Sitting of 28 August 1895

Preamble
The House met at Ten minutes after Three of the Clock.
LONDON LOCAL, ELECTIONS (VESTRYMEN).
Return [presented 27th August] to be printed.—[No. 402.]
LONDON LOCAL ELECTIONS (GUARDIANS).
Return [presented 27th August] to be printed.—[No. 437.]
ALLOTMENT ACTS (ACQUISITION OF LAND BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
Return [presented 27th August] to be printed.—[No. 438.]
VAGRANTS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Return [presented 27th August] to be printed.—[No. 439].
DEATHS (STARVATION, &c.) (COUNTY OF LONDON.)
Return presented—relative thereto [Address 9th May 1895; Mr Talbot]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.— [No. 440.]

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1893–4.
Committee to consider the Savings and Deficiencies upon Navy and Army Grants for 1893–4, and the temporary sanction obtained from the Treasury by the Navy and Army Departments to the Expenditure not provided for in the grants for that year, upon Friday.
Ordered, That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy and Army Departments, which were presented upon the 13th and 14th days of February last respectively, be referred to the Committee.—[Mr. Hanbury.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  Mr. J. W. LOWTHER in the Chair.
  (In the Committee.)

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1895–6.

  CLASS III.
  Vote of £34,408, to complete the sum for Law Charges—agreed to.
  On the Vote of £21,932, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Legal Expenses.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he was obliged to call attention to this Vote. The Wreck Commission, which was included in it, was entirely out of date. In fact it did not exist. As far as he could make out the staff consisted of two clerks, and what they did he could not imagine. He supposed they represented the glory of past days and prayed for their revival. There was no work to be done, and no work was actually done. If the Committee would refer to page 205 they would find that there was exactly the same sum put down as last year for the Wreck Commission, and yet the work of the Commission was done by the Magistrates. It was high time to put an end to this shadow of a shade. He did not complain of the fees to the Magistrates; they did the work and were entitled to them. Why was this Wreck Commission kept up, and what were these two clerks doing?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,)said, one of the clerks was charged with the preparation of claims to be placed before the Magistrates, the preparation of estimates, Slave Trade Reports, and so on. He was also Registrar of the Court of Survey for the London district. With regard to the junior clerks—
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then thereare three clerks?
  MR. HANBURYsaid, there had been only two since 1890. One of them acted as Clerk to the Court, checking the Magistrates' charges, and the other gave assistance in the general work of the office.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that would not do, for there was a separate item for the Clerk of the Court. Why was this shadow of a shade kept up in order, apparently, to provide for three clerks at high salaries, for one of them had a salary of £600 a year. One of the clerks was told off, they were told, to check the Magistrates' charges. Surely if a Magistrates' charges required checking they did not require to keep up a Commission to do it. It was simply an imposture. It was not right to keep up the machinery of an institution, which had been allowed to lapse, solely in order to provide for these clerks. It was a skeleton establishment, and he did hope his hon. Friend would give the Committee an assurance that he would look into this matter, and abolish these offices.
  MR. HANBURY: Of course I promise to look into it. I see that the Treasury have already had their eye on it, for there is a star against the salaries of these clerks, which means that the Treasury is observing the matter. I will see whether these men are necessary or not.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITcomplained that the conditions of Extradition Laws were too strict, enabling criminals who ought to be punished to escape. They neither wanted nor ought to want to show great tenderness with regard to criminals, who ought to be surrendered by every civilised country, and Extradition Treaties ought to be made with all civilised countries. They had now a case of the miscarriage of Extradition Law with France, operating most unjustly towards a defendant, but, as he gathered from the Chairman he ought not to go into that, he would pass on to a few remarks which he wished to make with regard to the Railway Commission. He hoped the Treasury, or the President of the Board of Trade, would look into the cases brought before this Tribunal, because they were most suggestive of the
  1004
  lines on which legislation should proceed. He held that commercial interests were not adequately protected and watched by the Commission, for while the legal interest was represented, and there was one gentleman on the Commission who was an ex-chairman of a railway company, trade and commerce had no representation. As to the third member of the Commission he would say nothing, but he urged that some means should be found of placing on the Commission someone possessing real practical knowledge of commercial affairs, a quality in which the Commission was lamentably wanting. He thought that in this way they might improve the efficiency of the Commission, as by making it less formal and technical and expensive, and more accessible in its procedure. He should like to ask whether the rules of the Civil Service applied to the Railway and Canal Commission, and whether the principle of superannuation could not be applied in this case. Recently there had been argued before the Commission a most important case, dealing with a preference given to foreign traders, in which it was held that there was a justifiable reduction of the rate. He thought there were many cases in this direction which demanded the attention of the Government. There was another case involving, not a direct but an indirect increase of rates, the weight carried for the same amount being reduced from 21 cwt. to 20 cwt., a point which he had endeavoured to anticipate in his unsuccessful Amendment to the Railway Rates Bill. These and other matters required meeting.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESdissented from the remarks of his hon. Friend as to extradition, which should, in his opinion, be most jealously guarded. As to these Commissions, he thought that in setting them up a most important principle had been infringed. He wished to protest against the principle involved by the appointment of these Commissions, because it appeared to him that they were opposed to the ordinary course of law and that their appointment suggested that the ordinary tribunals of the country were not competent to deal with the matters in dispute that were referred to them. He disapproved of these Commissions on the ground that they were unconstitutional.
  MR. S. GEDGE*MR. S. GEDGE (Walsall) rose to a point of order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member was not out of order in referring to these commissions as unconstitutional, when the Commissions in question were constituted by Act of Parliament.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is so. But on the other hand it is open to the hon. Gentleman to move to reduce the Vote, and as long as that course is open to him the hon. Member cannot be prevented from going into the question of the usefulness of these Commissions.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that he could only repeat his protest against the appointment of these Commissions.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he did not think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks with regard to this Commission would be generally accepted, because one of the main reasons for appointing the Commission was to take away from the ordinary courts of law the business which was referred to the Commission, who were more capable of dealing with it, by reason of the fact that it included men connected with the mercantile world. The idea was that the ordinary courts of law were not properly qualified to deal with that business. With regard to the complaint, that had been made by the hon. Member for West Islington as to the small amount of work which the Commission performed, he was informed that a large part of the work done, was done outside and not inside the Court. For instance, a large part of the work performed by the Commission was that of settling agreements entered into between railway companies, and that was always done out of Court. As to the complaint which had been made by the hon. Member for South Islington with reference to one of the Members of the Commission on account of his age, he thought that the hon. Gentleman had been rather hard upon the gentleman in question.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid, that he had intended to speak generally as to the necessity for the laying down of some rule with regard to age. He wished to know whether there was any rule under which Members of the Commission could be required to retire after a certain number of years service.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, that he understood that the Commissioners were in
  1006
  the position of Judges, and held their office during good behaviour.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the Commissioner's were irremovable.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, that the Commissioners were removable by the Lord Chancellor only in case of inability to discharge their duties or for misbehaviour.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISasked what was the amount of work which the Commissioners did out of Court.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,)said, that for many years past a large number of agreements had been entered into between railway companies, and those had to be considered out of Court by the Commissioners. There was also a large amount of other work which they performed, which did not come before the Commissioners in Court.
  MR. LEWISasked whether the duties discharged by the Commissioners were equal to these discharged by a County Court Judge.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERALsaid, that a considerable amount, of labour was imposed upon the Commissioners.
  Vote of,£177,858, to complete the sum for Supreme Court of Judicature—agreed to.
  Vote of £ 4,074, to complete the sum for Land Registry—agreed to.
  Vote of £15,800 to complete the sum for County Courts—agreed to.
  On the Vote of £2,663, to complete the sum for the Police Courts of London and Sheerness,
  DR. CLARKremarked that the late Government had promised to bring in a Bill dealing with this subject, and therefore he wished to know why the Vote appeared in the Estimates in its present form.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY,)said, that the hon. Gentleman was correct. It was intended to introduce a Bill, and a Bill was, in fact, introduced and printed, and was before Parliament during last Session. When he himself

  1007
  took office, it was considered, and it was found impossible to pass the Bill during the present Session. The matter was, however, under his consideration.
  MR. T. LOUGHdrew attention to the arrangement of business in the Police Courts of London. A great many Members of the working classes and other poor people at present lost a great deal of time through not knowing when particular classes of business would be taken. A good deal of evidence was given at the Departmental Committee which sat at the Home Office last year. It had been suggested whether it would not be well to arrange for a special court to deal with the small questions arising out of traffic. That was, however, found to be rather a strong order, and it was suggested that, if these cases could be taken on one day and at one hour, it would meet the difficulty. There was now a precedent for this in School Board cases, which were taken at a particular hour. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the recommendations of the Committee with regard to a special hour being fixed for these cases had been carried out?
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid, he was afraid he could not give any information on that point. Of course, the difficulty was much greater in the Metropolitan Police Courts than in the City of London itself. It would be impossible to take all the cases in one Court, but he would do his best to meet the convenience of the people concerned; and, if the hon. Member would communicate with him, he would do what he could to meet him.
  MR. H. J. WILSONasked for information as to Police Matrons.
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid, that a great deal of progress had been made, but the proposed arrangements had been hindered owing to the want of accommodation. The matter had not been lost sight of.
  MR. H. J. WILSONsaid, that they had been told that it was a question of accommodation by successive Governments, and what they now wanted to know was, not merely that it was a matter which had not been lost sight of, but that it was being pressed forward.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, that the necessity of attending
  1008
  these summonses put the poor people to great inconvenience. He thought in these matters we might borrow a leaf from the books of the Swiss Republic. He and a friend, a Judge of one of the inferior Courts, were summoned for bathing in one of the Swiss lakes without pants, and, at the foot of the summons served upon them, appeared an intimation that, if payment of the small fine mentioned were made to the gendarme who served it, they need not attend upon the summons. He thought something of that kind might be done here.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vote of £37,507 to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Police,
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILLcomplained that the annual Report had not yet been received. They had had a reconstruction of the Criminal Statistics for England, and this made it desirable that the Criminal Statistics for the Metropolis should be assimilated. He desired to ask a question with regard to a late police officer, Colonel Roberts, who was one of the chief constables. It was stated in the Police Orders that he had been dismissed the Service; but the next day that was superseded by a further notification in the Police Orders that he had been permitted to resign. He desired to ask whether the object of that change was to give a pension to Colonel Roberts? If so, he should protest against it. The case of the Police Matrons came more properly under this Vote than under the last one. At the Police Courts, where women were detained only during the day, the absence of a matron was not so important, yet these Courts were already provided with matrons; whereas, at Police Stations, where women were kept during the night, there were no matrons. This was an anomaly which he had been pressing upon the Home Office for a long time. There was, he believed, no civilised country in the world where women were detained during the night in custody of men. He did not ask that a matron should be provided at every police station; but he suggested that the

  1009
  system in operation in Chicago should be adopted, namely, that there should be a certain number of central stations throughout the Metropolis, each provided with a matron, and that women should be detained only at one of such stations during the night.
  MR. LOUGHsaid, that a very interesting change was apparent in this Estimate. He referred to the identification of habitual criminals. The Committee ought to have some information as to this item of £1,072. He asked for some particulars upon the work that these officers had done, and whether the right hon. Gentleman considered that, on the whole, they had justified their existence? He also urged that the present system of small fines upon police officers for slight derelictions of duty caused discontent among the men of the Force, and were, moreover, oppressive. He should be glad to hear a promise from the right hon. Gentleman to look into this question. He would also like to know whether the new arrangement, promised last year by the late Home Secretary (Mr. Asquith), in regard to police boots had been carried out. He would call attention to the case of an inspector who was rather hardly dealt with last year in regard to pension. Six months before he would have retired he was reduced to the rank of constable. The late Home Secretary gave the man some facilities to test his right to the larger pension in a Court of Law. He wished to ask what had been done in the matter?
  DR. CLARKsaid that one of these Assistant Commissioners received a salary of £800 and that in addition he received two other salaries, one of £300 and one of £150, and now it was proposed to make him the head of the new department with a further salary of £100 per annum. In his view one Assistant Commissioner, if he did his work in that capacity properly, ought to devote his whole time to it. He did not say that the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for this proposal, but at all events, the Government were asking the Committee to agree to the Vote which included this additional salary of £100 per annum. He asked the Committee to express their disapproval of this appointment. He should like to know who was responsible for this proposal.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLTTsaid that every hon. Member in the House must approve of an endeavour to identify habitual criminals, which was frequently a very difficult thing to do. No doubt the cost of this new department appeared to be very large, but it was most useful in the administration of justice. He should like to know whether the scientific adviser of the department would give his whole time to that work or whether he would only occasionally be employed? With regard to the small fines imposed upon the police, the practice of exacting those fines had given rise to considerable discontent in the Force both in London and in the provincial towns, and it should be limited as was now very much the case in private businesses. He believed, from the information he had received, that the change in the practice with regard to the manner of supplying boots to the police, which he had helped to effect, had been received with general satisfaction. He sympathised with what had fallen from the hon. Member for West Islington in connection with the treatment which the Islington Inspector had received, and there was a strong and general feeling on this subject.
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid with regard to the Report of the Commissioner of Police, he was not prepared to state whether it had been presented on a later day than usual.
  MR. LOUGH: It has been delayed longer than is usual.
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid, in that case he could not give any reason at that moment for the delay in the presentation of the Report, which had only recently reached him in draft. He had been asked a question with regard to the manner in which the vacancy caused by the resignation of Colonel Roberts was to be filled up. The fact was that the affairs of that officer had got into such a state that he had come to the conclusion that he ought no longer to be allowed to occupy his post, and he had directed that an order should be made for his dismissal. Colonel Roberts, however, had been allowed to resign at his own request, but there was no idea of granting him an allowance or a gratuity of any kind. With regard to the question of maintenance of police stations, he was very much inclined to agree with

  1011
  the views of the hon. Gentleman who had brought the subject forward. His attention had been called to the new department for the identification of habitual criminals. The matter had originated in this way. In October, 1893, the attention of his predecessor in office had been called to a particular method of identifying habitual criminals which had been introduced into France, and in the beginning of 1894 it was recommended that the system should be adopted in England. The system had since been adopted in London, and Dr. Galton had been appointed to carry out the system, subject to a reconsideration of his appointment by the Treasury at the end of three years. The work had been put under the charge of the Assistant Commissioner, who had been referred to, and it was not unreasonable that that gentleman, who had had extra work imposed upon him, should receive an additional salary of,£100 a year in respect of that extra work. He hoped that before long that Department would be amalgamated with the ordinary Criminal Department.
  MR. LOUGHasked whether this system of the identification of habitual criminals would be applied to all such criminals throughout the country.
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY: Yes, it will be applied in the case of criminals all over England. The details of the sum of £1,072 asked for were these: £600 a year would be paid to the scientific Director of the Department, £372 would be paid for the services of a police sergeant arid constable, and £100 would be paid to the Assistant Commissioner. He was unable to give an answer to the hon. Member for West Islington with regard to the case of the Islington Inspector, but if the hon. Member would be good enough to give him the name of the Inspector in question, he would make enquiries into the subject. He was not prepared at that moment to make any statement with regard to the boot question. He would see what could be done in the matter of the small fines imposed upon the police.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had not given any answer to the question of the hon. Member for South Islington whether the scientific adviser of the new Department
  1012
  would give the whole or only a portion of his time to the work of the Department.
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY: He will give his whole time to the matter.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that that was quite satisfactory. He wished to know whether the additional powers conferred upon the police in connection with the regulation of the traffic of London applied to bicycles. The riders of those machines frequently broke the rule of the road and rode away without giving their names and addresses. He thought that some steps should be taken, either by way of compulsory registration or by having the name and address of the owner panted upon the machines to identify the riders who were guilty of offences against the law.
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYpromised to consider the matter. No doubt there would be great advantage in regulating the use of bicycles.
  DR. CLARKasked how many hours the Assistant Commissioner referred to gave to his regular duties, and how many he would be expected to devote to the duties of his new office. Unless they received some information from the right hon. Gentleman as to what it was intended should be done to do away with this system of pluralism, he should take the opinion of the House on the subject. He moved the reduction of the Vote.
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid, the whole question was now under the consideration of the Home Office, and it was intended to remove the Criminal Reporter from the, Home Office to the Department of Criminal Investigation. The result would be, as he had stated before, that this Registrar of Criminals would be moved with very great advantage to the carrying on of the work, and he hoped there would be a consolidation of that Department with the new Department which was constituted under this Vote. He could assure the hon. Member that he had every confidence that the gentleman in this office would be able to do the work thrown on him, and that ultimately, in a year or two, there would be considerable economy in that office.
  MR. PICKERSGILLhoped that his hon. Friend would not persist in his

  1013
  Motion, for if he did he should feel it to be his duty to support this official, who was admirably qualified for all these duties.
  DR. CLARKsaid, he did not propose to take away any of the work he now discharged.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw?
  DR. CLARK: No. This gentleman held three offices, and he was totally opposed to his being placed at the head of a new Department. It was a new Department, and he should take the opinion of the Committee upon it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vote of £623,000 for the expenses of Prisons in England and the Colonies,
  MR. T. M. HEALYexpressed his wish to say something about the treatment of Irish prisoners in English prisons. He had carefully studied the Report of the Departmental Committee, but it did not directly deal with the treatment of those prisoners. Some five years ago they got a Commission to report on their condition and treatment, and it undoubtedly disclosed that several of these men were affected in their minds. He had also seen some of the prisoners, and he thought the Government would be well advised if, in the cases of men who were suffering for exceptional offences, who did not belong to the ordinary run of criminals, and who felt their punishment acutely, they allowed someone more skilled in mental disorders than a prison doctor to examine these men. Everyone knew the humanity of doctors, but there was naturally enough in the prison doctor an inclination to treat the vagaries or apparent vagaries of prisoners as a sham. He instanced the case of Flanagan, who attracted no notice except that he was shamming. He had no doubt that those prisoners to whom he specially referred were gradually sinking in the direction of insanity. The present Government should take an independent view. They would not be attacked from the Liberal Benches if they adopted a policy of clemency. It was significant that the only
  1014
  man released had died within a short period after his release. These men had not been sentenced to insanity. The Italian prisoners sentenced for these offences were in a different category. They had no grievances against England, whose hospitality they enjoyed, and he could say nothing in their favour ; but if one of them were afflicted in his mind he Would raise his voice for mercy. For the Irish prisoners he asked for medical clemency. Prison discipline worked more severely upon the minds of educated men than on others, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would cast a clement eye on these prisoners, and grant some modification of their punishment.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, the Committee appointed to investigate our system of prison discipline had made recommendations which if they were carried out would practically revolutionise our prison system. He did not desire to press the Home Secretary generally with regard to these recommendations, though any declaration of his attitude with regard to them would be received with the greatest interest by the country at large. There were, however, one or two points of pressing importance in the Report which he desired to bring specially under the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The first had reference to the dietary, not its quality but its quantity. There seemed to be absolutely irresistible evidence that, in regard to prisoners sentenced to short terms of hard labour, the present dietary in prisons did not afford sufficient sustenance. It lowered the vitality of prisoners, and he had been assured by persons who had been in prison that one of the most painful features of this punishment was the absolute gnawing of hunger to which they were subjected. He hoped, therefore, that the question of dietary, which was referred to in the Report of the Committee, would receive the early attention of the right hon. Gentleman. Then, it was perfectly clear from the evidence that the staff of warders was insufficient. This was shown by the fact that, at the date of the Report, Sunday exercise had been intermitted. No reason was alleged for failing to give Sunday excercise except that the staff of warders was insufficient, and that this was the only means by which they could get a proper holiday.

