases merit did not meet with a sufficient or adequate reward. In dealing with this question there were no doubt great difficulties, because they had to regard not only future teachers but existing teachers. Future teachers might pay an annual contribution to a State fund, and create a superannuation annuity for themselves—not, perhaps, as much as they would wish to see them possess—but still a superannuation annuity of a limited kind. But when they looked to the existing teachers, those who had most claim on their sympathy, because they had laboured many years, and the time of their repose was near at hand, they found that there was no adequate provision for them. It was this difficulty which the Committee had to face, and they believed that it would be a most incomplete system which did not regard these deserving and meritorious men and women. The proposal of the Committee was that the country should make a general provision for these teachers of £1 for each year of service, instead of 10s., as in the case of future teachers, which, with the aid of other assistance they would be able to obtain, would ensure to them a future of moderate comfort. He did not wish to detain the House unduly, but he hoped he might be allowed to say they did not present their Report as the best scheme that could be devised, though he believed it was as good as any Committee of the House could have presented. Of course, no Committee could have the command

    383
    of the means of investigation which were in the hands of the Government, and no Committee could have that power and that force which were at the command of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but if the Government were unable to grant them all their requests he hoped, at least, they might travel some distance along the same path. He did not think the Government ought to be appalled by the large figure of £24,000,000. A grant of £6,000,000 was now given for education, and to add to that grant an amount which if capitalised came to £24,000,000 was no overpowering enlargement. To his knowledge the teachers had waited long for this reform, and having waited so long he hoped they would wait no longer, but that the Government would either this year, or in a year not far distant, bring forward a large and comprehensive scheme; whichever Government was in power he hoped it would adopt this policy. He hoped he might appeal with some confidence to the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Acland) to make some declaration that would bring comfort to this most meritorious class, so that they might look upon their desires, though not fully accomplished, as so nearly within their reach that their fulfilment would not be much longer delayed.
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OK THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): Although there is no subject with which I believe we are more agreed in desiring efficiency than in national education, yet even our educational defects have sometimes had a controversial flavour about them. I find myself particularly happy on the first occasion I have had the honour to address the House as Vice President of the Council—to address it upon a subject upon which we are thoroughly agreed as to the principle we have adopted. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston (Sir R. Temple) on having secured so early an opportunity of bringing into action the work in which we and our friends were so long engaged in the Committee over which he presided. I think, whatever else we did, we cleared the ground and obtained a great deal of valuable information that will be useful to those who have to put the work into execution. The subject which is now before us is, after all, part of a large subject of provision for old age in various
    384
    forms, which is interesting and exciting the minds of a great many persons in this country. In regard to education, the need of providing superannuation for good teachers has long been felt. In the Universities we find our colleges providing in their new schemes arrangements for the retirement of teachers at a certain age; our grammar schools we find providing in their schemes for the same object, and now this question is fully ripe to be brought before the House of Commons. I am glad it has been brought forward, because without the sanction and approval of the House of Commons I think no Chancellor of the Exchequer could have spoken in the sympathetic way in which my right hon. Friend (Sir W. Harcourt) has spoken to-night on this subject. It is necessary for us to prove in the case of the teachers that theirs is a special case demanding special consideration, and I think we can prove that; I think we can show, in the matter of education, if there is a class of workers who need to be fresh and bright in their work it is the class of teachers; I think we can show, if there is a class of public servants who may cause disaster and misfortune by being inefficient through old age, it is the class of teachers. You may have here and there a single servant who may not be altogether fit for his work, in which case the State suffers to some extent; you may have here and there perhaps a policeman who is not quite so efficient as another policeman, though he might be perfectly fit for some easier job, where the safety of the public was not seriously jeopardised. But every teacher, if ineffective in his work, is directly affecting, to a certain extent, the welfare of future generations, and therefore from that point of view everything that adds to the teacher's anxiety—his anxiety about the future, his anxiety about his own family—everything that adds to the wear and tear of the teacher is a disaster, not only to him, but the country at large. I think we can draw no distinction between any class of teachers; all our teachers are subject to wear and tear of different kinds. There are the difficulties of town teachers through town life and some of the children they have to deal with. There are the difficulties of the country teachers through the great variety of work they have to do, passing