  1015
  The Committee made some very strong observations on the question of unconvicted prisoners. He had long thought that the treatment of these prisoners was little short of scandalous. It was supposed to be a maxim of law in this country that a man was innocent until he was proved guilty, but, so far as the treatment of unconvicted prisoners was concerned, we certainly seemed not only to ignore but absolutely reverse this salutary maxim. The Committee passed a very severe censure on the Executive Authority in this matter. The 39th Section of the Prisons Act, 1877, directed that special rules for the treatment of unconvicted prisoners should be made, and that these rules—
  "are to be drawn in such a manner as to make the imprisonment of these persons as little as possible oppressive, due regard only being had to their safe custody."
  The Committee, in their Report, said—
  'We cannot think this provision has been adequately carried out."
  He hoped the subject would receive the early attention of the right hon. Gentleman. Then there was the question of the treatment of weak-minded prisoners. The Committee recommended that these prisoners should be concentrated as far as possible in special prisons, and that the question tion should be considered whether it was right to treat such persons as ordinary criminals. But the Committee were apparently ignorant of a certain statutory power with regard to the treatment of weak-minded prisoners that already existed. Section 12 of the Criminal Lunatics Act of 1884 enabled the Secretary of State to make regulations for the treatment of persons sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment, who appeared to be from imbecility unfit for the same discipline as other prisoners, but so far as he had been able to discover that enactment had remained a dead letter. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to give his careful consideration to the subject, with a view to making such regulations as the Statute contemplated. There was another question to which he desired to invite the attention of the right hon. Gentlemen, and that was the treatment in prison of persons convicted, not of
  1016
  serious crimes, but of mere technical offences. He cited the case of the Salvationists who were from time to time convicted of obstruction. It was in evidence before a Parliamentary Committee that some Salvationists who had been convicted of a technical obstruction of the highway, and who, failing to pay the fine, were imprisoned for seven days without hard labour, were subjected to the following treatment:—They were stripped and bathed, they were weighed naked, and were examined for marks on their persons; their hair was cropped; they were put in prison clothes, and they were compelled to sleep on plank beds. To treat in that way respectable persons who had been guilty merely of a technical offence was little short of a public scandal. He desired to make a practical suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. Apart from any reform of the law, Executive action might be taken to mitigate the harshness to which he had referred. The 67th Section of the Prisons Act of 1865 provides that prisoners convicted of misdemeanour and not sentenced to hard labour should be divided into at least two divisions. Under that Statute the Executive might constitute any number of divisions, but only one special class had been created, namely, misdemeanants of the first division. It seemed to him that it was quite within the competence of the Executive to constitute a class between the first division misdemeanants and the ruck of prisoners sentenced without hard labour. That would enable the present authorities to deal with Salvationists and other respectable persons of a similar class, who, from conscientious motives or otherwise, offended against the law, without outraging public opinion by subjecting them to such treatment as he had recited.
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONexpressed the hope that the Home Secretary would consider the grievances of prison clerks, who had been called into the service on the basis of a Civil Service examination, and led to expect that they would have a chance of obtaining positions of greater emolument, and whose expectations had, in consequence of changes, never been realised. He asked whether it was the policy of the Home Office to continue the system of governing prisons under chief warders.
  MR. LOUGHsaid, he attached the greatest importance to the treatment of prisoners when they were about to be discharged. Their object, he took it, was not so much to persecute and punish as to reform the criminal. The Committee, in their Report, recommended that facilities should be given to properly constituted Prisoners' Aid Societies, and recognised by the Government, to see prisoners for a week or two before their discharge. He desired to know whether these facilities had been given, or what steps were to be taken in the matter. Then it was recommended that the grant which the Government gave to some of these societies should be increased. He would like to know whether the Home Secretary was favourable to the policy of increasing that grant? He would like to see the Government take a part in this matter and provide some economical hotel or lodging house where an unfortunate individual might go when released from prison and spend a few days, protected from the temptations to which he would otherwise be exposed. There was another matter of great importance into which the Committee went at great length, and that was the question of prison labour. It had been announced on behalf of the Government that they had addressed a remonstrance to Foreign Governments on the question. He found from this Vote that productive labour was carried on in English prisons to at least the extent of £15,000 a year. The Committee said that they did not consider there was any objection to prison labour if it was carried on under due and proper restrictions, and was of a reproductive character; and they suggested that care should be taken that the price at which prison-made goods were sold should not cause unfair competition, and that the special circumstances of any particular trade should be taken into account, so that labour in prisons should not unnecessarily interfere with labour outside. He wanted the Home Secretary to tell him what his policy was with regard to this matter. He wished also to call attention to the treatment of warders. He believed that the hours of warders were 74 per week, and he thought that was too much for them to work, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether their hours could
  1018
  not be reduced. The Report of the Committee stated that the work of the warders had been done consistently well. Surely, therefore, their services required recognition to the extent of seeing that they were fairly treated. Many prisons were undermanned, and the Committee reported especially that there were too few female warders in almost all the prisons, and that their number ought to be increased from 5 to 7 per cent. Warders also complained that when they were ill they had to use the same hospital as the prisoners, and that, in his opinion, was little short of a scandal. Finally, he noticed an increased amount for buildings and repairs, and he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the whole expenditure was provided for under this year's Vote, or whether the increase was likely to be permanent?
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had asked him, with reference to the prisoners in whom he was interested, to pay particular attention to that matter. He had already undertaken, at an earlier period of the Session, to inquire for himself, not only into the condition of these prisoners, but to investigate the whole question connected with them in order to satisfy himself that they were being properly punished and treated. He did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman could expect him to say more than that, he should do what his predecessor did, namely, look into everyone of these cases, both from the medical point of view, and also from the point of view of criminality, in order to ascertain whether it was possible that the Crown should exercise clemency in their cases. The hon Gentleman the Member for Bethnal Green had called attention to the very valuable Report of the Departmental Committee, and the hon. Gentleman who followed him had alluded to some of the very important questions with which the Committee dealt. He did not think the hon. Gentleman would expect him to go in detail into the points enumerated by him. He had only just received an exhaustive Report from the Prison Commissioners dealing with everyone of the recommendations made by the Departmental Committee, and he was not yet able to say, with reference to any particular point, how he proposed to

  1019
  deal with it. The Report of the Commissioners dealt most sympathetically with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. Many of those recommendations he proposed to carry out immediately, but there were a number of others which could only be carried out with the assent of the Treasury, inasmuch as they involved a considerable amount of expenditure. In that category would be included any increase in the number of warders, or any decrease in the hours worked by them. With regard to the case of weak-minded prisoners, which had been referred to, their case was a very difficult one. It was one of the most difficult the Prison Commissioners had to deal with, because of the difficulty and expense of finding accommodation for these prisoners. The hon. Member for Preston had asked about prison clerks. Their grievance was, and he believed it was an admitted grievance, that when they went in for their examination they were charged a fee of £3, which was supposed to imply a possibility of their rising to posts carrying a salary of £450. It was true that they would get into a class in the ordinary course of promotion from which such appointments might be filled, but the chance of their attaining to one was very remote, and, therefore, the Treasury acknowledged the impropriety of charging them a fee of £3, and, in future, they would only be charged £1. The hon. Gentleman also asked him about the appointment of prison warders. That was one of the points dealt with by the Departmental Committee, and was referred to at considerable length by the Prison Commissioners. It involved a very difficult question of money, and he was not now able to enter into it. He, however, was afraid it would prove too costly to move in the direction suggested by the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman opposite had asked him about Prisoners' Aid Societies. He was most anxious to see a development of Prisoners' Aid Societies, and he approved the recommendation of the Committee that it would be well to endeavour to enlist the efforts of Visiting Justices and Visiting Committees generally in favour of discharged prisoners. There would be on his part a strong inclination to do everything that was possible to maintain and develop the Aid
  1020
  Societies. Upon the question of productive labour, the Departmental Committee spoke very strongly. The idea of the Committee—an idea which it was intended to carry out as far as possible—was that, whilst prison labour must be to a great extent penal, it was better both for the prisoners and the community that they should do work that would have some result, instead of wasting their time on oakum-picking or the crank. In accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, efforts would be made to increase the amount of productive labour under the conditions which must govern the circumstances. The complaint respecting the hospital accommodation for warders he could not meet at present, the matter being one of detail.
  MR. J. M. PAULTONasked whether it would not be advisable to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Prison Commissioners upon the Departmental Committee's Report. He was aware that the Commissioners' Report was a confidential document, and that it was not usual to lay reports of that kind upon the Table; but having regard to the great importance of the subject, he hoped the right hon. Member would see his way to lay the Report, or at any rate some portions of it, upon the Table.
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid, if he presented the Report at all, he must present the whole of it. He could not exercise a discretion and select portions of it. It was not usual to publish the comments of a Department on the Report of a Departmental Committee, even when the Report of the Departmental Committee had itself been made public. He, of course, recognised the extreme importance of this question, and if he could see his way to make the Report public, he should be glad to do so. He could not say more than that, the course proposed being unusual.
  Vote agreed to.
  Vote of £131,003, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain—agreed to.
  Vote of £18,177, to complete the sum for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum—agreed to.

  CLIASS IV.
  On the vote of £3,335,485, to complete the sum for Public Education, in England and Wales, including Expenses of the Education Office in London,
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid, that he wished to express his satisfaction with the appointment of the right hon. Member for Cambridge University to the office of Vice-President. He was a Gentleman whose sympathies with the working classes had long been recognised, and although in his present office; he might not have the opportunity of taking an active interest in those social reforms with which his mime had been so largely identified, yet in the domain of national education he would find a very large field in which he could render material assistance to the children of the working classes, and through them to the nation at large. On this Vote there was a large item for annual grants to Day Schools; and he must protest against the principle on which these grants had been made from the commencement. On more than one occasion the House had condemned the principle of the administration of these grants—it had condemned the whole system commonly known as payment by results. He admitted that a large part of the evil attending the administration upon that principle had been got rid of; but there was still too much of it left. He contended that the results attainable in Elementary Schools could not be properly tested and adequately rewarded by the methods still in vogue. The system followed in elementary education was not adopted in either the legal profession or the medical profession. He now took the earliest opportunity of protesting against the continuance of the system, and of expressing a hope that we were within a reasonable distance of its total abolition. He wished to ask the Vice-President whether he could give an assurance that an earnest and prompt endeavour would be made by the Department to meet the present depressed condition of many Voluntary Schools. The question had occupied the attention of the Electorate during the last few weeks, and great interest had been shown in it. We had in England and Wales some 15,000 Voluntary Schools. A plea might be
  1022
  made up for them on the ground that they had been in existence for a number of years. He might also plead for them on the ground that the supporters of Church schools had since 1811 been contributing £9,000 per week towards their support. But he waived these; considerations, and he put the claims of the schools on the ground that they were meeting national requirements almost completely. These schools were superior to Board Schools, in so far as they met the distinct wishes of our people for religious instruction; and, on the secular side, these Church of England or other Denominational Schools were doing exactly the same work as our Board Schools. Considering the difficulties under which the Voluntary Schools laboured, the results they attained compared very favourably with the results of the best Board Schools. In defending the interests of the voluntary system it was not necessary to throw stones at the School Board system; and the two were absolutely essential to the general welfare of the country. In speaking now of the requirements of the Voluntary Schools, he was not attempting in any way to endanger the School Board system. He wished to press upon the right hon. Gentleman that a large proportion of the small schools, both Board and Voluntary, found in the villages, which were the only means of instruction open to the children of the villagers, were passing through a very severe crisis indeed, and they were calling loudly for further financial support. There were people in the House and out of it who condemned the late Vice-President for the demands which he made on many schools. With that condemnation he did not associate himself in any way; quite the reverse; as far as he knew the demands were made in the interests of the scholars, and in the great majority of cases they were quite justifiable. Whilst we attended to the education of the minds of children, there was no reason why we should neglect their physical welfare; there was no reason why they should be cramped and crowded in ill-ventilated rooms. He was entirely with the late Vice-President in the demand he made that such changes should be effected as would secure the instruction of children under wholesome conditions; but he did take some slight

  1023
  exception, to the way in which the demands were enforced. It was open to objection that the only means at the disposal of the Department for enforcing its demands was the withdrawal for the time being of the very money which would enable managers of schools to carry out the improvements required. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman altogether for taking this course, because it was a fact that no other course was available; but now that the end was recognised, he did hope that some means would be devised to place at the disposal of managers the money that was necessary to carry out the improvements which the Department rightly insisted upon. The demands made in the way of repairs and structural alterations were not the only demands made by the Department on the whole of the schools of the country. The curriculum had been largely increased during the last few years, and no corresponding increase had been made in the grant. In one of the notes attached to the Vote, no doubt, it was pointed out that the grant per head this year was estimated to be slightly more than the grant of last year, but that was simply flue to the fact that the schools had been brought up to a higher state of efficiency and had succeeded in earning more per head. He hoped the Vice-President would be able to give some assurance that he would take steps to meet the requirements of the smaller schools of the country. These increased demands had fallen very heavily on every one of the schools, but in the village school, the school of 60 children, officered by one teacher alone, the strain had been exceptionally heavy. He hesitated to use words strong enough to characterise the strain both on teachers and taught in those small schools. He was not speaking in behalf of the teachers alone, but he had before his mind the position of the children. If they called on a school to undertake from 12 to 20 subjects, with one teacher alone to carry them out, there must be a hurry and drive which placed the children's lives in such a condition of misery during the few short years they were at school that they took the utmost care that the walls of the school should never surround them on any subsequent occasion. They
  1024
  lamented that the night schools were but poorly attended. They had to look to the system in vogue at the elementary day schools to account for that deplorable fact. He wanted to urge on the Vice-President that during the recess he would give the most careful attention to the enormous strain, amounting to almost slavery, which prevailed in the small schools throughout the country. Whatever remedy might be suggested, he hoped it would be one which would at the same time deal with the great inequalities which existed in the School Board Rate. In one of the suburban districts of London—West Ham—the School Board Rate had reached 1s. 7½d. in the pound; add to that 2d. for the cost of collection, the ratepayers of this district were paying 1s. 9½d. in the pound. In various other districts the School Board Rate was 7d. and less. This was an anomaly that the House ought to remove. In some way Parliament ought to equalise the School Board Rate throughout the country, so that the rich districts should pay their share towards the education of the children. The high rate was not due to the extravagance of the School Board in the districts where the rate obtained, but to the fact that the property within the area was of very low rateable value indeed. One other subject he wished to touch upon, and that was the question of pensions for teachers. In what position did that question stand at the present time, and what were its future prospects? The history of this particular Vote was painful reading for the Education Department, and for the House of Commons as well. In the year 1846, he believed it was, the Department coaxed persons to enter the profession of teaching by the distinct promise of a pension when they fulfilled certain conditions. In 1851 the Department, apparently alarmed at the amount of money they would be called upon to provide, cut down this Vote to very narrow limits indeed. Not satisfied with that, they went a step further in the commencement of the 60's, and swept away the Vote altogether. The Committee of the House of Commons was largely responsible for that; the Code in which the Minute was swept aside having received the sanction of the House of Commons, and for 13 years not a penny was

  1025
  granted under that Minute whatever. In the early 70's the Minute was reinstated in the Code, but it fell lamentably short in one particular. In the original Minute the teachers wore promised that the pension would reach two-thirds of their salary. Now, the Permanent Secretary of the Department stated before a Select Committee, some two or three years ago, that he knew of no single case where the two-thirds of the salary as pension had been reached. Every head of the Department in recent years had had to lament the painful conditions under which he had to administer this Vote, and the total inadequacy of the amount to meet the requirements that had fallen upon him. In 1892 the House of Commons, by a unanimous vote, called on the Government to provide a scheme for the future. He believed that at the time of recent well-known circumstances, unfortunate so far as the late Liberal Ministry was concerned, a Bill was actually in the pocket of the late Vice-President prepared to give effect to the Resolution of the House of Commons. He hoped the present Vice-President would give the Committee an assurance that the Bill would be introduced at an early date during next Session, and that it would be treated as a non-controversial measure, because he held with Sir R. Temple, the Chairman of the Select Committee, that this matter of the super-anuation of teachers was a question of National policy involving the advancement of National education.
  Mr. A. H. D. ACLANDexpressed his pleasure at the fact that there were now in the House two representatives of the teachers of this country, one on each side. A quarter of a century had passed since the passage of Mr. Forster's Act of 1870, and they had now got beyond the figure of £10,000,000 in the Estimates under the head of education, science, and art. This amount formed practically half of the whole of the Civil Service Estimates and showed an increase, whilst the bulk of the Civil Service Estimates had of late years, by means of careful administration, decreased. The increase in the Education Vote had been rapid. In Mr. Forster's time it was thought enough to give 10s. from the State for each child in average attendance, but at the present moment
  1026
  they were giving from the State a grant of 28s. per child. He thought he had himself asked for nearly £1,000,000 in three years, and certainly in five years the Estimate for education had very nearly doubled. That was to say, it was something less than £4,000,000 five years ago, and it was now about £7,000,000. The increase this year alone was nearly £400,000, due mainly to three things which, he thought, would always continue. These were, first of all, the increased population, which resulted in more children demanding the grant; secondly, more regular attendance on the part of the children—a matter in which this country fell short of what other countries had accomplished; and, thirdly, to the improvement grant, because the schools deserved an improvement grant. ["Hear, hear!"] The increase in England alone was over £250,000. He would not allude to other sources of income or expenditure, because he was going to avoid any controversial matter whatsoever. In reference to the question of superannuation, to which the hon. Member for North West Ham had alluded, he thought the Committee would agree that this was a most important and necessary matter if their schools were to be properly taught. ["Hoar, hear!"] It was perfectly useless keeping on teachers—many of whom had little to fall back upon on account of the smallness of their salaries—to the last stage of decrepitude if they expected to have really effective education in their schools. The painful task of administering the existing pensions by way of discrimination had been considerably lessened in the last three years owing to the sums added by the Treasury to the small existing pension fund, and which sums amounted to £7,000 or £8,000. But there was the very much larger question of pensions to teachers at large. He hoped this would not be a Party question. ["Hear, hear!"] Already they had made very great progress. The Treasury had written a letter consenting to the pension schemes, a Bill had been drafted, and when the late Government went out was ready to be placed on the Table; and that, he urged, was, at any rate, one of the first claims on the State which must be attended to. Such a scheme would ultimately demand a large sum of £500,000, or more, if they took equivalent schemes

  1027
  for Scotland and Ireland. If they were to maintain the efficiency of their schools and enable their teachers—who themselves contributed towards the pensions under the scheme—to retire at a reasonable age, that was one of the first claims they must make upon the Treasury in the matter of education. ["Hear, hear!"] The largely-increased sums granted by the State of late years towards education had been attended with a rapidly-improved education in a great many of their schools. The hon. Member for North-West Ham had spoken of the heavy demands that were still made upon the teachers. He hoped the hon. Member would agree that something had been, done, and especially under the last Code, to try and relieve teachers to some extent from the fear of inspectors and from the heavy demands which a variety of subjects made upon them. The hon. Member spoke of the high rate of demand of the School Board in his own district. He quite agreed that in that and one or two other districts, like the Forest of Dean, the demand was very heavy indeed, not through the fault of the people, but through the low rateable value of the district, and when he left office he was causing careful inquiry to be made into the subject with a view to seeing if the matter could not be in some way rectified. With reference to the question of secondary education, he sincerely hoped the Vice-President, during his term of office, might see a Secondary Education Bill passed through the House. He had always thought that the clerk and small tradesman of this country had to bear the heaviest burdens of the whole commenity in the matter of education, and yet there was no adequate provision for education of an intermediate or secondary character for their own children, they being, from that point of view, the worst off of any class in the country. They had already intermediate education at work in Wales, and he did not think there would be much of a controversial character when such a Bill, based, he hoped, in the main on the forthcoming Report of the, Royal Commission on Secondary Education—might be brought before the House. He thanked the hon. Gentleman for the way he spoke of some part of his (Mr. Acland's) work, which was not always spoken of in
  1028
  that spirit. An enormous amount of the work of the Department was of a non-political and continuous character, and he had not the slightest doubt that a great portion of it would be continued under this Government as it was under the last. He sincerely hoped the improvement which had been going on in education would continue, and he could only say he thought the Department, whose Estimates they were now considering, one of the most interesting of all the great Departments of the State. ["Hear, hear!"]
  On the return of the CHAIRMAN after the usual interval,
  MR. YOXALLin a maiden speech said, he desired to associate himself with his hon. Friend opposite in giving a very clear indication from the point of view of one who had some special knowledge of the condition of elementary schools, as he claimed to have, that further pecuniary aid was required for a very large number of public elementary schools in England and Wales, and for many Board Schools as well. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice President of the Council would divide his consideration of this claim for further aid, into two parts. The right hon. Gentleman would find that many schools suffered from the fact that they were small schools, and rural schools; and that the average attendance on which grants depended was affected injuriously, in rural districts, by the weather. The whole principle on which grants were made to public voluntary schools was undoubtedly wrong, and so long as it was maintained, special hardships would inevitably fall on the smaller schools, and on the rural schools in particular. He, therefore, thought there ought to be special grants to meet the exceptional circumstances of those schools. The second point to which he would direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman was the case of the schools at large. If School Boards, large and small, did their duty by making proper provision for the schools there would be no Board Schools in the country suffering from the lack of finances; and if the promoters, friends and subscribers of voluntary schools did

  1029
  their duty also, and contributed to a proper extent to the schools which maintained the principles of the creed they favoured, the pecuniary condition of the Voluntary Schools would be in a far better way than at present. But he recognised, as everyone must recognise, that they could not compel the small School Boards in small areas, where the rateable value was small indeed, to largely increase their rates; and he felt also that they could not compel the supporters of voluntary schools to give greater sums than they were now giving, if they did not choose to do so. They were, therefore, face to face with this situation, that if education was to go on in a satisfactory manner they must put the educational point of view far ahead of the political point of view, and the theological point of view also; and, speaking as an educationalist, he affirmed that there was no consideration so important as that the children of the country, during the few years of school life allotted to them, should have the best education procurable for them, and that the schools should be thoroughly equipped for giving them that education. He hoped that, by mutual concession and wise statesmanship, it would be possible to arrive at a plan which would satisfy both sides—on the one side giving to both board and voluntary schools that further aid which they required; and on the other side giving to the public the satisfaction of the security which would be afforded by a public audit of all school accounts, and by changes in the management of the voluntary schools, by which the representative principle would be introduced to some extent, and by which the management would be improved all round. He would await the issue of the scheme of the Government before he ventured to say more upon that point. He could only add that one of the greatest and best methods of giving further aid to schools would be to enable the elderly and worn-out teachers in thousands of voluntary schools in this country to retire upon reasonable superannuation allowances, and to give place to younger men of more energy and capacity, who would earn higher grants for schools now suffering from the want of these higher grants. Passing to matters of administration, he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would,
  1030
  during the Recess, consider the propriety of introducing a measure for equalising and then codifying the law with regard to school attendance. The right hon. Gentleman was an expert upon that question. His declarations at the Berlin Conference committed him as they had committed England to a revision of the half-time age. If he would go further into the question he would find that it was in a chaotic, absurd, and contradictory state. Under the Education Act a child at the age of 11 could work half-time or full time; under the Factory Acts he could work half-time; under the Coal Mines Act he could not work at all; and under the Metalliferous Mines Act he could not work half-time above ground. At the age of 12 a child, under the Education Act, could work half-time or full time; under the Factory Acts he could work half-time only; under the Coal Mines Act he could work half-time or full time under ground; and under the Metalliferous Mines Act he could work half-time or full time under ground, but only half-time above ground. The whole thing was in a ridiculous, absurd, and unreasonable position, and ought to be swept away, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would find it possible to introduce measures equalising the age at which school attendance might cease and labour commence. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would remember the Berlin pledge, and make the universal age for beginning half-time 12, at the same time keeping in view the ideal plan of making the age for full time 14. Referring to the question of training colleges, he said it was a very thorny subject, but he merely desired to deal with a matter of administration. As the right hon. Gentleman was aware, the accommodation in training colleges was quite insufficient. There were last year 11,000 applicants to be trained in the training colleges of the State. It was true that that was an exceptional year, but 1893 was a normal year, and the number of applicants who then passed the Queen's Scholarship Examination, and who were therefore entitled to a place in a training college was 6,500. Of the 11,000 who qualified last year, only 2,000 could be admitted to the colleges. So long as this dearth of accommodation continued, and so long as

  1031
  the Queen's Scholarship Examination was maintained at the present level, it was absurd and unfair to call it a Scholarship at all. In the great majority of cases it was a mere certifying examination. If the scholarship was won its enjoyment depended upon the good will of the training college authorities. They were mainly Diocesan, and they were under no conscience clause. The result was that the election did not depend upon the position in the list of order of merit, but in most cases upon the religious creed of the applicant. Again, it frequently happened that a man who applied to enter one of what were called the crack colleges found himself shut out, while a man far below him in the list who applied to enter a minor college found himself included in that college. The result was that the former was thenceforth regarded by the State as being untrained, whilst the latter was regarded as being trained. In that way an invidious distinction was set up between the so-called trained and so-called untrained teachers, and this was maintained by the clause in Article 73 of the Code, which distinctly rated an assistant teacher who had been to the training college as equal to teaching 10 scholars more than one who had not been. It thus prevented the promotion of the one and put a premium on the services of the other, although again and again the man who had not been to the training college proved by far the better teacher of the two. He desired to know why the one teacher was worth 10 scholars less than the other. If there was to be any distinction it should be a distinction of quality, and not of quantity. It would be wise on the part of the Education Department to withdraw this invidious distinction and make all assistant teachers who had obtained certificates equal in this respect. Some of the most successful teachers in the country had not been through the training college, including the lady who held the highest position of honour and trust under the London School Board. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter carefully and thoroughly during the Recess. He could by a stroke of the pen render justice to 25 per cent. of the men teachers and 50 per cent, of the women teachers in the country who were now suffering from this last remnant of an
  1032
  ancient prejudice, and enable them to serve with more pride and satisfaction, and with a sense of equality which at present they did not enjoy.
  MR. J. DILLONsaid, he would not occupy much of the time of the Committee. This was an English Vote, but, as the Vice-President of the Council was well aware, it was a Vote in which a great number of Irish Catholics in this country took a very keen interest. A number of his fellow countrymen whose children attended voluntary schools in this country, had been for many years labouring under a serious grievance which had been brought under the attention of successive Vice Presidents. The details of the case of the voluntary Catholic schools of this country were well known, and he hoped the Debate would not close without some indication from the Government as to their policy in reference to these schools. The Committee was aware that the Government had come into office on the question, among others, of more liberal treatment to Voluntary Schools. Though they could not expect any legislation during the present short Session, there were matters which could be dealt with by administration; and he saw no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not give some indication what the policy of his Department would be in administration during the next few months. There were one or two points of great complaint on the part of the Roman Catholic schools which the right hon. Gentleman might remedy without waiting for the direction of Parliament. During the last few years demands almost oppressive in character had been made by the Education Department in the case of Roman Catholic schools for large and important structural changes. He did not say that those changes were not required in the interests of the children, or that the Department was not justified in asking for them; but where there was a body of people, admittedly the poorest in the country, who by means of collections and subscriptions supported a set of schools for conscience sake, and if large and expensive structural changes were required by the Department the money should be forthcoming from the Education Vote. The right hon. Gentleman might take up the same position as that which

  1033
  had been adopted by the Chief Secretary. He might say, "Why do you bring forward tills question now, and why did you not press the Liberal Government on the matter three years ago?" The late Government was pressed by the Irish Members most urgently on the point; it was one of the points on which they did not altogether approve the action of the Liberal Government. When, however, they had a Government meeting Irishmen on larger issues, they had to put up with a line of policy which they did not approve on minor issues; but certainly they pressed the late Government on the subject of more generous treatment of Roman Catholic schools in the country, and therefore there would be no force in that reply to the appeal. What then was the position of the two parties with reference to this question? The supporters of the Liberal Government were not strongly in favour of the extension of Voluntary Schools, and the Liberal Government was considerably hampered in their dealings with Voluntary Schools by the fact. But here was a party opposite who had appealed to the voters on this question, and had recorded the votes of a great many Roman Catholics, so that more generous treatment might be accorded to them. It was the duty of the Government to lose no time to redeem those promises, and to give some proof that they meant by means of administration to do something to lighten the intolerable burdens which were pressing on the poor Roman Catholics.
  MR. C. A. CRIPPSsaid, there were two matters he would like to bring to the attention of the Vice-President. While the question of education should be kept free from politics, he should not like it to be thought by hon. Members on his own side of the House that they all at any rate assented to the policy of continuity on this question. There ought to be a change of policy—a greater encouragement of Voluntary Schools in the future than had been meted out to them during the last three years. During the last three years not only had not sufficient encouragement been given to Voluntary Schools, but a large measure of discouragement had been their lot. One
  1034
  important point with regard to education must, be the question of expenditure; and there could be no more short-sighted policy than to make education unpopular by throwing too heavy a burden of expenditure on the ratepayers. He would give an illustration; it was not a question of a poor district against a rich district. He knew the case of two agricultural parishes side by side; in one of the parishes they had the voluntary system, and the voluntary rate was threepence in the pound. In the case of the other parish, where the social conditions were the same, the School Board rate was 2s. 6d. in the pound. In these circumstances he thought it was of extreme importance for the education of this country in the future that a real and honest encouragement should be given to the Voluntary Schools in various parts of the country. There was another point. It was all very well to say that sufficient requirements had been made for educational purposes. Everyone agreed on that point; but it was possible to go beyond that point, and to make requirements which were unnecessary, and throw an undue burden on the district on whose behalf those requirements were made. He would give an illustration which had come within his own knowledge. It was the case of a School Board in Mid Gloucester. That School Board was chiefly composed of men who were political opponents of his own; but he agreed with what had been stated more than once, that in education they need not approach the question on political grounds. By a unanimous resolution this School Board represented to the Education Department that unnecessary requirements were being made and unnecessary expense being thrown upon them. The only answer they had received was that in this matter the Vice-President was following the principles laid down by his predecessor. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that he ought not to follow in those matters the examples instituted by his predecessors. He thought that everything had been done in this district which could reasonably be asked for in order to give a full measure of education to the children. If they went beyond that and asked for unnecessary expenditure

  1035
  for requirements which were not wanted in the interests of education, they made education unpopular, and instead of furthering the interests of education they really were being retarded.
  MR. DAVID THOMASreferred to the case of a large number of schools which had been erected in Glamorganshire, which, unless they obtained the aid of the Vice-President, would remain unutilised for another year. He believed that there was no opposition on the part of hon. Members for Glamorganshire to the Scheme prepared under the provisions of the Welsh Intermediate Education Bill dealing with the schools. The hon. Member for Swansea was a member of the Joint Education Committee and approved the Scheme; at all events a matter of compromise he agreed to the Scheme. This Scheme was placed on the Table of the House, but the Dissolution took place within a few days of the time necessary to make it effective. He urged on the right hon. Gentleman the advisability of passing a small measure, which would not be opposed on either side of the House, empowering Her Majesty in Council to sanction the Glamorgan Scheme.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORre-echoed what had been said as to the question of education being discussed as far as possible independently of political considerations. He maintained that the question of the Roman Catholic schools stood in a peculiar and unique position; and he was sorry to have to agree with the hon. Member for East Mayo that the action of the late Government was not as favourable to the Roman Catholic schools of the country as it might have been. In his own constituency the grievance was deeply felt. It contained a large number of the poorest of the poor, who contributed to the School Board rate and yet had their children brought up in Catholic schools. We had a system which was called free, and yet the adherents of a particular religious creed, who educated their own children, had to pay largely for the education of others. He felt that the policy of affording encouragement to voluntary schools must be accompanied by some form of public control; and, although he was not
  1036
  authorised to speak for others, he believed that the heads of the Catholic Church in England would not be indisposed to see a more generous consideration of their claims accompanied by a form of public control, so long as it did not enable ignorant and intolerant members of other religious bodies to interfere with the domestic affairs of Catholic schools, which occupied a unique position and were almost exclusively attended by Catholic children. In the East-end of London a Board school was practically managed by Jews, and it was possible that the plan might be adapted to the case of Catholic and other schools. The Government was under special obligations, because they had come into Office partly through undertaking to adopt a policy of encouragement to voluntary schools.
  MR. TOMLINSONdenied that Roman Catholic schools occupied a unique position, and said that Church schools were entitled to as much consideration as Roman Catholic schools.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid, there was a special obligation on the Vice-President to promote the success of intermediate education in Wales, and urged him to bring in a Bill to expedite the confirmation of the Glamorganshire schemes. If a Bill could be brought in to obstruct education under the Berriew scheme, surely one could be brought in to promote education in a county.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESappealed to the Vice-President to give consideration to the requirements of the Department with regard to school accommodation at Stroud. In Glamorganshire it was felt to be a hardship that, owing to a mere accident, the opening of six or eight intermediate schools ready to be opened should be delayed for a whole year. He suggested that in the Bill which was to be introduced with reference to another scheme a clause should be inserted dispensing in regard to the Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire schemes with the requirements of the Intermediate Education Act, 1889, and the Endowed Schools Act, which was incorporated with it, as to laying the scheme on the Table. That would enable the schools to be opened at an

  1037
  early date. As to the policy of the Government towards voluntary schools, he had no objection to these schools, nor any desire to hamper them; but they should not be given advantages for building or any other purposes unless the public had proper and adequate control over them. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR J. LLEWELYNagreed with the last speaker as far as the Joint Education Committee scheme for Glamorganshire was concerned, if from it the Government excepted the part of the scheme that related to Cowbridge and Gellygaer. So far from it being a non-contentious measure, he understood that exception had been taken to the portion of the scheme presented by the Glamorganshire Joint Education Committee. There would be great disappointment in Glamorganshire if the non-contentious part of the scheme was not permitted to proceed. The county had been mapped out for 13 or 14 intermediate schools, not including a girls' school at Llandaff, and the scheme was contentious only as far as Cowbridge and Gellygaer were concerned.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSasked for information in regard to the proposed creation of a School Board at Heywood, Lancashire. The Town Council petitioned the Department to form a School Board, and the former Vice-President of the Council said a School Board would shortly be established. But since the change of Government the Town Council had received an intimation that the Department would defer action until after the municipal elections in November. He understood that this was a very irregular proceeding, and that the practice was that, when the request for a School Board had been presented and the reasonableness of the request admitted, the formation of the Board followed as a matter of course. It had been said that there would be great disappointment in the country if the electoral pledges of the supporters of the Government in regard to education were not fulfilled. But if the Government yielded to the seductive invitations held out to them, they would encounter something more than a feeling of disappointment—the most strenuous opposition of those who were resolved that the system of national education should
  1038
  be extended and improved, rather than destroyed. They would resist to the utmost attempts to obtain larger grants from the public Exchequer for the support of denominational schools unaccompanied by popular control, and still more earnestly attempts to substitute for the present undenominational system a system by which everybody would be asked to support everybody else's religion. The Government would do well to think once, twice, and thrice before they committed themselves to such an educational policy.
  MR. G. KEMPwished to advert to what had been said with regard to Heywood. The request of the Town Council that a School Board should be formed was in defiance of the wishes of the ratepayers. The Mayor having refused to convene a meeting of ratepayers on the subject, a ratepayers' meeting was held independently, at which the proposed School Board was condemned by an enormous majority, and in consequence of this the Education Department had taken the action it had. [Cheers.]
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONreferring to the Glamorganshire Educational Scheme, said, that if the Vice-President would allow all that related to Cowbridge and Gelligaer to be omitted from the Scheme there would be no objection on that side of the House to its being passed.
  MR. J. H. LEWIShoped facilities would be given to enable the proposed intermediate schools in Glamorganshire to be opened without undue delay.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,)said, the question which had been asked by the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division of Nottinghamshire had, he thought, been adequately answered by the hon. Member for the Heywood Division of Lancashire. ["Hear, hear.''] In regard to the proposed School Board at Heywood, there was at least reason to doubt whether the Resolution of the Town Council represented the opinion of the ratepayers, and his noble Friend the President of the Council would delay the formation of the School Board until he was satisfied that such was the case. He felt that he had been a little unfairly pressed in regard to

  1039
  the Glamorgan Scheme. Several hon. Members had spoken as if he were responsible for the Order in Council not coming into force. He was not responsible for it, it was the law of the land; he could not prevent the operation of the statute, nor had he any dispensing power. One hon. Member asked why he did not legislate, but he could not legislate. The hon. Member spoke to him as if lie was the Leader of the House, and had power to introduce what Bills he pleased. He was quite certain that if the hon. Members who were interested in the matter would give an assurance to his right hon. Friend who was the Leader of the House, that a Bill could be passed by general assent, and not as a contentious measure, they would get the most favourable consideration. Both sides of the House, he had no doubt, would regret it extremely if some parts of this Scheme did not come into immediate operation, and if hon. Members would agree as to what were really the non-contentious parts of the Scheme, those parts might be brought, into operation, and the rest might be considered in the next Session of Parliament As to the structural changes in schools in the Stroud Division of Gloucestershire, it was quite clear that where; a matter had been decided by a public official it was impossible for a new Government to act as a Court of Appeal in regard to the decisions of its predecessors; but, if the matter had not gone too far for reconsideration any representations which were made would be considered in an impartial spirit. The hon. Member for the West Division of Nottingham, whose practical contribution to the Debate they all welcomed, had invited him to a task which he would, if he could, gladly and eagerly undertake—namely, the consolidation and reform of the law relating to the age at which children were employed, and the regulations under which they worked at half-time. That was one of the subjects which he had no doubt the Government would consider before next Session, and if they should decide to embark on legislation of that kind, they would find in him a most willing and zealous instrument for endeavouring to carry such legislation through the House of Commons. ["Hear, hear."] A great deal had been done of late years to increase the accommodation in training
  1040
  colleges. Day training colleges existed in connection with every University College in England, and there was at present accommodation in them for a thousand teachers to be trained. It was worthy of remark, however, that neither the residential nor the day training colleges were; as yet quite full. The question would no doubt engage their attention during the Recess, and every effort would be made to increase the training college accommodation until it was adequate to give every person who desired it an opportunity of training. He thought it was rather hard that a teacher who had not been trained should be placed in an inferior position, unless he had had an opportunity of being trained. The question of teachers' pensions had passed beyond the stage of controversy or dispute, as the House of Commons had unanimously passed a resolution in favour of them. The officials of the Treasury, and of the Education Office, and the actuaries attached to the public offices, had elaborated a Scheme which obtained, he believed, the assent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Education Minister in the late Government, and was on the point of being laid before the House when the accident which deprived them of the services of the late Government took place. Of course, it was impossible for his noble Friend the President of the Council and himself to have examined for themselves this proposal, but it would be examined in the course of the Recess by the President of the Council and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would have a great deal to say to a Scheme of this kind. He had no reason to think that the present Government would upon this subject come to any different conclusion than that which the late Government arrived at, and he thought the Committee might feel a tolerable amount of confidence that next Session a measure would be laid upon the Table of the House differing in no essential particular from that prepared by the late Government. ["Hear, hear!"] If the measure was received by the House in that spirit in which he thought it was likely to be received, there was no reason why it should not speedily pass into law. He had been, asked what was to be the policy of the Government towards Voluntary Schools. That was a very natural

  1041
  question, and a very important one. If hon. Member's would repeat that question at the beginning of the next Session of Parliament he should be, in a better position to answer them. At present he could not say more to the Committee than that they had heard a declaration on this subject by the First Lord of the Treasury, and it would be very unbecoming and useless on his part to add anything in general terms to the very clear enunciation of the general drift of the policy of the Government which his right hon. Friend had made. Two hon. Members, both speaking with some degree of professional authority upon the condition of schools, had pressed upon, the Committee that Voluntary Schools required a considerable amount of additional pecuniary support if they were to retain their efficiency, and that some special treatment of the small village schools was of great importance. That was an opinion which was of great value, and to which no doubt the Government would attach considerable importance. He had been very much struck with the remarks of one hon. Member, who pointed out the great hardship of the poorer ratepayers who were attached to denominational education having to pay both for the support of their own Denominational Schools and also to con tribute equally with others to the support of the Board schools, from which they derived no immediate benefit. The question was a difficult one, but there was no pronouncement on it which he could make officially. He did not believe, however, that the Committee generally would think that he was shirking the question. He was appealed to by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) to do something, without legislation, for the benefit, of Voluntary Schools; but he would point out that the money voted by Parliament must be applied to the purpose for which it was voted, and he did not think that any money which had been voted could be devoted to structural changes. He was glad to hear hon. Members express their desire that these questions should be treated as outside Party politics, and that there should be continuity in policy upon education matters. Though he hoped he would not hesitate to recommend a change of policy where it seemed to him to be necessary and desirable,
  1042
  still he trusted that the Education Department would be conducted on the lines upon which it had hitherto been conducted. [Cheers.]
  SIR CHARLES DILKEdid not wish to trouble the right hon. Gentleman to speak again, but hoped that he would consent to receive representations in regard to poor districts where the education rate was heaviest. There was a provision in the Act of 1870 with regard to these districts, and under it they received some very small relief. He asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the question of increasing the amount of that relief, and whether he would receive a deputation on the subject.
  SIR JOHN GORSTassented.
  MR. DAVID THOMASsaid, he was not satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. It was very poor satisfaction to learn that the fault did not lie with him, but with the First Lord of the Treasury. What he and his friends wanted was the passing of the, Scheme. The hon. Member for Swansea Town (Sir J. Llewelyn) was a Member of the Committee which agreed to the compromise upon which it was based, and now he came forward to oppose the Scheme.
  SIR J. LLEWELYNsaid, he, did so simply because it was contentious matter. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. DAVID THOMAScontinuing, said, that at any rate the hon. Member was a party to the compromise arrived at. The Scheme lay for nearly two months on the Table of the House, and no opposition whatever was raised to it by any hon. Member, and it would have passed into law in a few days had not the Dissolution taken place when it did. The question of the Cowbridge School was not raised before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and, he submitted, it was now too late to suggest its exclusion. He moved to reduce Vote A by £100, in order to elicit a further' statement on the subject of the Cowbridge School.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid, he was not altogether dissatisfied with the, statement of the right hon. Gentleman, because the right hon. Gentleman said that he would give facilities for bringing the Scheme into operation, and that, for himself, he was prepared to bring in