    385
    from one class to another, and having to put up with a good deal that is harassing in their daily work. In either case there is great liability to that wear and tear, great risk to anxiety, if they fear the future is absolutely uncertain, and for that reason we all desire to give them some evidence of certainty about their provision when they shall retire in an honoured old age. There is a point which has been alluded to in this Debate which I think it important to notice, and that is that some people say that some of the salaries of these teachers are so good they could easily provide for themselves. That may be the case, but whether they make adequate arrangements for their own retirement or not, we should see that every teacher is provided for in old age, if we can, by some compulsory method, and for this reason you may find a teacher providing for himself what he thinks an adequate provision for the close of his life; the investment he has chosen breaks down, and he is in as bad a condition as if he had received the smallest salary all through his life. When the small pensions are administered by the Vice President and Lord President to teachers, again and again one finds lamentable cases of teachers who have had high salaries and who have done their best to provide for old age, but have chosen unfortunate investments so that all their savings have been swept away. In the cause of the children we are thinking of we must beware we provide for all cases alike, and make some arrangement by which we see that all the savings are properly and securely invested. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Brodrick) said something about existing pensions. Teachers who came into the service before 1851 are now on the unlimited list; the pensions are small it is true, but still all those who are deserving can receive one of these pensions. Teachers who came in from 1851 to 1862 are on a limited list, and the list is lamentably limited, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the late Vice President (Sir W. Hart Dyke) will agree with me there is no task more painful than attempting to select between the unfortunate cases brought before us for the giving away of the small pensions that are available. On this subject my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires me to say he is willing
    386
    to make a reasonable addition that that provision, the £6,500, shall at least be reasonably added to with a view to our meeting many of the pressing cases brought before us.
    MR. BRODRICK: What will be the limit in those cases, the amount of the individual pensions?
    MR. ACLAND: The pensions are of three kinds, £20, £25 and £30. He will be aware the proposals of the Committee suggest more than that sum per teacher, but it makes a reasonable provision.
    MR. BRODRICK: I was alluding to the original Minute from 1851 to 1862, and that from 1846 to 1851, which held out a hope of two-thirds of the salary.
    MR. ACLAND: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, that was so when the original Minute was made, but all I am able now to do is to state that the £6,500 will be added to. It has been mentioned that almost all European countries have some time ago adopted a system such as that we are considering to-night, and one reason for that is that State education on a State basis is of older duration in those countries than in England. If this subject had not been introduced to-night it must have been brought before our notice at an early date, because in the course of a few years we should be face to face with the fact of the large number of teachers that had been appointed since the Act of 1870, and many of them will be verging on old age. In 1870, we had 12,000 certificated teachers, but at the present time we have 50,000, which shows the rapidity with which education has been growing since Mr. Forster's Act. In another 20 years it will be more pressing than now, and it is far wiser to grapple with it at present than leave it until it becomes more embarrassing. Something has been said about sources from which we can draw means for an elaborate scheme. I must say, and all who were on the Committee will agree with me, that the teachers, represented through the National Union of Teachers, showed a thoroughly willing and anxious spirit to take their part in making provision for themselves. They pointed out to us what is perfectly true, that the sum of £3 for a man and £2 for a woman was a very fair proportion of