  1043
  a Bill provided there was no contention in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman, however, stated that the Scheme was contentious and that it would have to be altered before it was brought in. But here they had a Scheme which had run the gauntlet of criticism and which failed because, a few days before it would have come into operation, Parliament was dissolved. The Scheme could not now be correctly described as contentious. ["Hear, hear!"] It was the final outcome of the deliberations of the Committee which sat upon the subject. No objection had been effectually lodged against the Scheme; and he ventured to impress upon the Government that in substance, it was a non-contentious Scheme. They had no power, on either side, to assent to any alteration in the Scheme, since it was the outcome of a compromise. He suggested that a Bill of the smallest kind, simply providing, in one clause, that, in regard to this Scheme, certain requirements should be dispensed with, would do all that was wanted. He begged hon. Members opposite to consider that, without it, for a whole year the children of Glamorganshire would be deprived of all benefits under the Act.
  SIR JOHN GORSTthought it a little hard that his salary should be reduced because he would not do something which he had no power to do. [Laughter] It was the law of the land—it might be a bad or good law—that the Scheme should lie upon the Table of the House for 40 days. If the House were unanimous he might ask his right hon. Friend, the First Lord of the Treasury, to bring in a Bill such as was suggested; but, if such a Bill were brought in, it would certainly be opposed ["Hear, hear!"] and his right hon. Friend would, therefore, be sure to decline to bring it in now. With regard to the Burial Bill, which the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Acland) had expressed a desire to bring in during the last Parliament in order to remedy a mistake made by the late Government, he supposed that, as it was admittedly a mistake that had been made, the Bill to remedy it would be unopposed. If, however, any hon. Member were to notify that he was going to oppose the Bill, perhaps his right hon. Friend would decline to bring it in at all. He (the speaker) had, however, assumed that it
  1044
  would be unopposed and he believed it to be so. ["Oh!"]
  Question put, "That Item A (Salaries), be reduced by £100, in respect of the Salary of the Vice-President of the Council."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 46; Noes, 144.—(Division List, No. 27).
  MR. LOUGHasked the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Council, whether the evening schools were being attended by a larger number this year, as he noticed that although the amount taken for evening schools was at the rate of 16s. this year, whereas last year it was at the rate of 11s. 8d.,the gross amount does not show an equal proportionate increase per head.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, the attendance at the evening schools was increasing, and the grant was increasing.
  MR. LOUGHsaid, the amount of money was not increased in proportion to the increase per head on the grant. If the total sum was increased in proportion they would want about 33 per cent., but as a matter of fact there was only 10 per cent. more.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, the increase in the grants this year for evening schools was £11,655. The grants this year were estimated at 16s. per unit of average attendance. The grants actually earned in 1893–4 were only 15s. 10¾d. per unit., so that the amount per unit of attendance had increased. The Estimates were not his, but the late Government's, but if the hon. Member would put the question down he would look into the matter.
  Vote agreed to,
  On the Vote of £387,155 to complete the sum necessary for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Science and Art for the United Kingdom,
  MR. LEWIScalled attention to the fact that no allocation had been made to Wales in regard to the distribution of museum grants, although Scotland and Ireland together received nearly £50,000. In regard to elementary education they had a separate Report in Wales, and their education had many distinctive features,

  1045
  The policy of dealing with Wales separately in regard to education had been repeatedly recognised by both Liberal and Conservative Governments. Welsh Members asked that it should be carried to its logical conclusion, and fair play granted to Wales in that respect. No country in Europe, except Russia, where education was at a considerable discount, was more destitute of museums than Wales. There was no country in Europe where more attention was given to education than in Switzerland. The Swiss were a practical and hard-headed people, and knew the practical value of education, not only in regard to its material but higher advantages. In Switzerland, museums were attached not only to colleges, but to secondary and even to elementary schools. The scholars in the elementary schools took the greatest pride in these museums. The old scholars sent presents to them, and the masters found that by means of museums object lessons could be given which were much more effective than any imparted by books or word of mouth. In relation to collections of antiquities and objects of historical interest, Wales had no central museum in which these could be deposited. From time to time the most valuable collections had been scattered to the four winds because there was no central institution in which they could be placed. No doubt, many private collectors would have bequeathed their collections to a central institution of the kind, and that, for want of one, their collections had practically been lost to the nation, and left to the tender mercies of indifferent heirs who valued antiquities most when they could convert them into cash. There was no national library in Wales where manuscripts and books of historical interest could be collected. With regard to art, Scotland and Ireland had National Galleries which were supported and encouraged by the State. In Wales there were no galleries of the kind. Some praiseworthy attempts had been made by private societies to start art galleries. The Royal Cambrian Academy of Art at Conway had done a great deal of useful work in that direction, and it was a kind of work which should be supported by the State. Professor Herkomer, speaking recently at Llanelly animadverted in severe
  1046
  terms on the unsatisfactory character of paintings and drawings sent in for competition at the Eisteddfod, while the adjudicators in music and singing could not highly enough express their appreciation of it. Let the Vice-President of the Council crown the educational edifice that had been so laboriously built up in Wales during the last few years by the resolution and enthusiasm of the people, who had made sacrifices on behalf of education which were beyond all praise. Those who, like himself, had been working in the field of education in Wales during recent years, and had seen how members of the working class and tradesmen had supported in the most liberal and generous manner the Welsh University Colleges and the Intermediate Schools, which are now in course of erection all over the country, must feel there was enthusiasm for education in Wales which hardly existed in the same degree in any other country in the world, and which deserved a corresponding measure of support from the Government.
  MR. YOXALLcomplained that in the past there had been a sad want of co-operation between the administration of the Science and Art Department at South Kensington and the Education Department. He recognised with gratitude what the former Vice-President had done to bring these Departments into proper relations under one Parliamentary head. If it was extended by the present Vice-President it would be for the benefit of education all round. The duplication of the work of the two Departments led to much inconvenience and waste of money. £180,000 were to be spent this year on drawing and manual instruction in public elementary schools. On the analogy of last year £160,000 would go in teaching drawing alone, and about £26,000 in fees for inspecting and examining it. By the present system of inspection and examination in rural schools, public money was wasted to a ridiculous extent. Many schools in England and Wales did not receive a grant of more than 5s. a year, after long preparation and teaching in drawing. As the result of 12 months' work in drawing, 99 schools, representing 603

  1047
  children, received 18 guineas in grants, or 3s. 9¾d. per school per annum, and three farthings per school per hour for the 60 hours' teaching given during the year. One school had received 2s. 2d. grant for a year, another 2s. 4d., another 2s. 11d., and others 1s. 10d., 1s. 9d., and—no wonder—23 schools did not trouble to claim the grant. So much for the grants to the schools. What about the inspection and examination of the work done? He should not be far wrong if he put the cost at 30s. per school. If so the cost of inspecting 99 schools would be £148—to allocate and determine grants amounting to 18 guineas. There was another serious aspect of the matter. The managers of Board and Voluntary Schools were called on at considerable expense; to provide elaborate apparatus for the teaching of drawing, and yet grants from 1s. 9d. to 1s. 10d. were doled out. He deprecated the system of payment by results to all schools large and small alike. It might answer pecuniarily with regard to the larger schools, but it worked out very badly with regard to the smaller schools. Special consideration should be shown for the needs of smaller schools. The very basis of this drawing grant should be altered, and a permanent inspector—not a temporary inspector—should be sent down to the school from time to time to see that the money was producing efficient teaching. He wished to express the satisfaction with which thousands of people had seen the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman to his present office. In the right hon. Member for Rotherham and the right hon. Member for Dartford the country had possessed Vice-Presidents who had shown a desire to conduct our educational system on a more reasonable and efficient basis than existed before their day, and in the right hon. Gentleman he had no doubt they would have a fitting successor.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, that the hon. Member, with his practical knowledge of the subject, had no doubt hit on a weak spot in the administration of the Science and Art Department. The extension of drawing to its present limit was a new thing, and no doubt the mode in which the drawing was inspected was far too expensive and elaborate for the results achieved. But this was not
  1048
  really a political matter, but rather one of departmental organisation. The authorities of the Education and Science and Art Departments were quite aware of the difficulty which the hon. Member had so clearly and justly pointed out, and arrangements were now being considered by which the present arrangements would be obviated. The only excuse for them was that they were temporary, and they were not yet quite in working order. As to the question of the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs, he must express his own most friendly feeling towards the Welsh nationality, and his most earnest desire to see a Welsh national museum. But, unfortunately, Wales had not only no museum, but no metropolis in which such a museum could be placed. Until a chief city was found for Wales, it would be very difficult for the Government, even if they were willing, to place a national museum in Wales. The museums under the Science and Art Department were situated in London, Dublin and Edinburgh, and except in these capital cities there were no museums directly supported by the Science and Art Department. But all the great cities of the United Kingdom had loans of museum objects made to them under certain conditions, and Wales had in that respect been treated with as great liberality as any other part of the country.
  DR. CLARKsaid, that he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would do something in the way of consolidating the work of the Education Departments. In Scotland there was one man from the Education Office examining some of the classes in the elementary schools, and another man from the Science and Art Department examining other classes; and there was now a third class of examiner in connection with the grants given to the colleges. Then there was the Treasury grant from the whiskey duty, and there were further examiners for the leaving-certificates. He believed that there were altogether seven education grants to be earned in Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman would do a little more towards reorganisation, and use in education, a good deal of the money now spent in examination and machinery, the education would be much more efficient. The Office of this Vice-President of the Council was one which

  1049
  would develop into greater importance every year.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLEScalled attention to the way in which this Vote was growing. It had increased from £700,000 last year to £727,000 this year. The conjunction of Science and Art in this Vote was rather unnatural, for Science repudiated the ways of Art, and Art did not believe in the methods of Science. The Committee had already voted nearly eight millions for education, and now they were called upon to vote £700,000 more for another form of education. This, together with the other £200,000 which would soon be asked for, ought really to appear as part of the Education Vote. This Science and Art Department was a new invention. Neither Science nor Art were unknown in former times; and, indeed, Art had decreased in value ever since this department had been established. Directly the State made an attempt to dry-nurse Science and Art—to set up official schools and an official curriculum—the quality of the product deteriorated. This Department was a luxury which could be very well dispensed with. He saw that one of the officers was allowed £10 in addition to his salary for the risk of making cash payments. He could understand there being a risk in receiving cash payments—some of the coins might be bad, for instance—but what risk was there in making cash payments? The only risk could be that of making mistakes, but the officer was paid a salary to do his work properly. Could the Secretary to the Treasury, who now knew all things, explain this item of £10?
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, that this allowance was not peculiar to this Vote, but appeared in many. It was the custom in commercial houses, as well as in the Government service, to give this allowance for the risk in making cash payments. It was found that where a man took charge of large sums for the purpose of making payments in cash, he did actually lose by it.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the joint committee of the Welsh County Councils would relieve the Vice-President of any difficulty as to determining what was the Capital of Wales.
  DR. CLARKthought the amounts of fees received for admissions at Edinburgh
  1050
  (£200), Dublin (£20), and South Kensington (£1,000) were so small as to justify the suggestion that admission should be entirely free.
  Vote agreed to.
  Vote of £114,205 (including a Supplementary sum of £30,421),to complete the sum for British Museum—agreed to.
  Vote of £8,340 (including a Supplementary sum of £5,000), to complete the sum for National Gallery—agreed to.
  Vote of £2,065 (including a Supplementary sum of £750), to complete the sum for National Portrait Gallery—agreed to.
  Vote of £14,527,to complete the sum for Scientific Investigation, &c.—agreed to.
  On the Vote of £58,339 (including a. Supplementary sum of £3,000), to complete the sum for Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales,
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid the item for colleges in Great Britain originally included £1,700 for King's College, London, which, upon the recommendation of the late Government was reserved, because the Government required the repeal of a Constitutional rule of the foundation of the College that the Professors must be Members of the Church of England. He wished to ask whether this sum was still reserved, or whether it had been disposed of, and, if it had been disposed of, whether the present Government entertained the same view as the late Government did with regard to the condition to be placed upon the grant, and, if they did not, whether they would introduce a supplementary Estimate to reinstate the grant? He had always thought that religious tests were illusory and did not attain their object, and was aware that that principle had been adopted by the Universities; but it was contended that King's College was established by voluntary donations, and that a condition of its foundation was that instruction should be given in the principles of the Church of England, from which instruction, however, students whose parents did not wish for it

  1051
  were exempted. The sufficiency of the secular instruction was attested by examination, for the cost of which money was voted; and it therefore seemed to many to savour of injustice to deprive the College of its grant, particularly as the cost of the scientific teaching far exceeded the fees received from students; although, indeed, the total fees paid by students to King's and University Colleges in London exceeded those paid by all the students in Germany at the Universities.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHurged the necessity for prompt action in the formation of the Intermediate Education Board for Wales.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONEShoped the present Government would not recede from the understood pledge of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide £3,000 for the University of Wales as an annual grant, and not merely as a grant towards preliminary expenses. He would like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a very great inequality in the sums given to Wales, as compared with the sums given to Ireland, Scotland and England, in regard to University education. Scotland received £55,000, and Ireland a very considerable amount; while Wales, if the £3,000 were given, would only be receiving £15,000. If a computation were made, it would be seen that the amounts for University education were not fairly apportioned.
  MR. J. CALDWELLpointed out that the amount allowed for Scotch University education was owing to a matter connected with the Union.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, two years ago, granted a sum of £3,000 to start the University of Wales, but refused to give any undertaking as to what would be done in the future. This year, there was a further sum of £3,000, and the late Government not having arrived at a very definite conclusion, the hon. Gentleman asked him why the present Government had come to a conclusion on a subject as to which the late Government took more than two years to come to a conclusion. He should, he submitted, be excused from giving any information on the subject for the reason above indicated, and also because there was already £3,000 on the Supplementary Vote for
  1052
  this year. This being so, the Committee should excuse him going into the Estimates for future years. In regard to King's College, the grant was, he believed, entirely regulated by Treasury Minutes. In 1894, there was a Committee over which the late President of the Board of Trade presided, and which reported in May, 1894, recommending that this grant should be discontinued on the ground of denominational tests. Thereupon, the Treasury reserved the right, during that year, not to distribute the King's College grant of £1,700 if the tests were not abolished before March 31st, 1895. As the Committee knew, those tests were not abolished, and the grant was withheld from the King's College. Of the amount so withheld, £500 was given to Dundee College, but he had not learnt what became of the balance of £1,200 for 1894–5; but, this year, £500 had been again allotted to Dundee, and £1,200 amongst the remaining colleges. Therefore, for the present year, the money was gone. Then he was asked whether any supplementary Estimate was to be presented. His answer to that was, certainly not during the present Session. The matter was, however, under the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he had no doubt that, when his right hon. Friend was coming to a decision, it would be remembered that, up to two years ago, there was no question as to this grant. [" Hear, hear!"]
  DR. CLARKwas glad to hear that the matter of King's College was to be reconsidered, because he thought that King's College had been hardly treated. ["Hear, hear!"] He was glad that the Government were going to look at this question from the standpoint of results, and he hoped that Catholic colleges would get their share according to the best results. [Irish cheers.'] In 1886, a Committee sat to determine the allocation amongst the various colleges at that time. The Committee reported in favour of doubling the amount. In both these cases, the King's College got the same amount as the other colleges, and finally, the Treasury had to undo one of the Acts of the Committee. Scotland had, he contended, a grievance here. The Member for Swansea thought that Scotland was getting too much, but technical education in Scotland required

  1053
  money just as much as other colleges. The college at Glasgow wanted a grant, and the Committee refused the grant to it. Not a single penny was given for technical education in Scotland, and students in Scotland had to come to London to get the education they wanted. The West of Scotland Institution for Technical Education, asked for a share in this grant, but it was refused. He objected to both of the tests and conditions laid down by the Committee. He thought that the money was more wanted for scientific purposes than for classical purposes. He hoped that the Government would reconsider this matter, both from the standpoint of King's College and also from that of Glasgow. Candidates for the B.Sc. Degree at Glasgow University could only get their education at the West of Scotland school.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHinquired what was going to be done next year in respect to the Welsh Central Board, for which.£500 appeared on the Estimates for the present year.
  MR. HAN BURYsaid, that his impression was that these accounts belonged to his Department. He trusted that the question of the hon. Member for Swansea District (Mr. Brynmor Jones) would be postponed till the Report stage. He confessed that he had some sympathy with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), and he would see that it was inquired into.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vote of £7, to complete the sum for the University of London,
  MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the time had arrived when the Government should consent to report progress.
  MR. HANBURYsaid the hon. and learned Member was perhaps not aware that some of the more contentious items in Class 5, including the Uganda Vote, had been postponed. That being so, he hoped they might get the remainder of the Civil Service Votes to-night.
  MR. T. M. HEALYpressed his point, urging that a pledge had been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the hon. Member for Methyr,
  1054
  that progress would be reported at a reasonable hour, in order to discuss the question of the Welsh gold mines.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said, the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the matter referred to would not be deferred till an unreasonable hour. It never was suggested that Supply should be interrupted at six o'clock for that purpose.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What are the votes in Class 5 you want?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, he wanted the whole of Class 5 except three Votes. The first was the Vote for the Diplomatic and Consular Service, and two Supplementary Votes, one relating to Newfoundland, and the other to Uganda. He had reason to believe there was a desire to deal with these on Friday, and it was in order to meet the general convenience of the House he made that change. He thought everybody would feel that they ought to press forward the Civil Service Votes.
  DR. TANNERappealed to the right hon. Leader of the House to meet hon. Members in the same spirit in which he and his friends this day had tried to conciliate the House.
  MR. CALDWELLasked the right hon. Gentleman also to consent to postpone the Scotch Education Vote.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYpointed out that this Vote would come, on immediately, when the hon. Member might have his opportunity.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELproposed, by way of compromise, that the Government might take the Report of Supply of 26th August, which raised the question of the Welsh mines, and also the two Scotch Votes, and consent to let the other business stand over.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESthrew out the suggestion that it would be an extremely good bargain for both sides to allow the Government to have all these Votes this evening, on condition that there should not be a Saturday sitting.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he disliked a Saturday sitting as much as anybody, but he was afraid it would be absolutely necessary to have one this week. In answer