    387
    the very small salaries some of them receive at the present moment. Though salaries have risen during the last few years, we have between 4,000 and 5,000 certificated mistresses getting less than £50 a year, and nearly 4,000 masters getting less than £75 a year, that is to say, one-sixth of the certificated masters and mistresses get these very small salaries, and if they embark upon a contribution such as that suggested we can hardly expect them to do any more. We came to this conclusion: we must, if possible, arrange for a provision at least of a minimum salary, such as that the hon. Baronet opposite suggested, something approaching from £40 to £50. Then as to local sources, it was suggested to us in various quarters they ought not to be left out of any future consideration. There may be means of deductions from the grants, both in the case of School Boards and voluntary schools, in which the managers may be made to take their share. Already Scotland, which has a different system to ours—the universal School Board system—is allowed to make arrangements of that sort, and a certain number of the Board teachers are pensioned in Scotland by the Board schools themselves. But our system is different, and being what it is, with large numbers of voluntary and Board schools, there is strong argument for something in the nature of central management. Teachers pass from one kind of school to another, and one district to another, and we have felt over and over again it would be extremely difficult to arrange a system of local management and local contribution. I hope, at any rate, we have been able to show we approach the whole of this subject not in any grudging spirit. The hon. Mover of this Motion has said that he does not press the words "at an early date," and I am sure he will be aware they must be liberally interpreted with a view to preparing a scheme that will be solvent and secure. The example of the Irish scheme on this same subject has been alluded to as a warning to us. When we embark upon a scheme we must make sure it will be sound and secure to everybody. Mr. Sutton himself is not unwilling to give us his calculations. He has given us something like £22,000,000 as the total that will be involved in the next 40 or 50 years, and
    388
    he told us his basis was made at 3 per cent.; but the Treasury is not willing to take that as the basis. That also, he told us, includes England and Wales. Then the most difficult of all questions, the break-downs, is left outside altogether, and I confess, from all I have seen from the work going on with our small pension scheme, it is impossible to leave out of sight the question of break-downs. If a man who comes into the pension scheme at 23 years of age were to break down at the age of 59, one year before he becomes entitled to his pension, is he to get nothing at all? The problem is a difficult one and requires careful consideration. Then we have to bear in mind the number of women teachers who get married, and they desire to have some scheme by which some part of their contributions may be returned on retiring from the service. These and many other considerations have to be borne in mind before we can arrive at a thoroughly satisfactory scheme. We must not enter into it too hastily, but after the approval of the House of Commons, which we have received to-night, I think we can begin to enter upon its consideration at once. In all these matters of national education we are willing to take the view that the welfare of the teachers is a matter of the highest consideration, and in paying attention to their welfare we are directly for their success and indirectly for the children's success, making one of the best investments we can. Anything, whatever it be, that affects the children in their surroundings must be good, whether it be teachers, instructors or buildings, their intelligence and their character depend absolutely upon it. We are bound, as a duty to those who come after us, to see to the interests of their teachers as well as the interest of themselves; to see to it that the children are not neglected because the teachers are over-worked and over strained in old age, and by considering carefully the welfare of the teachers as well as the welfare of the children fulfil that educational duty that is always cast upon us—namely, to give to all the children as complete an education as we can.
    MR. LAWRENCEsaid, he thought all would agree with him that in the Vice President of the Council they had one who knew his

    389
    subject, and they heartily congratulated him upon the important position he occupied. He cordially sympathised with the Motion of his hon. Friend, which related to a subject that had been before them for some years. The Liverpool School Board had taken a very prominent part in bringing this question before the public, and it was through the Liverpool School Board that a Conference of School Boards was held to consider the matter. So far back as 1891 the School Boards of Manchester, Sheffield, Nottingham, and Liverpool came to a resolution similar to the one before the House, and the views of these Boards were communicated to and endorsed by the majority of the great School Boards throughout the country. They had heard the very proper way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had dealt with the subject. It was only right that the Chancellor of the British Exchequer should be careful how the money of the taxpayer was expended, but what appeared to him evident about the matter was that they had already established the principle that our public servants should be paid by pension as well as by salary. Teachers had become public servants since the passing of the Education Act of 1870, and inasmuch as they had very handsomely pensioned the constables and Civil servants, it was only right to go forward and pension those hard-working servants, the public teachers. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that it was essential to the proper discharge of their duties that the teachers should have full vivacity of mind and body, and when that ceased they were no longer fit teachers of youth, and should receive some consideration for their past services. If by any means they could bring about a gradual and sufficient flow of teachers they would be going far to improve the efficiency of the teaching of the country; therefore he looked upon this question not as one of charity, but as one of business. What he would suggest was that they should follow, as far as possible, the existing lines laid down in the Civil Service Pension Scheme. He believed that scheme involved a retiring pension in case of break down, but, any way, as far as possible, let it follow on established lines, and then there would be no heart-
    390
    burning between different classes of public officials. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to an answer by Mr. Hance, the Clerk to the Liverpool School Board, stating that he considered the rates should bear some share in the scheme. In a further question put to Mr. Hance it was elicited that he meant that deductions should be made from the grants, and not that the local rates should contribute. While determining to give a pension they should see that it should not be too lavish, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) would steer clear of life assurance. He desired. to give a cordial support to the Motion.
    SIR A. K. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)desired, before the Debate close 1, to say a few words in favour of the Amendment. What had occurred that night marked a great development in their educational policy, and those interested in education could not but express their great appreciation of the spirit in which the subject had been dealt with, both by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, and also by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Vice President of the Council on Education. They were grateful to the latter gentleman for the small addition which would now be made to the Pension Fund, and which, they hoped, would soon be increased. It might be urged that the teachers ought to make provision for their own requirements from their incomes, but he would point out that 50 per cent of the male teachers had salaries below £100 a year, whilst in the case of the female teachers the salaries were even less.
    MR. CREMERasked, was the House to understand that 50 per cent. of the teachers were paid less than £100 a year?
    SIR A. ROLLITbelieved he was justified in going beyond even that; but he was certainly justified in stating that to the extent of 50 per cent. the salaries, in the case of men were below £100 a year, and in the case of women even less It was clear that, under these circumstances, the teachers were not in a position to make provision for their old age, and the State was therefore bound to undertake the duty of doing so to a considerable extent, especially when the principle of the proposal included a large contribution from the teachers themselves, in the shape of what was really deferred

    391
    pay. If the question of cost were referred to, then that point was by no means one-sided. In other departments of the State—the police, for instance— they made provision for those who sought the detection and punishment of crime. In this case they were now proposing to reward properly those who prevented a very large amount of the crime of the country; and when they remembered also that education was undoubtedly not only a preventive of crime, but some stay against poverty. They made an additional saving when they considered the burden that must otherwise fall in a great measure upon the rates of the country. When they spoke, therefore, of £17,000,000 or even £25,000,000, he said there was another side to the question, and that a far greater saving would be effected by liberality to their teachers. In this matter parsimony was not economy, and that liberality which the House was asked to exercise would be found in the end the truest economy in dealing with this problem. He recognised the great service which voluntary schools and voluntary action had rendered to education in this country, and provision for voluntary school teachers on the same lines as the provision for Board School teachers was most absolutely justified. The House was asked to carry out a well considered Report prepared by educationists of the highest standard, and it had given rise to an expression of opinion from the Treasury Bench, which they hoped would be fruitful, in an educational sense, to the country. On behalf of the teachers he represented he thanked the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment and the Members of the Government for the manner in which they had treated this subject, which was so important to the best interests of the country.
    SIR F. MILNERsaid, there was a consensus of opinion that the claims of the teachers had been too long neglected by Parliament. The opinion was universal that there was no more deserving body of men than were the teachers. As had been truly said, teachers did more towards repressing crime than did the police. As a class they spent their lives in the service of the country, and they were entitled to some consideration when they were worn out. He did not think that sufficient attention had
    392
    been paid to the claims of the teachers who were appointed before 1851. The lot of these teachers was a particularly hard one, and they had been badly treated by Parliament. He contended that on the facts these teachers had an absolute claim to an adequate pension from the Government. In 1846, the Committee of Council on Education passed a resolution—
    "That it was expedient to give pensions to teachers after a certain length of service."
    Shortly afterwards they passed a resolution—
    "That a retiring pension may be granted to any schoolmaster or mistress who shall be rendered incapable by age or infirmity of continuing to teach a school efficiently."
    Such teachers to have been engaged in teaching for 15 years, the pension not to exceed two-thirds of the annual income of the teacher while conducting a school. The object of the Pension Minute was clearly stated in an official letter, dated March 11th, 1847, in these words—
    "My Lords being desirous to offer the strongest inducements to schoolmasters and schoolmistresses to render long and efficient services to the public, have opened the prospect of a retiring pension to this class of teachers."
    Pensions and other direct benefits were, by their Lordships' orders, held out to the best qualified scholars as inducements to become pupil teachers. Thus, in Volume 1, page 34, of the same Minutes they found it stated—
    "Their Lordships request that in their ordinary tour of inspection the Inspectors will avail themselves of the opportunity to inform teachers and scholars of the advantages placed within their reach—namely, an offer of a pension."
    These Pension Minutes were debated in Parliament. They were passed in the House of Commons by 372 votes to 47, and in the Lords without division. Copies of the Minute of 1846 were sent for each apprentice, and a broad sheet, showing the benefits to pupil teachers, had to be fixed in a prominent part of the school, where it could be read by scholars and their parents. On this broad sheet Queen's Scholarships were promised to the best qualified pupil teachers, and appointments in Departments of the Public Service were to be open to the less successful teachers. Thus the less qualified teachers were