  1055
  to the hon Member for Kirkcaldy, he suggested that what might be done would be to take the five Votes that were more or less contentious, in Class 5, to take the six in Class 6, and to take perhaps five out of the seven in Class 7. If it would facilitate progress, he was prepared to defer till to-morrow the West Highland Railway Resolutions, but he was afraid he could not go further than that.
  MR. T. M. HEALYthought that as the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman included the Post Office Vote, he was going too far. As it appeared they must have a sitting on Saturday, what was the extreme urgency for getting these Votes to-night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYintimated that he could not make any further concession.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITnoticed that a sum of £12 was asked for, which was an increase of only £2 on last year. Practically, therefore, the University was maintained by its own fees, and was no cost to the State. Among the items was £1,100 for conducting examinations. The Senate of the University had many times represented that these examinations could not, in justice to the candidates, be properly conducted with the facilities placed at the disposal of the University. The buildings and appliances were totally inadequate. The examinations included examinations in medicine and science, and it also seemed unjust to give certificates to students when the examinations, because of the inadequacy of the buildings, could not be properly performed. He did not desire to delay the Vote, but he must ask for an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote that these necessary buildings would be provided without delay, otherwise he should divide the Committe on the question. The reconstitution of the University for teaching purposes also demanded the earliest attention.
  DR. TANNERobserved that very important duties were performed by the examiners attached to the London University, and, certainly, they ought to be better paid than even the door-keepers of the House of Lords. The examiners in medicine and surgery, who were among the ablest men in the profession, were paid the miserable sum of £200 a
  1056
  year each, which was altogether inadequate. The examiners in geology and physical geography were only paid £100 a year each; the two examiners in German, £80 a year each, and the two in French, £75, there being a difference of £10 between these two great continental languages, showing the side to which prejudice tended as between these two great continental nations. In the medical profession there was no degree obtainable at Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, or in Ireland, that was more valued than the M.D. of the University of London. Why was that? It was because of the strictness of the examination and the high professional standing of the examiners.
  THE CHAIRMAN (interposing): I must ask the hon. Member to deal with the matter in a more serious spirit than he has yet shown. ["Hear, hear!"] I have listened very patiently to him for some time, but I have yet failed to discover that he has brought forward any real and relevant criticism upon this Vote. I must therefore ask him to confine his attention to something really more serious than he has yet done. ["Hear, hear!"]
  DR. TANNERsaid of course, if the Chairman desired him to move to reduce the salaries of these Examiners with the hope that they might ultimately be increased, he should be glad to do so. [Laughter.] It was with a sincere desire that something should be done to secure the adequate remuneration of these gentlemen employed in the London University that he had raised this question. ["Hear, hear!"] Take the case of the Professor in Anatomy. The gentleman holding that office in the Queen's College in Cork received the sum—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now distinctly violating what I have laid down, and I must warn him that the Standing Order permits me to deal with him if he persists in wilfully obstructing the business of the House. [Cheers.] I am, however, loth to put the Standing Order in force; therefore, I again invite the hon. Member to deal with the matter in a more serious spirit than he has yet shown. [Cheers.]
  DR. TANNER: I can assure you I have been trying so to deal with it. [Irish cheers.]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Suspend the whole of us at once. [Irish cheers, and Ministerial cries of "Order."] Yes, suspend us all. [Renewed Irish cheers.]
  DR. TANNERremarked that he had been dealing with the matter as a University man; he had spoken up for the University of London with the hope that better success would attend that institution, and that it would be enabled to maintain its high standard and pay its Examiners better.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Go on. [Irish cheers]
  DR. TANNER,continuing, said the Estimates had been put into his hand, and was he obstructing in calling attention to the small amount of money paid to the Professor in Anatomy? [Irish cheers.] And, for the purpose of analysis, as a member of another University, was he wrong or guilty of obstruction when he pointed out that this gentleman, with the highest qualifications, was worse paid than the Professors of Colleges in Ireland? [Irish cheers.] He declared that the amount of the Vote asked for was absolutely unequal to the requirements of the University. What he was saying was perfectly in order [Ministerial cries of "Order "], but because he happened to be an Irish Member, although strictly adhering to book and chapter, he had been censured. [Irish cheers, and Ministerial cries of "Order."]
  MR. T. M. HEALYjoined heartily in the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid Cork with reference to this Vote. [Irish cheers.] They were entitled to a fair discussion of the Votes and to a fair amount of time for that discussion. They were, furthermore, entitled to that time in accordance with the pledges of the Leader of the House, It was certainly an unusual course for the Government to tell them they must limit their remarks, as the Leader of the House had told them, and not only that, but that he would insist on taking other important Votes, the nature of the discussion being judged, not in reference to the Vote itself, but to the exigencies of the Members of the Government in getting away for their holidays. [Irish cheers.] That was what the statement of the right hon. Gentleman implied. If the right hon. Gentleman was willing to sit up they were prepared to sit up
  1058
  with him. They were willing to give every assistance in the discussion of the Votes. There was one point he had to raise upon the Vote. In the case of the London University the State was prepared to pay for a particular class of religious teaching. If so, he wished to know why the Government refused to pay for religious teaching in Ireland, and why the Government insisted that in all the Irish colleges there should be no religious teaching. No payment was made in respect of religious teaching in voluntary schools in either England or Ireland. Why, therefore, should they be asked to pay for religious teaching in the University of London? They had already been told that the London University was only an examining university. If that was so, why not strike out this item from the Vote? He was not prepared to pay for religious teaching in the London University if he was not to get religious teaching in Ireland. It was as well they should know who were the examiners at the London University, and what their views on particular parts of the Bible were. Were those views orthodox? Did the examiners set papers according to the theories of King James, or according to the Douay or Catholic theory?
  MR. HANBURYsaid, the Biblical examination held at the London University was one in the texts of the scriptures. Furthermore, it was not an examination for a degree at all, but for a diploma. The examinations, as he understood the matter, were partly theological and partly historical. He would now like to answer the question put to him by the hon. Member for Islington.
  DR. CLARK: That arises on Class 1.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, that might be so, but he would now assure the hon. Member for Islington that he would look into the question he had raised.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid, it was obvious the explanation of the Secretary to the Treasury was wrong. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Vote was simply one for the study of the Hebrew language. The Vote itself showed that that was not so, because it was one for an examiner in the text of the Scripture and in Scriptural history. That being so, the question of denominational teaching was raised, and the criticisms which had been offered

  1059
  were most cogent. He asked the Committee to consider the question from the point of view of what he might call the foundations of belief. Which was the point of view from which the examiner viewed the Scriptures? There was only one meaning to be attached to the Vote. It was either a Vote for the study of the Scriptures from an atheistical or a denominational point of view. He and his hon. Friends objected to an examination from an atheistical point of view, and they also objected to an examination from the point of view of any particular denomination, because in. that case the Vote became one for the endowment of a sect. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by—
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I beg to move that the question be now put.
  DR. TANNER: Coward! What about your pledges last night?
  Question put, "That the question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 123; Noes, 34.—(Division List, No. 28.)
  Question put accordingly.
  When the Division was completed, Dr. Tanner, one of the Tellers for the Noes, was not in his place for the announcement of the numbers.
  After a brief delay,
  THE CHAIRMANdirected the other three Tellers to come to the Table and announce the result of the Division.
  The numbers were:—Ayes, 126; Noes, 32.—(Division List, No. 29.)
  The next Vote, that of £530,262, to complete the sum necessary for Public Education in Scotland, had just been put from the Chair, when
  DR. TANNERhurriedly entered the House and, rising in his place amid cries of "Order" said: I wish to make a complete apology to you, Sir, and to the Committee. [Ministerial cries of "Oh" and "Order!"] I was simply speaking to Lord Arthur Hill outside the door. [Ministerial Cries of "Oh?"] This is the second time that this has occurred [laughter], and if any hon. Member had taken the trouble—[Loud Cries of "Order!"] I am simply offering an
  1060
  apology. If any one had taken the trouble to tell me, I should have got back in plenty of time, for I was only a few yards away. [Cries of "Oh" and "Order."] During last Session hon. Members opposite sometimes took a longer time to go through the lobby than they do now. [Opposition Cheers.]
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must inform the hon. Member that it is his duty, as a teller, to remain within the House after he has told the numbers, and not to go outside the House. [Cheers.]
  At this point Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.) took the Chair in place of Mr. J. W. Lowther.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid, that in regard to Scotch education, the permanent officials practically controlled the Education Department, and, therefore, the policy was little changed by a change of Governments. The Report issued this year, accordingly, was substantially a repetition of the Reports of previous years. The disadvantage of this was that the important occurrences of the year were not given that prominence to which they were entitled. This year's Report indicated a considerable increase in the attendance in the higher standards. Last year, for the first time in the history of Scotch education, a decline in the attendance was reported; but this year there had been an increase not only in the average attendance, but in those on the register. At the first flush, this would seem to be an improvement; but, unfortunately, the Scotch Education Reports did not supply the material to show what the increased attendance was due to. There were a number of private secondary schools which, owing to the fierce competition of the heavily sub-sidised Board Schools, had been forced to close; and there was nothing in the Report of the Department to show that the increased attendance in the State-aided schools was not due to this cause. The Report simply gave the attendance in the State-aided schools, and gave no indication of what was going on in the non-State-aided schools. In the year 1891 the increased average attendance was only 1·71 per cent.; in 1893 the increase was 2 per cent.; and in 1894, 2–69 per cent. This increase took place at a time when there was a considerable

  1061
  amount of money given to the Board schools and secondary schools in Scotland with a view to encouraging the attendance. Between the ages of 13 and 14, the increase in the children attending State-aided schools was no less than 3,000, or 10 per cent., though the increase for all ages was only 3 per cent. This showed that children were simply being transferred from private schools to State-aided schools. To get at the facts, the total attendance in the State-aided and non-State-aided schools in 1872, when Board Schools were established, must be compared with the same total for 1895. The Scotch Education Department had simply been misleading the country for years in their Annual Reports. In 1872 the State-aided schools were only 50 per cent. of the total number of schools in Scotland. Now they were 90 cent. of the total. In 1872 the average attendance in the State-aided schools was 212,000; now it was 567,000. But that improvement was more apparent than real. In 1872 there were 541,000 children attending school in Scotland, as the School Board census of that date showed. Since then, the increase had been 140,000, so that there ought now to be 680,000 children attending school in Scotland. But what were the figures? There were, as a fact, only 693,000 in attendance. The result was that no more children attended the schools than they might naturally expect. But there was another item which had to be taken into consideration. What were the number of children now attending the non-State-aided schools in Scotland? The Scotch Education Department would not find that out. For this reason, the number was not more than 50,000 or 60,000; and, therefore, the increase had only been about 60,000 children during that time. He was anxious to get a census of all the children receiving education in Scotland, not merely in the State-aided schools but in the non-State-aided schools. It was possible that the increase of school attendance in State-aided schools was due to the fact that the private schools had been closed. When children came from another school, the School Board necessarily knew where they had come from; and it would be very simple for the Education Department to instruct the different
  1062
  School Boards to send in a return each year of the number of children who came from non-State-aided schools. In this way they would know whether or not the attendance in State-aided schools was raised in consequence of the decline of other schools. There was no difficulty in getting the information from the schools themselves. In Glasgow they found that every private school was returned by the School Board, not in detail, but in the lump; and thus they could tell not only the children attending the Board and State-aided schools, but the children attending every school within the city. There was, moreover, sufficient statutory power for the School Board to obtain this information. In Scotland the School Board had power to ascertain, not merely information about census and school accommodation, but whether or not the child was receiving beneficial education at some suitable school. But if there was any defect in the legislation whereby facts of this kind could be ascertained, there would be no difficulty in passing a Bill giving power to ascertain the number of children. But the powers were ample enough at present, and it seemed to him that the Scotch Education Department did not want the information. If they had that information and put it in the Report, then they must eliminate altogether the column which misled them, and which made it appear that education in Scotland had increased by 150 per cent., when in reality there was not more than an increase of 60,000 over the natural increase of population as compared with 1872. Why should there be an attempt made to conceal facts? In the school supply also they found that Scotland had sufficient accommodation for 783,000 children, while the average attendance was only 567,442. The Department attempted to justify the discrepancy by saying that there ought to be in Scotland no fewer than 824,000 children at school. How did the Department reach this result? In Scotland a child must attend school until it was able to pass the fifth standard. After the scholar had passed the age of fourteen, the compulsory powers were at an end. The Department considered that seven years was a suitable number for every child to attend school. If that be so, then there might be 100,000 scholars

  1063
  more than at present on the register of State-aided schools. The attendance between the ages of five and twelve represented the highest point during any seven years in Scotland; and the result of that attendance was that they had 676,000 children during the seven years' period in Scotland. This left 617,000 children who should be at the State-aided schools. At present there were 699,000 on the school register of State-aided schools, and therefore they had far more on that register alone than the number of children for the whole seven years who were in existence in Scotland. Look at the educational results of this large attendance during practically an eight years' curriculum. They would expect to see that every child had passed Standard VI. In Scotland instead of 80,000 children who had passed Standard VI., there were only 15,000; and in the case of Standard VI. It self, where they should have had 80,000, there were only 32,000. The result was that they found in Scotland the attendance was going up; but the attendance going up was not indicative of educational success. On the contrary, the worse the school was, the higher its attendance would be. The School Boards got money for average; attendance, and, in order to keep up the average attendance, Board schools had been known to keep scholars for two years at one standard when they might have passed it in one year. To check this abuse there ought to be a certain proportion between attendance and results; but too much attention was devoted to keeping up the number on the roll and the average attendance. This was done by keeping children back and forcing them needlessly to spend two years over one standard. A result of this policy was that the grant for a school could be increased by closing it rather than by keeping it open—by closing it, when, from any special cause, the attendance was below, and so bring down the average, so that in this way, a school open for only 40 weeks in a year might be made to show a better average than one open for 46 weeks in the year. The School Boards had come to know that they were paid by average attendance and to act on the knowledge. They therefore closed schools when the attendance fell off from the prevalence
  1064
  of infectious disease or of unfavourable weather. A system of payment of this kind was clearly not a suitable one in the interests of education. The standard of instruction in Scotland was not a high one, and half-timers would pass examinations at the end of the year the same as full timers. In Glasgow 90 per cent. of the half-timers were able to pass. The Chief Inspector said there were plenty of scholars able to pass a standard in a year and there ought to be additional grants to encourage; their doing so. Instead of doing this we paid extra grants practically for scholars who were kept longest in the standards. It was not in the interest of teachers to push children through the schools. The provision of training colleges required further consideration. Pupil teachers who qualified to enter them were excluded for want of accommodation for male students, and yet there were complaints of the lack of trained teachers. Evidently the Department had gone on the principle of keeping down the number and raising the salaries of trained teachers. The result was the supply was not equal to the demand, and anyone could get an appointment because there was no cumpetition. The training colleges are denominational, but the cost of them was defrayed by the State and not a penny of it subscribed by the churches. There was clearly a necessity for State training colleges for teachers, who would certainly acquire religious knowledge if they were required to give religious instruction, as they were by most of the School Boards.
  MR. BYRON REEDcalled attention to the fact that there were not 40 Members present.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR)requested Mr. Caldwell to proceed.
  MR. CALDWELLcontinued that the lack of room in the training colleges for male students diminished the supply of male teachers as compared with that of female teachers, for whom the accommodation in the colleges was not exhausted. He hoped denominational training colleges would be done away with. He should be glad to have an intimation from the Government as to their methods of supplying teachers through the Universities. The effect of the University education would be to improve the

  1065
  status of the teachers. The question had been mooted, and he thought it was worth serious consideration, to what extent there should be training colleges in connection with the Universities, He believed that in Dundee they would be glad to have training colleges connected with the University of Dundee. At St. Andrew's it was felt that there should be a training college in connection with the University. What was there to prevent their having a training college in connection with Glasgow University and thereby to also increase the staff of teachers. There might be a training college in connection with the University of Aberdeen. At Edinburgh there was a training college connected with the University. He wanted these training colleges conveniently situated in all the populous centres that the Universities in Scotland might become educational centres for the whole district within their sphere of influence. If a teacher was connected with a training college which was in direct communication with a University he would have not only educational qualifications himself, but he would be stimulated to encourage University subjects in the different schools. He hoped the Government would consider the desirability of having training colleges in connection with the different Universities and thereby do away with one evil in Scotland—insufficient accommodation in the training colleges which were under different religious denominations. He noticed that £1,500 was to be given by way of special grant to Highland schools. The effect of this grant would be to reduce the local rates. Half of the money would go into the pockets of the landlord and the other half would go to the deer forest tenants and the larger agricultural tenants. Under the pretence of relieving the crofters they would subsidise and relieve the landlords and the large tenants. Footpaths and roads were badly needed in the Highlands to enable children to attend school. Some of the schools were four miles distant from the dwellings of the larger proportion of the children. The latter, in order to earn the school grant and attend school, had to go over the braes and sometimes a stream of water coursed down, and if a mist came over the hills and the children did not know where these streams were they
  1066
  were in danger of being drowned. Roads should be made for the children out of grant from the Imperial purse. But if the effect was to increase the local grant and subsidise the local rate the least the locality could do was to make roads to enable the children to attend school to earn the grant. He wished now to call attention to the fact that in one place an Episcopalian school was established where only one family besides that of the teacher was in connection with Episcopalian body. Yet the Scotch Education Department had placed this school on the annual grant list. Was this carrying out the clause of the Education Act for Scotland, which said that on school should be admitted to the annual grant list, after the passing of the Act, except where required for the religious needs of the people? Was there such a difference of religious belief between an Episcopalian and a Church of Scotland man? The disabilities of Roman Catholics were recognised by Statute, and the difference between their belief and that of Protestants was distinct. Wherever in Scotland, or England, a school was desired in the interest of the Roman Catholic body it was admitted to the annual grant list on account of religious belief. It was said we had National Churches, that in England being Episcopalian and that in Scotland Presbyterian. But were they to be told that these Churches were diametrically opposed and essentially different in matters of religious belief, and that a man in Scotland must have a separate school on account of his religious belief? Here was a nation subsidising two Churches of different religious belief, and therefore an Episcopalian coming to Scotland was not bound to go to the Board School where there was Presbyterian worship, but was entitled to claim a special school for his children, because, forsooth, his religious belief differed from that of the Church of Scotland. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was consistent with the Act of Union between England and Scotland that action should be taken by the Scotch Education Department which would tend to establish Episcopacy in that country. In his view, this attempt to establish an Episcopalian school in Scotland was a violation of the Act of Union. For

  1067
  the sake of one family the Scotch Education Department had entered into a conflict with the School Board. The latter had, in consequence, resigned three times, and on each occasion had been returned again by their constituents as a protest against the action of the Education Department. The result had been that the School Board had resigned for the fourth time, and now the parishes were left without a School Board, and education had come to a deadlock in consequence. He wished to ask the Lord Advocate whether it was worth while for the Education Department to have come into collision with the School Board on such a point. Was such a policy as that which was being pursued by the Scotch Education Board likely to improve the system of education? They were merely keeping up a bone of contention, and certainly that was not a policy that would conduce to the interests of education. It was evident that the people would continue to resist this action of the Board. He wished to know what the Scotch Education Board were going to do in the matter. The people would not accept the policy of the Department, and the School Board would not act. The Scotch Education Department were acting in opposition to the will of the people. What were the Scotch Education Department going to do in order to carry on the schools—were they going to send down an inspector to carry on the schools? This was a matter that could not be hung up until the Estimates came on next Session. He desired to emphasise the fact that this Episcopalian school had been put upon the grant since the present Government came into office. The late Government had nothing to do with the matter. This, therefore, was not a question involved by the Estimates of the late Government, because the present Government were entirely responsible for the action which the Scotch Education Department had taken. The matter was in abeyance during the time that the late Government were in power, and it was only since the present Government had come into office that this action—which had disturbed the whole of the educational system of Scotland—had been taken. He thought that he had shown sufficient reason why the whole of the educational system of Scotland should be reconsidered by the
  1068
  light of what had recently taken place. Turning to the subject of secondary education in Scotland, he wished to point to the connection that existed between secondary education and elementary education in that country. The difference between the educational systems of England and Scotland was, that in the former country education, in the Board Schools was purely elementary, while in Scotland the parochial schools combined elementary with secondary education. It was necessary, therefore, to consider what was to be done in the way of secondary education in elementary schools in Scotland. His own opinion certainly was in favour of combining elementary with secondary education. In Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen it might, perhaps, be advantageous to have separate secondary schools, but it was different in the country districts, because if the children had to go to separate secondary educational schools, they would have to travel a long way from their homes. Therefore, if they were going to have secondary education in Scotland at all, it must be carried on in connection with the various local elementary schools. By adopting that course elementary education would be made more efficient, and the scholars would be brought up to a point that would fit them to receive secondary education. He submitted these various points for the consideration of the Lord Advocate, and he hoped that he would give such assurances on the subject as would render it unnecessary to go to a division on the Vote.
  MR. J. M. WHITEsaid he should like to refer to one point which was complimentary to, and explanatory of, the question raised by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, the question of the non-State-aided schools being crushed out by the State-aided schools. Under the existing schemes of the Scotch Education Department the grant of £60,000 for Scotch secondary education was being applied to a large extent to the relief of rates. The non-State-aided-Schools were doing splendid work, under great and growing financial difficulties. It was a good thing however some of them were not under the School Boards. If the secondary education money did not go to the relief of rates it could greatly help these non-State-aided Schools. In