    393
    sure of a suitable pension when incapacitated for work. Was it reasonable to suppose that the same benefit was not to be extended to those who showed superior qualifications? It could be proved to demonstration that teachers appointed before 1846 were induced to put forward extra exertions, and to go in for more expensive training on the distinct understanding that eventually they would receive a suitable pension. It was, therefore, a gross breach of faith on the part of Parliament to deprive them of what they were officially promised. It was true that a new Pension Minute was passed in 1851 much to the disadvantage of the teachers. The construction then put upon the 1846 Minute was altogether at variance with the object stated by the Secretary at the time and at variance with the Minute itself. He submitted that the alterations made in 1851 could not injure the claims of those appointed between 1846 and 1851. There was a remarkable fact that for several years after 1851 the Pension Minute of 1846 continued to be sent out to pupil teachers all over the country on their apprenticeship, and no intimation was given that the objects and intentions of the Government to them had undergone serious change, that pensions were to be of small value, wholly uncertain and no longer given as a reward. Thus teachers appointed after 1846, and indeed up to 1860, were also engaged upon the understanding as their predecessors, and such teachers had an absolute claim to a suitable pension. He trusted that Parliament even at this late hour would recognise their plain duty to this most deserving class of men. With regard to the teachers appointed after 1860, their case was somewhat different. They became Civil servants in every sense of the word, and they ought to be treated as such. What had been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Vice President of the Council would give some encouragement to the general body of teachers, and he trusted that serious attention would also be directed to the case of the old teachers appointed before 1846.
    SIR W. HART DYKE: Before this Debate closes, I should like to say a very few words with regard to the discussion which has taken place on the Motion of my hon. Friend.
    394
    I do not think a few hours of the time of Parliament could be very much better employed than in discussing a Motion of this kind, and, Sir, a high compliment has been paid to the cause which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston has so well espoused by the unanimity of the House concerning this very difficult and vexed problem. Our unanimity this evening is almost refreshing, and, Sir, there is only one difficulty which we have to face in drawing this Debate to a conclusion, and it is no new difficulty in this House. We are perfectly unanimous as to the object we have in view, and I have no doubt we shall all go home to-night in a most amiable frame of mind after this discussion, but there will be one thing absent to make our comfort complete—we shall not go home with the money in our pocket to carry out the scheme pourtrayed by my hon. Friend. I do not rise, however, to throw a note of discord into this Debate, for I think that, on the whole, we have no complaint whatever to make of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman met us very fairly, and I say so the more readily because we have some evidence, I think, of his sympathy and that of my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Acland)with the cause we are all espousing. I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes immediately to make some addition to the small annual sum now awarded to these teachers. The right hon. Gentleman has somewhat terrified us by an actuarial calculation which has been made by Her Majesty's Treasury, and has threatened us at starting with an expenditure of £25,000,000. That seems a very terrifying amount, but I do not think that those of us who are anxious to carry our views to a practical end will complain of any scheme that may be ultimately adopted, provided that it fairly and honestly carries out the object we have in view, and carries out those objects quickly. If there is one thing more than another which strikes any man who is in the position of the Vice President of the Council, it is that this is a matter which will not brook delay. What has been the treatment of these unfortunate teachers as regards the question of pension? As my hon. Friend has reminded the House, it is now 47 years ago since promises of a pension were