  1069
  rural districts a larger grant should he given for evening continuation schools than was given in populous centres. A class of six or eight young persons in a rural district might be attended by very valuable results, now that agricultural education was so desirable. At present all that could be earned by eight young people in a class lasting for an hour and a half was about two shillings a night, a sum quite inadequate to supply the needs of this higher education. He trusted that this matter would be considered.
  DR. CLARKasked for information respecting the special grant of £1,500 for schools in the Highlands and Islands. This was a matter upon which the Treasury ought to throw some light, and he regretted that the Secretary to the Treasury was not present. This grant was not spent. In 1893 only £750 was spent, but nevertheless, in 1894 the sum of £1,500 was still asked for. In that year only £194 was spent, and yet they were now again asked to vote £1,500. The next item to which he wished to draw attention was the item of training colleges. He thought the time had come when this grant should cease. The Church of Scotland had now only 44 schools in Scotland, and the Free Church had only 15, while the public schools numbered over 2,700. The denominations that had the 44 schools and the 15 schools respectively were getting all the money for the training of teachers. This ought not to be. On the subject of pensions for teachers he was in favour of the establishment of a system of retirement as a right in lieu of the present system of retirement as a matter of grace. Teachers ought to have some special right of appeal to the Education Department against dismissal. In a parish in Caithness there was a School Board of five members. The teacher did something which was brought to the notice of the Board, and by a majority of three to two they dismissed the teacher. The last point to which he wished to refer was the question of giving to Scotland a grant really equivalent to the grant under the Free Education Act of 10s. per child attending school in England.
  MR. J. G. WEIRcalled attention to the importance of providing secondary education in tin northern districts of Scotland. He pointed out also that, although an order
  1070
  had been issued some time ago that the practice of children carrying peats to school should be discontinued, as late as within the last two or three months, in quite a number of schools in the outlying and remote parts of Scotland, the schoolmasters had insisted on each child bringing a peat to school every morning during the winter. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take care that this order was regarded in the future. He urged the necessity of spending the money granted in a wiser way, for the benefit of the children and not for the benefit of the landlords, sporting tenants, and large farmers. He deprecated the granting of the large sum which was allowed to the inspectors and sub-inspectors for traveling expenses, which averaged about three guineas a day a head, when a guinea a day would be much more like the amount which was required. The money that was wasted in this way was badly needed in the Highlands for schools, and if the right hon. Gentleman did not give him satisfactory assurance as to these expenses in the future, he should have to consider the advisability of moving at a later stage to reduce the Vote by £500.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir CHARLES PEARSON,),in reply to the various points that had been raised, said, the first matter that was brought before the notice of the Committee by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark touched the making-up of the statistics of scholars by the Department. That was a matter with which they were perfectly familiar. The complaint always came from the same source, but nothing had been done, and the reason was very simple. Undoubtedly State-aided schools had got the advantage of a larger attendance because of the transfer of children from the private or adventure schools to the Board schools. But neither of the two factors necessary for the statistics sought by the hon. Gentleman could possibly be obtained. He (the Lord Advocate) asserted that neither for the attendance in 1872 in private schools, nor for the attendance from year to year since, including 1895, could they get any reliable statistics, and if they could not get reliable figures they were far better without them. In reference to the accusation made by the hon. Member against Board schools, to the effect that they kept pupils

  1071
  an undue time over certain standards, a conclusion the hon. Member said he had arrived at on an examination of the statistics, he had only to say that was not a suggestion to which, even if true, he thought there was any objection. It was, in his opinion, far more dangerous and disadvantageous, both to the children and to the State, that pupils should be rushed rapidly through the, standards, than that they should be kept in a standard even for two years. With reference to training colleges, the hon. Member proposed that there should be a big State-aided training college. State training colleges had been tried in England and had failed, and therefore they had not the merit of setting a successful example to be imitated in Scotland. Again, there were certain training colleges in Scotland, not confined to the Established Church, which had done and were doing admirable work, and he did not believe the preponderating opinion in Scotland would be prepared to sacrifice the existing training colleges in order to make room for a State-aided college. That was not the line upon which the education of the teachers in Scotland had hitherto been dealt with, and he would remind hon. Members that, in the course of the past few years, especially in the Code of 1894–5, changes had been made with the view of filling up the gap which ho admitted to exist in the supply of teachers by the training colleges, by bringing the Universities of Scotland into closer connection with the training of the teachers, and thus giving them the opportunity which they desired. That plan was now being tried, and let them see how it-would succeed, because, if it was successful, he maintained that it was a far better way of dealing with the question than by creating a number of separate organisations and institutions running side by side, with the existing colleges and creating a large amount of unnecessary additional expense in upkeep and organisation. The present plan was fully discussed in the last Parliament, and it ought to have a fair trial before it was brushed aside. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark and others had adverted to the question of schools in the Highlands and the grant that was given to them. Criticism was made of that grant of £1,500, and it was pointed out that
  1072
  in one year only £700 or a little more was spent, it being asked why should £1,500 remain in the Estimate? But the year to which reference had been made was of an entirely exceptional nature.
  DR. CLARK: Last year there was only £191 spent, and the year before that £749.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEremarked, that it was the smaller of the two items he referred to. It was thought that the spending of the grant ought to await the collection of the poor rate and school rate, which were collected together, in order that the actual deficits should be ascertained, and the effect of that was to postpone the spending of the grant till the end of the financial year, and also to enable the Department to effect a very considerable saving. But he would remind the Committee that it was still regarded by the Treasury as a temporary grant. It was found that one School Board after another was going into financial difficulty and ruin, and it was absolutely necessary, through the failure of some section, of the ratepayers to pay their rates, that the financial distress ought to be tided over. Originally the grant was taken in the Estimates for £4,000, but it was cut down from time to time and was now only £1,500. It was thought right that it should remain this year at the same figure at which it stood last year, so as to leave a margin for contingencies; but the Department knew as well as the Treasury that the grant was only temporary, and the sooner it was got rid of the better. He now came to the question of the School Board referred to by an hon. Member opposite. That was in itself an extremely small question, but it was put forward in such a way as to make it look important. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman who drew attention to the subject, was wrong in a good many of his facts and entirely wrong in his law, albeit he had had a legal training. Further, he gave the Committee the impression, quite wrongly, that it was a new thing in the practice of the Education Department for Scotland that an Episcopal School should obtain a grant out of the rates. There were more than 70 Episcopal Schools receiving grants under Section 67 of the Act of

  1073
  1872. The hon. Member seemed to think that the only possible difference of religion which would justify the Department in admitting a school to the, grant, was the difference between the reformed religion and the Roman Catholic religion. The figure he had given showed con clusively that that was not the practice of the Department. The grant might be given to a school of this kind, if, in the opinion, of the Department, such a school was required, having regard to the religious belief of the parents. There was an element of discretion in the matter. Some years ago the Department came to the conclusion that this school fulfilled the conditions of the statutory code, but after a year or two the attendance fell off and the conditions were no longer fulfilled. So long as they were fulfilled it was the duty of the Department to recognise the school. Complaint was made that this school being set up was drawing the children away from the Board School; but the school had no option in the matter, because, according to the Conscience Clause of the Education Act, a school receiving public money could not close it doors to any child. The later history of this school might be disposed of in a sentence. After it ceased to fulfil the conditions of the grant, the grant was withdrawn, but the attendance again increased considerably, and about a year ago the then Secretary for Scotland was approached on the ground that the school again fulfilled the old conditions, and should be readmitted to the grant. The attendance was such that the Secretary for Scotland did not think it right to refuse the grant, but it was suspended for a time. The conditions however, had since been fulfilled, and all the Education Department had done was to recognise the fact. It was true that the School Board in the district had resigned. Indeed, it was the third time they had done so, and he was now asked what the Department proposed to do. The Department had been considering which of the options they had under the Statute in such an event they should exercise, and he could do no more at that time than say that the matter was still under the consideration of the Department. As to the question raised by the hon. Member for Caithness, with regard to the position of teachers, he could do no more than say that he should
  1074
  personally look into the matter. The hon. Member for Ross-shire had taken objection to the amount allowed to the inspectors for travelling expenses. The inspectors were not confined to a guinea a night in this respect. They were entitled over and above that to their actual outlay out of pocket, and every item was properly vouched within 12 months. He desired to make a single remark on what the hon. Member for Forfar had said, in complaint of the diversion of the £60,000 which, by Statute was appropriated to Secondary Education in Scotland, practically in relief of the rates. He would remind the hon. Member that Secondary Education, in its larger sense, was not beyond the duties of a School Board, and therefore, wherever there was a grant for Secondary Education it might perfectly well operate in relief of the rates. If the hon. Member had been present he would have asked him to give him an instance of a case in which what he complained of had been done. He had no doubt that he would have been able to show him conclusively, either that his accusation against the School Board was utterly unfounded, or else that what had been done was no more than the natural or necessary operation of the grant. He thought he had now gone over all the points brought to his notice, and he hoped the Vote would be taken.
  MR. DALZIELcalled attention to the treatment of sub-inspectors and assistant inspectors, in the matter of promotion. He was informed that sub-inspectors had practically to discharge the same duties as the chief inspectors, and he wished to know whether it was the case that they were not allowed the promotion which, in ordinary circumstances, they ought to have when vacancies occurred among the chief inspectors. Another point, which had given rise to a good deal of discussion in Scotland, was the matter of books. It was a very hard case that, when a man moved from one parish to another, he should have to equip his children with a new set of books. School books in the circumstances ought no longer to be charged for.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that the Department had always declined to lay down any absolute rule on the subject of purchase of books. It was not a subject for a universal rule, but School Boards were informed that it was in

  1075
  their power to provide school books in special circumstances such as had been alluded to. It would be a waste of the rates to provide free school books where there were no local circumstances making such provision necessary or desirable. With reference to the question of the promotion of sub-inspectors, he had to say that personally he had always been in favour of promotion within the staff, but he thought that no rule ought to be laid down on the subject, for there might from time to time be cases in which it was desirable to appoint inspectors from outside the body of sub-inspectors.
  MR. PROVANDthought the reply of the Lord Advocate on the subject of the Episcopal school referred to by the right hon. Member near him was inadequate. The object of the Capitation Grant was to assist education, but when the grant was given to a school under the circumstances detailed by his hon. Friend it would appear that the money was going to be used for the purpose of proselytising the children in the neighbourhood, which would be a clear evasion of the objects of the Act. The question for the Education Department to consider was whether the school was required, having regard to the religion of the people living in the neighbourhood. The grant in this case was suspended when the late Government assumed office, but as soon as the present Government returned to power they were immediately satisfied by some unknown means that the school had complied with the law, and they purposed to resume the payment of the grant.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE:The grant was not suspended on the advent of the late Government to office.
  MR. PROVANDasked when it was suspended. [The LORD ADVOCATE: "Last year."] Then it was suspended last year, but as soon as the present Government came into office it was determined that the grant should be again given. The right hon. Gentleman had not disputed the statement of his hon. Friend that there was only one Episcopalian family in the neighbourhood.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: There are two at least, and there are a good many other parents who desire that their children should attend this school.
  MR. PROVANDsaid, that one of the two families to which the right hon.
  1076
  Gentleman referred was the teacher's own family. The Lord Advocate had said that there were many other' Episcopal schools in Scotland receiving the grant, and he had described them in terms which might lead the Committee to believe that they were all in the same position as the school to which his hon. Friend's criticisms were directed.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that the object of his observations was to meet the argument of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark, who, he understood, contended that it was wrong to give the grant to Episcopal schools, because they were indistinguishable from Presbyterian schools in matters of doctrine.
  MR. PROVANDsaid, that there were 74 Episcopal schools that received the grant, and that as they were attended by 14,000 scholars—200 to each school—they were, of course, entitled to receive the money. The case of the particular school to which attention had been called was therefore very different. He also wished to call attention to Table No. 2 in the Return of the Scotch Education Department. One of the columns there gave the total amount awarded out of Parliamentary grants, and the next gave the amount raised by promoters—that was by voluntary contributions—and by rates. He wanted to know why these two amounts were lumped together, and how much the voluntary contributions came to. It appeared to him that the sums were mixed up with the object of making the Committee imagine there was a substantial sum raised by voluntary contributions, whereas his information was that a very small sum indeed was raised in that way.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEwas sorry he could not give the information, but if the hon. Member would communicate with him he would endeavour, if possible, to procure, it for him.
  MR. WEIRwas not satisfied with the information vouchsafed in regard to the traveling allowance of the inspectors and assistant-inspectors respectively, and therefore, as a protest against the excessive expenditure of public money under this head, he moved to reduce the Vote by £500.
  MR. T. M. HEALYthought the large sum allowed for traveling expenses must be caused by the fact that the office was in London instead of in Edinburgh. He

  1077
  would suggest, as a means of checking the expenses for travelling, that the office in London, which cost £12,000, should be transferred to Scotland, where it would become racy of the soil. [Laughter.] He saw nothing laughable in the suggestion that the Scotch office should be in the capital of Scotland. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman thought it should be in Madagascar.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that so far as he was aware, the cost of inspection would not be any the less if the office were moved to Edinburgh. The inspectors in the main communicated their views by correspondence and report, and it was quite erroneous to suppose they habitually started from London. The expense was in many cases caused by the cost of transit from places where transit was difficult. With reference to the Amendment, he would appeal to the hon. Member not to press it. A change was under consideration in regard to these allowances, but it had not yet been effected. There were six inspectors, who had their expenses commuted at £250 per annum. He did not know whether that paid them or not, but he presumed it was calculated on the average expenses.
  MR. CALDWELLpointed out that the allowances to the 23 assistant-inspectors worked out at £77 each, whereas six chief inspectors were allowed £250 each. Would the Lord Advocate, then, still say that the result was due to the cost of transit? It was well known that the districts were very evenly divided, and it was evident, therefore, that, whatever was the explanation of the difference the Lord Advocate did not know it.
  Dr. CLARKsaid, the arrangement was an old one, and he did not think the present Government were to blame. The assistant-inspectors only got 10s. a day, the others got a guinea a day but the half-dozen chief inspectors, under the old arrangement, got £250 each. This was a matter for the Treasury, and he would advise the Secretary to see that these six inspectors were placed in the same position as the other inspectors.
  MR. WEIRsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman would give him an assurance that the arrangement of which he complained would not occur again, he should be willing to withdraw the Amendment, but if not he could not withdraw.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEcould only say that the attention of the Treasury would be, directed to the matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [At this point, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER returned to the Chair.]
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked what advantage there was in having one office in London and another in Edinburgh. Surely it would conduce to economy if there was one office either in London or Scotland, and preferably in Scotland. There was a great deal to be said in favour of having an office at the seat of Government but what was the necessity for a separate charge—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that, as a Motion for the reduction of one item has been proposed from the Chair, it is not in order to go back to a previous item.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I understood that an Amendment withdrawn is totally different to an Amendment negatived.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The rule of the House is that when a reduction has been proposed from the Chair it is not possible to go back to a previous item.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that if that was the ruling of the Chairman he would say a few words upon other topics. He desired to ask why, in the case of an institution which was largely provided by the State, some attempt was not made to secure uniformity in the school books. He observed from the report of one inspector that in Scotland history was now made an optional subject. The inspector spoke of the meagre results obtained since the teaching of history had been made optional. Again, it appeared that while a child must necessarily be taught in English in certain subjects the examination might take place in his native tongue. That was rather a severe test upon a pupil. He had read carefully the Blue Books upon Scottish education and he was bound to recognise the greater spirit of friendliness and sympathy shown by the inspectors, both with the great cause of education and with what he might call local patriotism, than they were accustomed to witness in Ireland.
  MR. CALDWELL MR. CALDWELL rose to continue the discussion.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I beg to move that the question be now put. [Ministerial Cheers and Opposition cries of "Oh, oh!"]
  THE CHAIRMANwithheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  MR. CALDWELL: I was moving a reduction in the Vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! In my opinion the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Louth merit some reply from the Lord Advocate. [Loud Opposition cheers.]
  MR. CALDWELL: On a point of order, Sir. I was speaking when the Closure was moved. The Closure was not assented to; and I wish to know whether it is in order to call on the Lord Advocate to reply and to refuse to allow me to proceed with my speech?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I withheld my assent to the Motion for the Closure upon the ground I have just stated. If the hon. Member will not permit the Lord Advocate to reply I shall have to reconsider my decision. [Ministerial cheers and Opposition laughter.]
  The LORD ADVOCATEhoped the hon. and learned Member for Louth would not think him discourteous in not having risen to reply. But as to his point in regard to the teaching of Gaelic the hon. and learned Member had rather overrated the facts of the case. Gaelic was not imposed as a test, but was allowed as a concession to enable those whose language it was to undergo the examination in the form where they would be at their bust—namely, in their own vernacular.
  MR. CALDWELLthen moved that item A be reduced by a sum of £100 in order to emphasise the discussion.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I beg to move that the question be now put. [Ministerial cheers and Opposition cries of "Oh, oh."]
  MR. CALDWELL: Before the Closure was moved, Mr. Lowther, I had moved my Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: On a point of order, Mr. Lowthor, I wish to ask whether it is in order for a Minister to speak to you in a tone that is inaudible to the House. [Opposition cheers.]
  DR. TANNER: In a whisper.
  MR. CALDWELL: May I submit Mr. Lowther, that, as this matter has undergone discussion, we only ask for
  1080
  the natural Division after a discussion? I meant to move the Amendment without a speech, and to take a Division in the usual way.
  THE CHAIRMAN: As the Committee is aware, an hon. Member is entitled to move the Closure at any stage of a discussion. [Ministerial cheers.]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: In a whisper? [Opposition cheers.]
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 121; Noes,35.—(Division List, No. 30.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 122; Noes, 30.—(Division List, No. 31.)
  On the Vote of £2,500, to complete the sum for the National Gallery of Scotland,
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN*MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN (Merthyr Tydfil) moved to report Progress, pointing out that he had been promised by the Leader of the House an opportunity to ventilate a question affecting the goldfields in Wales at a reasonable hour that evening. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to give him that opportunity now. The question was not, only one of interest to Wales, but it was of national importance, especially when it was connected with the further question of giving employment to a large number of men in Wales during the coming winter.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, it was quite true what the hon. Member had stated. He had promised that he would give the hon. Member the opportunity, at an hour not unduly late, of completing the short Debate begun on the subject of the goldfields in Wales; and to that promise he adhered.
  MR. DALZIELsaid, with reference to the general Motion, the right hon. Gentleman would remember that when he obtained the time of the House he was asked definitely whether it was his intention on Wednesday evenings to ask the House to sit much beyond the ordinary hour. The right hon. Gentleman said it was not part of his intention, and he was sure that when the right hon. Gentleman gave a pledge he always tried to act up to it. The Committee had not made as much progress during the last hour or two as might have been

  1081
  made—[Ministerial cheers]—if the Government had accepted the offer made to them earlier in the evening. [Cries of "Obstruction!''] During a considerable portion of that night's Debate not two Members were to be seen on the Ministerial side of the House below the Gangway. In view of the promise made by the, right hon. Gentleman without any condition, when he obtained the full time of the House, that he would not keep the House sitting on a Wednesday beyond a reasonable time; in view of the progress that had been made in Supply; in view of the fact that no Vote had been discussed beyond a reasonable length of time—["Oh, oh! "]—and that what discussion there had been was sustained equally by both sides of the House; he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to yield, and so facilitate their getting away for the holidays as soon as possible.
  MR. LOUGHthought that if the Leader of the House would set aside those feelings which perhaps were not unnaturally engendered by recent incidents, he would recognise that his hon. Friend was well within the limits prescribed when the whole time of the House was taken. If the right hon. Gentleman would consider the amount of work done that day, he would adopt a different attitude. Some Votes had not been discussed at all, and others had been discussed briefly, and the work done justified the Opposition in pressing the Leader of the House to carry out his promise.
  MR. TOMLINSONcould not imagine what object hon. Members thought they would gain by prolonging the Session. No one could doubt that the House had submitted to a good deal of what could not be called by any other name than obstruction. In the last discussion Scotchmen had gone into the Lobby to Vole against —[Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. CALDWELL MR. CALDWELL rose to order, and asked whether the hon. Member was in order in making reflections upon the conduct, of Members in the last Division?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member had better not continue that line of argument. It was better to avoid reflections upon the conduct of hon. Members.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the House and the public would understand what had happened, and would form their own
  1082
  opinion of the proceedings of that night. He would suggest to hon. Members opposite that they would gain nothing by prolonging the Session. There had been ample time for anyone to say anything of importance.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, that hon. Members had alluded to what they appeared to think some kind of pledge he had given with regard to the length of sitting on Wednesdays. If hon. Members would carry their minds back to pledges given on similar occasions, they would agree with him that the proper interpretation, and the interpretation put upon them at the time was that while there would be every desire not to extend a Wednesday sitting much beyond six o'clock, nevertheless occasion might arise for an expansion of the sitting: the occasion in this case being the necessity for finishing the Debates on Supply within reasonable limits of time. On behalf of the Government he was glad to recognise the work that was done in the earlier portion of the sitting, but unfortunately about six o'clock a change came o'er the spirit of the dream, and since then the Debates had been more prolonged, and there had been developed an amount of heat which, for his part, he greatly regretted. If the House would only set to work now in the spirit it manifested earlier they could rapidly finish the business it was desired to dispose of at that sitting.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that he cast on blame on the Leader of the House for the difficulty which had arisen; the Gentleman who was responsible for getting the Government into this difficulty had run away. They had a deputy Leader of the House; it was not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, nor the First Lord of the Admiralty, but it was the right hon. Member for West Birmingham who intervened at a moment when the House was about to come to a reasonable understanding, and whose malign influence was responsible for the change that had occurred. The right hon. Gentleman, with a little nod, practically gave them to understand that no approach to an arrangement was possible. The terms of the pledge given by the Leader of the House was that it was not desired to sit much beyond six o'clock "except under stress of circumstances." [Ministerial cheers.]