    395
    actually held out to them under the Minute of 1846, and during this whole period of years this unfortunate body of men and women have been following this Will-o'-the-Wisp of a pension without success, and following a most arduous occupation without the ray of sunlight which might be afforded them if they had a prospect of a small competence in their later years. I wish to press upon the House the necessity of dealing at once with this question of a pension to elementary teachers. I wish to point out how, since 1846, the demands on the teaching community have increased. During the late Parliament we completely transformed our educational system, and in a manner to cast an enormously heavier burden upon these men and women who compose our teaching staff. And what I also want to point out is this: that if it was necessary in 1846 to deal adequately and generously with these teachers—as was stated in evidence before the Royal Commission which considered this question—I say that that necessity has been considerably increased, that an additional strain has been put upon these persons, and that it is tenfold more incumbent upon us now under the new system—and a high-pressure system—in our elementary schools, to frame some scheme or other which will meet these cases of emergency as they may arise. There are two real reasons we ought to consider in urging this case. One is a reason of State, and the other is of a more charitable kind. The House of Commons has been unanimous to-day in the consideration of this difficult problem, and I acknowledge it is a very difficult problem to solve. My right hon. Friend, I know, will need all his energies to solve these difficulties, and I was pleased to hear him say it was impossible to deal with this case piecemeal, and that he must deal at once with all the teachers. There will be not only the cases of the existing and future teachers, but above all I hope he will deal generously with those teachers who break down from over-work and ill-health. I know it has been the habit of the House of Commons—and it is a very practical one—in dealing with all these cases, to search for a precedent before taking action. But to-night we have had the luxury of securing complete unanimity without a single Member of
    396
    the House seeking for any precedent. I think we cannot wonder at this unanimity, because the more we conside what the lives of these teachers are, how constant and incessant their work is, how brain-wearing it is, and how much the future of this country depends, day by clay, and hour by hour, on their successful efforts. I say we cannot be too generous in regard to our dealing with them. My right, hon. Friend has remarked on the list he will soon have to go through in doling out this small pittance to our elementary teachers. There is no sadder or more miserable task for any public man to undertake than to have to go through this list of our elementary teachers and to deal with their claims. The Office which my right hon. Friend holds is one of the pleasantest which a public man can occupy, and the nature of the work and its results will amply repay any man for his efforts. But there is one portion of it which I think is the most miserable and sad that any man can undergo. It is to go through this list and see how few of the teachers out of this small sum of £6,000 can really be assisted when the emergency arises? It is a very sad state of things, indeed, that we have to face when a list of these applications must be gone through; but I am glad the Government have determined to take the matter in hand. It may be that the sum of money to be charged will be a large one; but, as compared with the sum we are prepared to spend on elementary education, it need not be considered very large. I hope the Government will not be niggardly in dealing with this great question, and that they will do their best to carry it to a conclusion.
    SIR RICHARD H. PAGETsaid, they had in the Resolution a reference to a State-aided system, and he trusted there would be no doubt about the meaning of the phrase or as to its intention. The teachers would be glad to learn that it was the intention of the Government to take this matter in hand. He trusted they would do so at once, so that adequate provision might be made for the Public Service. The matter was one that required attention to be drawn to it, and he was gratified at the expressions of sympathy with the teachers that had been heard that night. The teachers would read with the deepest interest the