  1083
  Memo for now Members: "Never cheer too soon"—[laughter]—"except under stress of circumstances very unlikely to arise." What was the stress of such circumstances that had arisen? Was the right hon. Member for West Birmingham one of them? At six o'clock that night they were told there were Votes about which an exception was made, and that there was a formal treaty with some right hon. Gentleman. When common Members were to be asked to sit up late, there was always a bargain between the two front Benches. The Votes for the British Protectorate in Uganda was not to be discussed after midnight because the Member for West Birmingham wanted to speak and to be reported. This unfair discrimination in taking and forcing on Votes was bound to give rise to some want of appreciation. If the bargain had been made across the table of the House, the Nationalist Members would have accepted it. But there ought not to be both daylight and night light discussions. The Nationalist Members had not been treated in a spirit corresponding with the one they showed last night. There was no desire on their part to prolong the Sitting or the Vote. He hoped the Leader of the House would see his way to meet them in their desires.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, he desired to explain at once that for everything that had occurred that night in connection with the leadership of that House, he alone was responsible. If mistakes had been made, they had been his mistakes. The decisions of the Leader of the House were not always easy to be arrived at, and he did not pretend to be infallible. At all events, what had been done had been done by himself, and upon his head alone must rest any blame which any hon. Member in the House thought ought to be bestowed upon those responsible for its management. The hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the postponement of the Uganda Vote and one or two others connected with diplomacy and the Colonies had something to do with the convenience of right hon. Gentlemen on that Bench. He could assure him that that suspicion, however natural, had absolutely no foundation whatever. ["Hear, hear!"] He was not saying anything that he
  1084
  ought not to say when he told the Committee that these Votes were postponed in deference to the opinion of hon. Members of the Opposition, who were under the impression that if that course were taken there would be no difficulty in obtaining the rest of the Civil Service Estimates. He was not making this statement as any charge against those hon. Members. They made a miscalculation, and that was all. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. PROVANDappealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consent to the postponement of the Votes relating to the Post Office, the mail contracts, and the telegraphs.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTONpointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that he himself had admitted that up to 6 o'clock they had made fair progress. They had at that time passed ten Votes, and they had passed nine since that hour. Did not the right hon. Gentleman think that that was good progress for them to have made? ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. DALZIELsaid that there had been a general understanding among the Members of the Opposition that the Post Office Votes would be postponed. He asked whether the right hon. Gentleman did not now recognise that the West Highland Railway Vote involved contentious matter. He hoped that some satisfactory arrangement might be arrived at.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that he did not know that the postponement of the Post Office Votes would be an arrangement that would militate against the, ultimate disposal of Supply. If the, West Highland Railway was shown to be a contentious matter, the Government would not press it, but they could hardly believe that it was contentious. The hon. Member would have an opportunity of showing that it was contentious to demonstration by dividing against it, and, if hostility was made manifest, the responsibility would rest upon others than the Government. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. CLARKasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the advisability of continuing next year the grant of £1,000 for the National Gallery in Scotland. If it was not continued

  1085
  the Scotch Gallery would suffer severely, and a chock would be given to the progress of art in Edinburgh. The Irish would receive £1,000 for their National Gallery, and for the English National Gallery a sum of £5,000 was to be given. Scotland ought certainly to be placed in respect of this matter in as favourable a position as Ireland. He hoped, therefore, that the Treasury would consent to ensure the continuity of this grant.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYthought it would probably be desirable to continue the grant next year. He would confer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject before the Estimates for next year were prepared.
  MR. PROVANDasked the Government to require an account of the grant of public money entrusted to the Board of Manufacturers in Edinburgh. He wanted to know what they did with the money.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEpromised to inquire into the matter. His impression was that it was not the practice of the Board of Manufacturers to supply a detailed account of their expenditure. The members of the Board were all distinguished men and were all very carefully selected, and the results achieved by their efforts were matters of public knowledge. There might, he thought, be difficulties in the way of the preparation of anything like an exact account.
  Vote agreed to.
  Vote of £38,200 to complete the sum for British Protectorates in Uganda and Central Africa—agreed to.
  Vote of £59,372 to complete the sum for Colonial Services, including South Africa—agreed to.
  On the Vote of £1,000 to complete the sum for Cyprus (grant in aid),
  MR. PIERPOINTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in answering the question which he had put to him about the absence of the Report from Cyprus, replied that he well knew that the Report of Cyprus was two months overdue, but it was because the Chief Secretary's office in Cyprus had not been supplied with the assistance which the
  1086
  right hon. Gentleman thought it ought to have had, owing to the fact that it was necessary to cut down the expenses of Cyprus as low as possible. It amounted to this, that the expenses of Cyprus would not stand one or two extra clerks at a salary of £150 or £200 a year each. The island of Cyprus was paying out of its resources nearly one half of the whole of its revenue, and, according to the Turkish Convention of the 4th June, which assigned Cyprus to England, it was agreed that England would pay to the Porte whatever was the excess of revenue over expenditure. The surplus revenue took a very long time to settle; negotiations were begun in 1878, and in 1880 the Porte made default in the Turkish loan of 1855 guaranteed jointly by England and France. The amount of interest on that loan, so far as it affected the tribute supplied by Cyprus, was £81,000 odd. England was the paymaster in regard to the 1855 loan, and, should there be any default on the part of Turkey, each guarantor paid its quota, but England paid in the first place and then rendered an account, not only to herself, but to France. For some time after Turkey made default, France had to pay a certain amount towards her guarantee, but in 1880 England seized the revenues of the island of Cyprus and devoted them to the payment of the guarantee. This sum thus seized, amounting to nearly £93,000, had never gone into the hands of Turkey at all, and the consequence was that France, and England had the whole of then' guarantees satisfied, amounting to £41,000 odd each. The Government of Cyprus almost every year told us that they were short of money, and yet we continued to exact this tribute. He desired to recall to the right hon. Gentleman the following words he used the other day regarding a larger and more important place than Cyprus :—
  "I regard many of our colonies as being in the condition of undeveloped estates, which can never lie developed without Imperial assistance."
  He would point out that Cyprus was an undeveloped estate; and, as the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, a very heavily mortgaged one, and he hoped some arrangement might be come to by which Cyprus might be relieved

  1087
  of this ruinous burden. When Lord Wolseley took possession of the island he used these words:—
  "Her Majesty commands me to assure the inhabitants of Cyprus that she is warmly interested in their happiness; that she proposes to order the acceptance of such measures as may be deemed most suitable for the advancement and development of the commerce and the agriculture of the country, and give to the people the benefits of freedom, justice, and security, and that no measure will be neglected contributing to the moral and material progress of the welfare of the people."
  We had undertaken to contribute to the moral and material progress of the people of Cyprus, and he would be glad to hear what had been done in that direction. We had taken out of the island nearly half of the whole revenue, and we had allowed the Cypriotes to spend £10,000 a year on their public works. It was said when Cyprus was taken over that it was going to be a place d'armes; but there were only a few caretakers in the barracks there now. If that intention had been carried out, Cyprus might have been able to bear this enormous taxation, because there would have been a large expenditure of Imperial money on the island. As it was, we were simply squeezing money out of the island in order to satisfy the indebtedness of this country and of France.
  DR. CLARKsaid, he understood the agreement made with the Leader of the House was that 18 Votes were to be taken without discussion, at this stage. But if hon. Gentlemen did not agree to the understanding, they on that side would exercise their right of raising points in Committee too.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES, Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: In answer to what has just been said, the agreement, as I understood it, exists between the Leader of the House and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and does not preclude my hon. Friend from raising a question in which he has taken a great interest and is a competent authority. At the same time I am grateful to him for putting his points very clearly and very succinctly, and I do not think the discussion which will follow need be prolonged to any great extent. In answer to my hon. Friend, I would say that he has
  1088
  raised some very interesting questions in regard to our occupation of Cyprus, and I am in the position of a perfectly impartial person, because I am not answerable either for the original occupation of Cyprus or for anything done since in connection with our tenure of that island. He has referred to the separate interests of Cyprus, of England, and of France. Although I do not wish to commit myself to every word my hon. Friend has spoken, yet in principle I do not disagree with him. The bargain has been, on the whole, an extremely good one for France. It has not been so good for us, and my hon. Friend appears to think it has been a very bad one for Cyprus. It has been, a good bargain for France, because it is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend says, that France, having guaranteed a loan upon which the Turks had defaulted, has found that we have stepped in and have secured the payment of interest upon the loan by means of the Cyprus tribute and other securities, so that France has not been called upon to meet a single penny of her liabilities. It is true that technically we also have gained to the same extent, because we also have not been called upon to pay a single penny of this direct liability upon the Turkish loan; but, on the other hand, we have been called upon indirectly to meet every deficiency in the expenditure upon Cyprus, and of course might just as well have paid the money on the Turkish Loan. That is the state of things, and successive Governments, acting under the advice of the law officers, have held that we have no alternative. France has profited, and we may congratulate her upon the advantage which she has obtained, but we cannot dispute her right, and under these circumstances we must simply accept the situation. Then I have stated incidentally what is the position of England. England, although she has not been called upon to pay her full liability under the Turkish Loan, has been called upon to pay a considerable portion of it in the shape of the grant to Cyprus. The position of Cyprus is not exactly as stated by my hon. Friend. We have to deal with the condition of Cyprus as we found it when, the occupation was first commenced. At that time Cyprus was paying a tribute. It was paying the whole of its surplus revenue. We agreed

  1089
  that that surplus revenue should continue to be paid to Turkey and that it should be estimated upon the average of the previous five years. Accordingly a sum of £87,000 was determined as the actual amount, and £5,000 was added in order to do away with an anomaly which previously existed. Altogether we owe Turkey, on behalf of Cyprus, a sum of £92,000 a year, but by arrangement, instead of paying it to Turkey, we pay it by way of interest on a loan negotiated by Turkey. I do not think that Cypriotes have suffered. If we had never assumed our present position they would still have had the same sum to pay. Then comes the last question of my hon. Friend. Has Cyprus benefited, as it ought to have benefited, by our occupation? I think that when the Government of a country has been transferred from the Government of Turkey to a Government like that of Great Britain, we may flatter ourselves that some improvement has taken place. ["Hear, hear!"] But I have looked into the matter, and I have come to the conclusion that Cyprus has undoubtedly benefited in many ways, and that any impartial Cypriote would prefer to remain under British rule rather than go back to Turkey. I agree, however, that we have not done all we could do, or, I will say it frankly, all we ought to do. ["Hear, hear !''] This is one of the cases I had in my mind when I expressed the other day an opinion as to the general principles which ought to influence English administrators when dealing with colonies of this kind. I think the principle undoubtedly applies in this case, and I have been making inquiries in what way the resources of Cyprus could be developed. I think also my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been making inquiries on his part in regard to this tribute to see whether it cannot be possible to lessen the burden in some way or other by, perhaps, an alteration in the loan; but that is a very difficult and complicated question, involving international complications, and I have no right to speak on it at the present moment. As regards other matters, I have had the advantage of seeing the Governor of Cyprus, who happens to be in this country, as to the possibilities of developing the national resources of the country. They are, I
  1090
  think, as far as we know at present, almost entirely agricultural, and what appears to be wanting at present is good roads and a system of irrigation, and the means of Cyprus will not admit of providing either good roads or successful irrigation works. That presents exactly the problem which I wish the House to keep in mind, and all I can say is that it is receiving my most careful attention, and I hope that by the assistance of the Imperial Government in making these improvements in the country, we can secure a satisfactory return, which will, in the first place, make the British taxpayer secure, and, in the second place, develop the resources of Cyprus. If that should be so, I shall certainly come down to this House and ask them to make the necessary arrangements. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORobserved that the right hon. Gentleman truly said that he was not in any way responsible for the arrangements which existed between this country and France with regard to Cyprus; but, after all, in the matter of Cyprus the persons most concerned were the inhabitants, and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have satisfied himself that the inhabitants had been benefited by the change. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had studied the statements made by the deputation of Cypriotes who came over to this country some years ago. If he had he would find that there were people in Cyprus who would hail with gratitude a return to Turkish rule. In Turkish times no such revenue was raised as was now raised. How many families had been sold up in Cyprus by the British Government for taxes? Some years ago he obtained a return showing the number of homes that had been sold up at the instance the British fiscal officials in Cyprus. That was a very good test of the prosperity of the country. There was a great test of the prosperity of a country. When they found a population dwindling and money growing scarce, they might be sure that something was wrong in the administration. The population of Cyprus was smaller now than when it was first occupied, and the drain of money had been, so great that some of the taxes were; now being paid in kind, and not in coin. There were fewer men

  1091
  in the island, and less money. It was not the only island in the world which had suffered from the same kind of thing. ["Hear, hear!"] He, of course, acquitted the present Colonial Secretary of responsibility for this, and from the words which the right hon. Gentleman had uttered he felt sure that he desired to do what he could to benefit Cyprus. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not trust the official reports from the time of Lord Wolseley's administration downwards. Those reports were all couleur de rose, and did not disclose the real condition of the people.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELLreminded his right hon. Friend that Cyprus had no satisfactory port, and suggested that the construction of a commercial and naval port at Famagusta, or at another convenient place, would be one of the best means of improving the condition of the island.
  Vote agreed to.
  Vote of £140, to complete the sum for Slave Trade Services—agreed to.
  Vote of £28,100, to complete the sum for Subsidies to Telegraph Companies— agreed to.

  CLASS IV.
  Vote of £253,841, to complete the sum for Superannuations and Retired Allowances—agreed to.
  Vote of £3,900, to complete the sum for Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions—agreed to.
  Vote of £27,154, Trustee Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiency—agreed to.
  Vote of £651, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain—agreed to

  CLASS VII.
  Vote of £22,000, to complete the sum for Highlands and Islands of Scotland (Public Works and Communications)—agreed to.
  Vote of £18,697, Repayment to the Local Loans Fund—agreed to.
  Vote of £1,052, Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund—agreed to.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  Vote of £644,365, to complete the sum for Customs—agreed to.
  Vote of £1,368,047, to complete the sum for Inland Revenue—agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY [26TH AUGUST] REPORT.
  Order read, for Further Consideration of Postponed Resolution—
  12. "That a sum, not exceeding £11,473, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1896, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of Land Revenue Records and Inrolments."
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN,appealing to the Speaker, asked whether, having regard to the promise made yesterday by the Leader of the House that he should have an opportunity of bringing the subject of the mining royalties in the Welsh gold mines before the House at a reasonable hour, and to his having been informed by the Whips that it would be reached by dinner time, the hour of Midnight was a proper time to expect him to go into a question of great importance—
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): If the hon. Member desires to postpone it, it shall be postponed.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGANsaid, he would have it postponed if there was a distinct understanding that a time would be fixed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Of course I cannot do that.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGANthen asked the Leader of the House when he would have an opportunity of bringing it forward.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I would advise the hon. Gentleman to take it now.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN,complaining that he had not been treated fairly, proceeded to state his grievance. In 1884, now 11 years ago, he went to Wales, taking a considerable sum of money in his pocket, and, having purchased freehold land, worked there for three years with the object of starting the gold-digging industry. During the whole time the Government knew what he was doing. They did not interfere with him in any way, but, after he had expended a large sum of money, they came down by their officials and levied an enormous tax upon him. He fought the question with the Crown in the Courts of Law. The Crown brought, an array of legal talent against him, and what he had to say was that, this being a bonâ fide dispute between the Crown and himself with regard to ancient law that had not been considered for 300 years, the Government of the day ought never to have asked him for costs. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, promised the House that the costs would not be asked for until after the Report of the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties had recommended what should be done with regard to this particular subject. But on the very day Parliament was dissolved in 1892, and before that Report was printed, the right hon. Gentleman issued execution against him and forced him to pay the costs in breach of the undertaking that had been given. Again, the Committee reported that the royalties charged and which had been reduced to one per cent, were fair, but the Crown immediately after raised them again. That was not treating an industry in the manner in which it ought to be treated, espe-
  1094
  cially when they had professions from right hon. Gentlemen sitting on tin-Treasury Bench (and belonging to both Parties) of a desire to give employment to labour in every conceivable way. They knew very well that the last Election was fought on the promise of giving the working men of this country full cupboards and plenty of work, and at any rate this Government, having made so many professions, ought at least to consider the matter in a fair and liberal spirit. Most of these mines were contained in the waste lands of the Crown in Wales. They were of no value, and even for grazing purposes would not keep a rabbit per square mile. They were barren hills for the most part, containing all sorts of precious metals, difficult to find and when found difficult to treat. For 17 years previous to his going down to Wales the Crown received the enormous revenue of 11d. per annum from these mines, but up to the time when he had obtained £88,000 worth of gold the Government had received in fees and royalties nearly £8,000, or equal to 10 per cent, of the product. He contended that royalties, and especially those upon Crown lands, should be paid upon the basis of profits and not upon the basis of produce. In these metalliferous mines they had to carry on two distinct businesses; namely, that of mining, and then a metalliferous process for the purpose of extracting the metals from the ores. The right hon. Member for Cambridge University, in an interview he had with the right hon. Gentleman when he was Secretary to the Treasury, said he was of opinion that the royalties ought to be charged on the basis of profits, adding that that was his unofficial and consequently honest opinion of the matter. Those who worked the mines had to make their own roads, they had to be at considerable expense to obtain postal and telegraphic communication, after opening up the mines they obtained ore which was not of sufficient value to pay for its removal,

  1095
  and as a consequence, they had to expend enormous sums of money in the erection of machinery for the purpose of treating it on the spot. Her Majesty's Government would make no allowance for that enormous expenditure, but they took 1–15th of the produce of the mine. In Australia, assistance was given the miner, but here the object of the Woods and Forests Office was to wring from the miner the last farthing they could get. He asked that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have a fixed rule, and say he would charge so much per cent, on all mines. In 1888, when gold was first discovered, the landowners in Merionethshire wrote to the Woods and Forests seeking leases. Leases were sent to them, but the visual working conditions were struck out. These leases were granted indiscriminately for thirty years, at £1 a year, pie asked the. Government to take steps to compel these leases to be surrendered, if the landlords would not work the mines. At present, the landlords would not work the mines themselves, nor allow anybody else to work them. That was unjust to the State. If one mine could pay the State £8,000 in a short time, surely the others could do so in like manner. If those mines which were now lying idle were worked, the State would derive a direct benefit from them in the way of royalties, fees and charges, and an indirect benefit through the employment of the labour of the districts. Legislation was necessary to carry the contemplated mining schemes into effect, but meantime he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would establish uniformity in royalties, and reduce royalties to the lowest possible amount. He trusted, further, that the right hon. Gentleman would do something for Scotland and Ireland. In 1888, he announced that Wales would prove a payable gold-field. That statement had been, amply verified. They had taken a ton of gold from one vein, and were working a new vein now. There was an area of 40 square miles in
  1096
  Merionethshire, all of which was auriferous, containing an enormous number of veins running parallel with each other through the country. He knew there was plenty of gold in Scotland, which was locked up and not allowed to be worked by the Duke of Sutherland. There was also gold in Ireland, and even in England there was a possibility of getting gold; and, having regard to the necessity which existed for the development of our own revenues, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman, now that he had been convinced by the Office of Woods and Forests that Wales was proving a permanent paying gold-field, would remove all the barriers to the working of the gold-fields of the kingdom.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Member had imported into his speech charges against the First Lord of the Admiralty when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. As to these, he could only say that, if the hon. Member intended to make them, he ought to have given notice to the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member asked, in the first place, that, if possible, persons who held leases with working conditions should be compelled by law eitherto surrender the leases or to work the mines themselves. It was not in his power to revoke the leases that had been granted without working conditions, or to compel persons to work mines if such conditions had been granted. He promised, however, to examine the question, and do what he could consistently with the law and the rights of individuals. If such leases had been granted it was a mistake. The hon. Member had admitted that those leases were no longer granted by the Department of Woods arid Forests, and, therefore, a difficulty could not arise with regard to future leases. The hon. Member asked that the royalty should be made uniform. He had told the hon. Member, in reply to a question and also in an interview, that he would carefully examine this matter, and would