    397
    proceedings of that evening. They would be rejoiced to know that the Resolution had the support of Her Majesty's Government, and that it was to be passed without a vote being taken. It was a duty absolutely incumbent upon the Government to deal with this matter, because it was one calling for immediate attention. It was only right that those who had the interests of children and of the community in their charge should be encouraged, and that they should be rewarded for services rendered in earlier days when they were able to perform the duties of their office; they should not be allowed to work in a manner which suggested that they had no provision for old age after years of toil. He had noted with satisfaction the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he arrived at a total of £25,000,000.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The figures of the Committee cover £18,000,000, but I did not include a number of contingencies that would have to be provided for.
    SIR R. H. PAGETsaid, he did not quite understand whether the sum indicated by the right hon. Gentleman included the cases which the Committee did not entertain. He would like to see the details. But whatever the sum was, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to go forward with the scheme. Was he prepared? That was the question that would be asked all over the country. He trusted to find before long that a substantial practical measure would be forthcoming, and that it would be carried into law.
    MR. COURTNEY: I have only a few words to say upon this question, which has occupied my attention for the last few years. I cannot recognise as perfectly accurate the accounts which have been given to the House of the position of the teachers? Those teachers who came under the Minute of 1846 had great hopes, and even the certainty of a pension held out to them. But the scheme was modified by the Minute of 1832, which brought the amount of the award to a definite sum, and the teachers suffered a great
    398
    deal of injustice for a long time afterwards. When I was at the Treasury I had the satisfaction of redressing that injustice by admitting the claims of the teachers who came in under the 1846 Minute. It is a mistake, therefore, to assume that these teachers suffer any injustice now. With respect to those who came in subsequently their claims were admitted. I am glad to find from the remarks of the Vice President of the Council that he has been able to admit the second-class teachers, if not to equal benefits, at least to a considerable increase of pension. I would say that that claim is recognised as a matter of expediency. The late Parliament had a very strong feeling against it. I am glad this matter has arisen now, because it illustrates for us the fundamental principle that in the organisation of the Civil Service, if you want an efficient Service you must recognise the necessity of making it efficient by having a system of pensions. It is so with respect to teachers. It is impossible to have an efficient system unless you do this. It is impossible to dismiss a teacher who is past good work unless he has something to fall back upon, and that is the ground, and the great ground, upon which we should agree to allow a teacher to obtain a pension on reaching a certain age. I am pleased to think that my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council —and no man is more competent to deal with educational matters—is going to grapple with the question. Those who pay the piper have a right to call the tune, and if we are to recognise these persons as servants of the State we should be prepared to give the Education Office and the Minister in charge of it some control over them. It seems to me that the step about to be taken does not appear to be fully comprehended. It is, however, a step which will revolutionise the whole system, and I may conclude by saying that it has my hearty approval.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, the matter which they were discussing was now treated in a much more liberal spirit than it was last year. It was, in his opinion, just as important to provide for teachers suffering from bad health, and who were obliged to retire from overwork, as for those who were

    399
    entitled to retire at a certain age. This was a matter which he had tried (unsuccessfully) to urge upon the Committee of which he was a Member last year, who had considered the question of Teachers' Pensions. He hoped it would receive the favourable consideration of the Government. If people were allowed to struggle on trying to teach when they were unable to do so, they would bring injury upon themselves and upon their families, and, of course, it followed that the Public Service would suffer also. He congratulated the hon. Member who had brought forward the Resolution on the success which he had attained, and hoped the matter would receive immediate attention from the Government.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a National State-aided system of Superannuation for Teachers in Public Elementary Schools in England and Wales should be established at an early date.
    SUPPLY—Committee upon Monday next.

  SEAMEN'S PROVISION BILT,.-—(No. 191.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    COLONEL SIR E. S. HILL (Bristol, S.): I have no objection to the principle of this Bill. Sailors should be properly fed, and this should not be left to chance. The scale in the Bill was not more liberal than had been used for years by many ships. But what I do object to is, that this Bill, affecting the vast shipping interests of the country, should be attempted to be rushed through Parliament without giving any opportunity for consideration. The Bill in question was only printed on Saturday, and could not possibly be in the hands of output shipowners till Monday at earliest, and
    400
    it was put down for Second Reading on Tuesday. This is to treat shipowners with very scant respect, and I hope the hon. Member in charge of the Bill will not press for the Second Reading until due time for consideration has been given.
    MR. J. H. WILSONhoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his objection. The Bill was brought in by the shipowners themselves. The Shipowner's Committee was in perfect agreement with it.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): The Board of Trade has no objection to the Bill.
    MR. J. H. WILSONsaid, the Bill was promoted by shipowners themselves, and ought not to be objected to.
    MR. COSMO BONSORasked that it should be allowed to stand for a week.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  COINAGE (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 221.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid, in reference to this Bill, he should like to know whether the sum required for the purposes of the Bill would appear on the Estimates?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The sum required for the purposes of this Bill will be payable out of the Consolidated Fund and will not appear on the Estimates.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

MOTIONS.
  POST OFFICE (ABERDEEN AND THE SHETLAND ISLANDS MAIL CONTRACT).

    RESOLUTION.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Contract dated the 11th day of November, 1892, entered in to with the North of Scotland and Orkney and Shetland Steam Navigation Company, for the performance of the Mail Service between Aberdeen and the Shetland Islands, be approved."—(Sir John Hibbert.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)said, he did not wish to object to the Contract, but he did think that they should not her so much about objections to the extension of postal privileges to other portions of the Kingdom. He did not know why Shetland should be favoured whilst other portions of the Three Kingdoms were told that they should not have adequate facilities on the ground of expense.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I admit that in all cases of this kind the matter should be fairly considered and fairly dealt with. The hon. and learned Gentleman probably refers to Wexford. [Mr. T. M. HEALY assented.] I can assure him that the circumstances differ; but I shall be happy to consider any case upon its own merits.
    Motion agreed to.

  POST OFFICE (ADEN AND ZANZIBAR MAIL CONTRACT).
  Resolved, That the Contract dated the 18th day of November, 1892, entered into with the British India Steam Navigation Company, for the performance of the Mail Service between Aden and Zanzibar, be approved.—(Sir John Hibbert.)

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR)(NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Seymour King, Bill to shorten the Hours of Labour of Railway Servants, ordered to be brought in by Sir Seymour King,
  402
  Sir John Gorst, Mr. Webster, Mr. Butcher, Mr. Cayzer, and Mr. Agg-Gardner.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 226.]

  LICENSING REFORM BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Henry Roscoe, Bill to amend the Law relating to Licences for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors, ordered to be brought in by Sir Henry Roscoe, Mr. Jacob Bright, Mr. Crosfield, Mr. Leake, Mr. Mather, and Mr. Roundell.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 227.]

  BOARDS OF CONCILIATION BILL.
  On Motion of Sir John Lubbock, Bill to confer additional powers on Boards of Conciliation and Arbitration, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Charles Fenwick, Mr. Howell, Mr. Mather, Mr. Montagu, Sir Francis Powell, and Sir Albert Rollit.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 228.]

  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES APPOINTMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Lloyd Morgan. Bill to enable County Councils to provide for the appointment of Stipendiary Magistrates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lloyd Morgan, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Lockwood, Mr. Philipps, and Mr. Abel Thomas.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 229.]

  HANDLOOM WEAVERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Colonel Saunderson, Bill to amend the Law relating to H andloom Weavers in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Colonel Saunderson, Colonel Waring, Mr. O'Neill, and Mr. Macartney.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 230.]

  PUBLIC HOUSES, HOURS OF CLOSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Dr. Cameron, Bill to amend "The Public Houses, Hours of Closing (Scotland) Act, 1887," ordered to be brought in by Dr. Cameron, Mr. M'Lagan, Mr. John Wilson (Govan), Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Leng.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 231.]

  POLICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 105.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 96.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  BARBED WIRE FENCES BILL.—(No. 176.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL (FINANCIAL EFFECT.)
  Copy ordered—
  "Of the Return showing the effect of the Financial Proposals in the Government of Ireland Bill as regards Ireland, on the basis of the Estimated Revenue and Expenditure for 1892–3."—(Sir John Hibbert.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 91.]

  HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  Return ordered—
  "Showing the names of all present Members of the House of Commons who are in receipt of public money from the National Exchequer, whether in the form of salary, pay, pension, or allowance of any kind, or who have received commutation in respect thereof, under the Commutation Acts, with separate columns showing the names of the constituencies for which they sit, the amounts they receive or have commuted, with the amount of the commutation money, and the name of the office or nature of the service for which the money is or has been paid (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 396, of Session 1888)."—(Mr. Fenwick.)

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1893–4.
  Memorandum on Estimates,—Paper [presented 23rd February] to be printed. [No. 90.]
  RAILWAY RATES.
  Copy presented,—of Lists handed by the Secretary of Railway Companies' Association to the President of the Board of Trade, showing Articles which are charged at Rates other than the Ordinary Class Rates [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHTHOUSE ILLUMINANTS.
  Return presented, — relative thereto [ordered 14th February; Mr. Clancy]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, — of Alteration of Rules of Procedure under the Army Act, 1881 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FINANCIAL RELATIONS (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
  Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 10th February; Mr. Clancy; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE MARKS PROTECTION (COMMERCIAL, No. 1, 1893).
  Copy presented,—of Despatch from Her Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Berlin, inclosing a German Draft Bill for the Protection of Trade Marks [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL) (NEWFOUNDLAND).
  Copy presented,—of Annual Report for 1891, No. 67 (Newfoundland)(in continuation of Colonial Report (Annual)(No. 34) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

TRADE UNION PROVIDENT FUNDS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next. —(The Lord Chancellor.) (No. 21.)
House adjourned at half past Four o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.