  1097
  consult not only his advisers in the Department of Woods and Forests, but would take also independent opinion from gentlemen who would be able to form a judgment as to the possibility of future mining prospects in Wales If he came to the conclusion by such an inquiry that the amount of royalties charged really interfered with the development of this industry, he would take care to remedy the grievance ["Hear, hear!"] He could not say more than that. At present he had no evidence before him, except the statement of the hon. Member that the amount of royalties did interfere with the industry. Within the last few months a very considerable number of leases had been granted, and some, he believed, to the hon. Member himself, at 6 per cent. This was some primâ facie evidence that responsible persons were willing to take those leases and to work mines at the royalties already demanded
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGANsaid they had no alternative. They had to take the leases or leave them, and the only opportunity they had was to take a lease and then to apply for a reduction [Laughter.]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that where different leases were held by persons who desired to work the produce arising from them at the same mills, there should be uniformity of royalty, and he would undertake, on behalf of the Woods and Forests Department, that any case brought before him would be dealt with in order to secure that uniformity. He was as anxious as any hon. Member that what he believed might become a paying industry in Wales should be developed as far as the Department of Woods and Forests was concerned. He would look carefully into the matter It was a most difficult and complicated question on account of the water rights and on account of the fact that the minerals were sought to be taken not only from waste land belonging to the Crown, but from land belonging to private owners.
  DR. CLARKsaid, that royalties might be charged on net results, and not or gross results. When a man was working big bodies of ore, yielding only three pennyweights of gold per ton, he could not pay royalty at all; he could only do
  1098
  so when he came to what were called pay-shoots. There was a class of ores which were not free milling; this was gold associated with other metals, and the ore had to go through a very expensive process, which made the cost of it very great. There was no desire that the Crown should not get a fair royalty. Scotland could complain of a very much greater grievance than Wales, because in Scotland a royalty of 10 per cent. was enacted under an Act of the fourteenth or fifteenth century. In Sutherland and Caithness, as in Wales, there were valuable mineral lodes, and in the streams could be seen any amount of alluvium coming from them. Five or six years ago they were explained by Sir D. Cameron, the present Master of the Mint of Sydney, and he found lodes that would furnish very fair working; but they could not be worked because of the conditions. The Crown demanded 10 per cent.; and he did not know how much the Duke demanded; but together the royalties prevented the working of poor lodes which yielded three or four pennyweights to the hon. On another matter he wished to put a question to the Government. There were some lands in the North of Scotland belonging to the Department of Woods and Forests which had been let for some time to a number of large pluralist farmers, who had a dozen or twenty farms. These lands had now been scheduled by the Royal Commission, which was unanimous in scheduling Crown Lands. He wanted to know if the Government would carry out the intention of the late Government and take these Crown Lands away from the pluralist farmers where there were no leases, and apply the land to increase inadequate holdings and form new holdings?
  On the Report of the Vote for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department and other law charges,
  MR. DALZIELasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he still adhered to his statement of a few days ago that the Law Officers for Scotland would be on the same terms as the English Law Officers with regard to private practice, and, if so, whether a Minute would be presented on the subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied. He said, the position of the Law Officers for Scotland and England was governed by a Minute which the late Government laid on the Table about a year ago. That Minute provided that the Lord Advocate for Scotland should be always in London during the Session, and the Solicitor-General when his official duties made his presence in London desirable. With regard to both it was provided that they might take such business on behalf of private clients as might be consistent with the proper discharge of their public duties.
  MR. DALZIELsaid, in that case he was to understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was in error in stating that the Scotch Law Officers were prohibited from taking private practice.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Scotch Law Officers were entitled to continue their private practice.
  MR. WEIRobjected to Procurators Fiscal in Scotland being engaged as agents or factors for landlords. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate would take the matter into his consideration.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,)said, that the general tendency of late years had been to improve the position of Sheriff-substitutes, and to get the best men to fill those offices. As regarded official residences, he was afraid that the hon. Member had raised a question to which the Treasury would have something to say. As to Sheriff-substitutes, the tendency had been to bring districts together, and although he was bound to say that perhaps, in comparison with the English County Court Judges, the salaries were not always what they might be, still, he thought that there had been a steady progress in that direction which he hoped would not cease. In regard to the other remarks which had fallen in regard to this subject, he would say that, in his opinion, the most efficient men should be secured for the public service.
  DR. CLARKsaid, that they did not desire to give to all the Procurators Fiscal official residence. The particular
  1100
  official in question was paid only £450 a year, and was expected to reside on Long Island. But, unfortunately, the whole of the land in that island belonged to one landlord, who was not a good landlord, and he had absolutely refused a residence to the Procurator Fiscal, and had practically turned him out of the island. He found that this unfortunate official, who was a married man, was lodged over a small shop. He would make a suggestion to the Government that the rights of the foreshore, which still belonged to the Crown, should be granted to this official to the extent of enabling him to build a house upon it. That Gentleman would be very glad to build a house; it was the thing he wanted to do. There were only two legal gentlemen in the Island, and the other had also been refused a residence by Sir John Ord, the landlord. As to the general question of Procurators Fiscal, there were only three or four of them at a salary of under £400 a year, and those were in Caithness-shire and Ross-shire. These offices, he contended, ought to be combined so that the officer might have a fair salary and would not have sometimes to be prosecuting or defending himself. With regard to the sheriffs, he pointed out that in Scotland they were very poorly paid, although their work was being constantly added to. The legislation of last session giving over to them the inquiring into all the fatal accidents had, perhaps, doubled their work without increasing the salaries, and now that they had given the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General for Scotland salaries on an equality which those of the Irish officers, he hoped they would look into the matter.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Other Resolutions in Class II. and Class III. agreed to.
  On the Resolution (Class II.)
  8. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,221, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1896, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,"
  MR. JAMES DALYraised the question of judicial rents in Ireland. He had read many letters from his constituents, stating what a deplorable condition the country was in owing to the bad weather. The flax crop in Ulster which in 1893 was 68,487 acres, increased in 1894 to 105,081 acres; and yet the reports of last month showed that the price was lower than it had been for the last twenty years.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is hardly challenging the administration of the Chief Secretary.
  MR. JAMES DALYsaid he only wished to bring under the notice of the Chief Secretary the difficulty which the tenant farmers of Ulster had in paying their rents.
  MR. SPEAKER: The subject may be important, but this is not the occasion for bringing it before the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether it would not be in order as an argument for pressing the Government to introduce a measure affecting Irish Land?
  MR. SPEAKER: No, not on the Chief Secretary's Vote.
  MR. JAMES DALYsaid that as a new Member, he was of course unfamiliar with the rules, and it was only by being pulled up occasionally that he was likely to learn them. He would ask the hon. Members for South Derry and South Tyrone, in accordance with their promises, to impress upon the Government the desirability of introducing some legislation to relieve the tenant farmers of Ulster, during the coming Session.
  DR. TANNERsaid he desired to refer to one or two technical points which he was prevented from raising when the Vote was in Committee. All the accounts from the inspectors in connection with the various asylums in Ireland, with very few exceptions, were very unsatisfactory. If the right hon. Gentleman wished him to go through the matter he would do so, but as a matter of fact, he would rather deal with the question in gross than in detail. All he sought to do was to endeavour to obtain some improvement in the condition of the poor people confined in these asylums. If those Gentlemen who happened to be inspectors expressed their condemnation of the present condition of the asylums,
  1102
  Members of the House ought to see that their recommendations were enforced. He passed from this point to the other he wished to mention, showing that he was attempting to deal with those matters in the briefest possible manner at his command. He wished to refer to the Irish Fishery Reports, and especially in connection with steam trawling. The work of the Scotch Members in connection with their fishery reports, had made the fisheries of Scotland what they were. Why should not what had been done in connection with Scotland be done for Ireland? He would content himself with their words. He put the matter to the right hon. Gentleman. He hoped almost against hope, but he thought it was right that the burden should rest upon the proper shoulders.
  Resolution agreed to.

  PUBLIC OFFICES (ACQUISITION OF SITE).
  The Report of the following Resolution in Committee was brought up:—
  Resolved,—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums, not exceeding in the whole £450,000, as may be required by the Commissioners of Works for the purchase of certain lands in Westminster for a site for Public Offices."
  Resolved,—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to borrow money for meeting the sums so to be issued, and to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the service of the Commissioners of Works, or (if those moneys are insufficient) out of the Consolidated Fund, of any annuity required for the repayment of such loan."—(Mr.Hanbury).
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked what was the position of the present legal advisers of the Government in relation to this matter, and what were the substantial points of difference between the present Bill and that of the late Administration which the Attorney-General opposed.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERALsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman's memory had for once misled him. There was on Government Bill at all introduced by the late Administration, but a private

  1103
  Bill was introduced by parties to extend the time given for the acquisition of this site under a private Act of Parliament, passed some Sessions ago. He held the same opinion now that he held then in reference to the Bill, namely, that its promoters were entitled to the extension of time they asked for, but the House, on that occasion, took a different view. That Bill being now out of the way, Her Majesty's present advisers were themselves acting in reference to the acquisition of the site.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he would like to ask the Attorney-General the ground of his change of opinion, if there had been a change.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to ask that, and, moreover, he has had an answer already.
  MR. T. M. HEALYobserved that this was a Bill to spend £450,000 of public money upon a scheme as to which, when it was formerly before the House, certain gentlemen were of opinion that those who originally promoted the scheme were entitled to compensation. He wished to ask the Government, regarding a large scheme of this kind, did they think, at a time when they were rushing estimates through by the millions, and when they denied Members from Ireland the smallest consideration on the ground that they had not had time to make up their minds as to the policy of expenditure in Ireland, that a question of the expenditure of £450,000 at this late period of the Session did not loom up so largely that it must not inevitably give rise to considerable discussion. This was a matter which affected hon. Members from Ireland as well as from England, for they in Ireland had to pay their share of the money. He did not desire, if his mind went with the Bill, to oppose it, but he was entitled, as an humble individual, to have time for the consideration of the expenditure of this large sum of money, and he did say on a so-called Wednesday sitting, at this hour of the Thursday morning, namely, after one o'clock, that the question of the expenditure of this sum of money ought to be defended by the Government when they alleged—as they had alleged—that they could not enter into any new scheme affecting Ireland or any question of policy concerning the expenditure of
  1104
  even small sums of money. This was a vast sum for them to consider at this period of the Session. It was not reasonable for the Government to press forward a Bill of this magnitude involving so large a sum at this period. When he saw the Bill in print he should carefully study it and contrast its provisions with those of the former Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Bill was the necessary consequence of a Vote the House had already come to. It was decided that this very valuable and important site should not be left in private hands and the object of the Bill was to enable the Government to purchase the private rights at as early a stage as possible. If the House would pass the Bill this Session, it would probably save several thousands of pounds.
  Resolutions agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Akers-Douglas and Mr. Hanbury; presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed.—[Bill 3.]

  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY (GUARANTEE).
  Resolution reported:—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the Interest, at the rate of Three per cent., on £260,000 of the Capital of the West Highland Railway Company, and to pay a sum of money, not exceeding £30,000, to that Company; and to authorise the payment, out of moneys to he provided by Parliament, and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums as may be necessary for those purposes."
  Resolution read a second time.
  MR. HANBURYproposed: "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. STRACHEYsaid, he rose to say that he would take up the challenge given them earlier in the evening by the Leader of the House, and to show that the Bill was really contentious, he would divide the Committee, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, it must be distinctly understood that if the Bill were dropped,

  1105
  it was dropped because the hon. Gentleman and his Friends were determined to prevent that being passed which the Government thought would prove of great advantage to the poorer districts of Scotland.
  MR. DAVID THOMASassociated himself with the opposition to the Bill at the present time, and he was quite prepared to accept any responsibility that might attach to such a course. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given some undertaking to a private individual during the General Election.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: This is an utterly unfair charge against me. [Cheers.] I was asked by one of the principal promoters of the scheme, and one of the largest landowners in the district—Cameron of Lochiel—whether Her Majesty's Government would fulfil the agreement which had been entered into by the late Government. I could not refuse to answer that question. I felt myself bound by the agreement, and I said I would try to give the earliest possible effect to the pledge which had been given. [Ministerial cheers and cries of "Withdraw."]
  MR. DAVID THOMASsaid, that he should not labour the point, but he still maintained that the promise was given at an important time. [Ministerial cries of "Withdraw."] He had nothing to withdraw. But his stronger reason for entering a protest was that it was altogether unreasonable at this period of the Session to expect the House to commit itself to what, if not a new principle, was, at any rate, a very considerable extension of an old principle. He was not prepared to extend all Irish legislation to England and Scotland under such circumstances.
  MR. DALZIELsaid, that the view which was taken by him of this promise given by the Government was not in any way a charge against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the letter
  1106
  which he wrote to the promoters of this Bill was, practically, kept back until a very few days before the Election, and was used as an electioneering card by the Party to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged. Then, one of the Agents for the promoters of the Bill actually came to the door of the House and told him that if he went on opposing the Bill he would hear of it in his constituency. When such talk as that went on, it showed that the promoters had not been very wisely guided. The pledge which the right hon. Gentleman spoke of as having been given by his predecessor was not given by his predecessor at all. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: "Yes, it was."] Not in the first instance. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor only adhered to a pledge given by the previous Conservative Government. If the right hon. Gentleman would deny that, let him state his authority to the Committee. When this Bill was brought forward by the late Government, night after night, the then Secretary to the Treasury gave as his reason for its introduction, that the late Conservative Government had pledged themselves to the Bill. The very day the last Conservative Government went out of office, the undertaking was signed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day. Of course, Cameron, of Lochiel wanted the Bill. He was one of the promoters of the Bill, and one of the men who were going to gain by the Bill. But he was not going to give one single inch of land for the benefit of the Company. This Bill was brought forward, not in the interests of Scotland as a whole, but in the interests of a handful of landlords who were not sacrificing a farthing in the interests of the railway, but were asking the Treasury to give them about a quarter of a million of the taxpayers' money, without any assurance as to how it was to be spent. This Bill ought not to be passed at the fag end of a Session as a non-contentious measure. It required very

  1107
  careful consideration, both in principle and in detail.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was perfectly true that, this proposal having been favourably reported on by a Commission and a Committee, the present First Lord of the Admiralty promised a guarantee on certain conditions; but those conditions were not accepted at the time, and it was perfectly open to the late Government to deal with the question as they liked. Two months before he left office his predecessor made a formal agreement with this company, which this Bill was intended to carry out. That was an agreement, by which he was morally and legally bound, and that was the agreement he asked the House to carry out. [Cheers.] It amounted to a guarantee for 30 years of £7,800 for constructing and maintaining a railway 40 miles in length through a part of the Highlands which was absolutely without railways, and which could never obtain a railway in any other way; and at the end it was proposed to construct a harbour of inestimable benefit to the fisheries. [Cheers.] This Bill was now opposed by two Scotch Members.
  MR. DAVID THOMASasked, on a point of Order, whether the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to speak a second time?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had not spoken before; he had only interrupted the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr to correct what he conceived to be a mis-statement.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the hon. Member not only attributed false motives to his action, but sought to prevent him from speaking. [Cheers.] He intended to speak. [Cheers.] This Bill was opposed, not by Highland Members, or by those interested in the development of the Highlands, but by two Lowland Scottish Members, he believed acting, although
  1108
  they might not know it, solely in the interest of rival railway companies. [Cheers.]
  MR. DALZIEL: I rise to a point of Order. I heard a remark made by the Attorney General at this moment. "Probably paid." [Cheers.] I wish, Sir, to have an explanation of that remark, and I shall have a personal explanation to make afterwards.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I ought not to have said that, and I unreservedly withdraw it. [Opposition cries of "Shame!"]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Pigott, Pigott. [Loud cries of "Order!']
  MR. SPEAKER: "Shame" and "Pigott" are very disorderly cries, and must not be repeated.
  MR. DALZIEL: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not only entitled to withdraw, but to make an apology to me. [Cheers and "Name!"]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: He ought to be named. [Renewed cries of "Name!")
  MR. DALZIEL: I do not think it is necessary for me to defend myself in this House. I have not had any communication with a rival company. I know there is a rival company, but I do not think I ought to insult the House by replying to the insolent and unfounded remark of the Attorney General. [Cheers, and loud cries of "Apologise!"]
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: If the hon. Member thinks any apology is necessary, I make it. I made the observation on the spur of the moment, and I withdraw it unreservedly.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcontinuing his speech, said, that he understood the view of the hon. Member for Somersetshire to be that he would not sanction expenditure on light railways in Ireland or Scotland until the same measure was applied to England.
  MR. STRACHEYsaid, that Parliament ought to settle once for all whether the principle of State aid for light rail-

  1109
  ways was to be applied to every part of the United Kingdom; until that was finally settled he should object to further grants to Ireland and any grant to Scotland.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in his view all parts of the United Kingdom should be treated equally in this matter. If there were cases in England where assistance of this kind was as much wanted, as it had been in the past in Ireland, and as it was now in Scotland, he ventured to say that England also ought to have it. This was, he believed, the second proposal of the kind relating to the Highlands; if it was stopped it might be doubtful whether any similar proposal would be made in the future, and the hon. Member would have absolutely put an end to the policy he desired to see carried out. He might fairly appeal to the hon. Member, who knew the great advantages Ireland had received from this policy, not to grudge the extension of it to a part of Great Britain where such assistance was equally necessary, and where, without it, rapid communication with markets could not possibly be had.
  MR. T. M. HEALY,referring to the expression used by the Attorney-General, said that, although electoral corruption was not imputed, it involved something which had only to be underlined by that great officer of State—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That incident is closed, and must not be reopened.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I venture to do what I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have done; I wish to express my profound regret that the observation should have been made. On other occasions, perhaps, outside this House, we shall have an opportunity of expressing our appreciation of the incident. It is closed, as you have ruled, in this House; but it is not closed —
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is contravening my ruling.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he received his private liberty outside the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had repudiated the suggestion of electoral corruption; the hon. Member, if he could rise again, would repudiate it with equal warmth; and the House would have accepted that repudiation. He agreed that this was a liberal offer that had been made; and it was a better offer than had ever been made to Ireland. The Irish had to find an original 5 per cent. guarantee out of their own pocket, and the Treasury came to their aid six months afterwards with a 2 per cent. guarantee. The right hon. Gentleman had not alluded to one matter arising out of the fact that we were at the end of a Session. This was, he believed, the second proposal of the kind with regard to the Highlands; and, if the hon. Member stopped it, it was doubtful whether any such proposal would be made in the future, and thus the hon. Member would absolutely defeat the policy he desired to promote. He thought he might fairly appeal to the hon. Member, knowing how great were the advantages Ireland had received from this policy, not to grudge extension of it to a part of Great Britain where such assistance was equally needed, where, without it, communication with markets could not be had.
  MR. LOUGHsaid, that it was not the fault of the Opposition if they were forced to discusss this matter at that hour of the morning. The fault rested with the Government for compelling them to do so. He regretted that hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House had imported unnecessary heat into the discussion. He could not accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Ireland was indebted to that House for having introduced light railways into that country. He thought that those railways had not been placed upon a sound financial basis, and that no care had been taken in their construction,

  1111
  which had been unduly hurried on. The lines had been constructed under the conditions of a large free grant, and a guarantee of high interest.
  MR. WEIRsaid, that he rose to appeal to the hon. Gentleman below him to withdraw his opposition to this measure. It had been urged against the measure that it would be good for the landlords only, but, as a matter of fact, it would benefit the people of the Highlands still more. It would do a great deal for the poor crofters and fishermen, and it would, therefore, ill become Radical Members to oppose its construction. He did not mind from whom they got legislation—Conservative or Liberal—provided that the legislation were good. [Ministerial cheers.] He believed that this railway would be a great solace to the Highland people, and he again appealed to his hon. Friend, the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Dalziel) to abandon his opposition. [Renewed Ministerial cheers.]
  MR. J. McLEODde-sired to associate himself with his hon. Friend, the Member for Kirkcaldy, in this matter. ("Hear, hear!") He believed that this was a put-up job by landlords in the particular locality. ["Oh!"] He objected to this money being advanced to a private corporation, with practically no guarantee whatever that the line would ever be worked in any particular way so as to benefit the particular locality. Under these circumstances, he was entirely opposed to the Bill being brought in at the fag-end of the Session. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 107; Noes, 13.—(Division List, No! 32.)
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Hanbury; presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill No. 4.]

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [19th August], "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to continue various Expiring Laws":—
  Question again proposed:—Debate resumed.
  MR. T. M. HEALYrose to speak, when—
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALappealed to the hon. and learned Member not to oppose the Bill at this stage. He was aware that there wore a number of Bills that must be continued, and there never had been a discussion on the first reading of the present Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALYagain rose to speak, when—
  MR. SPEAKERinterposing said the hon. Member had already spoken.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that he moved and carried a Motion for the adjournment of the Debate on a previous occasion, and was therefore entitled to speak again.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite right. I had forgotten that.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he only rose for the purpose of saying that, after the appeal made by the Attorney General, and notwithstanding the incident that had recently taken place he would not put the House to the trouble of a Division as he had originally intended to do.
  Question put, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Hanbury, and Mr. Jesse Ceilings; presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill No. 5.]
  Whereupon Mr. Speaker, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 19th August, adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.