Sitting of 11 June 1896

TODD'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
Read 1°.
SCOVELL'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
Read 1°.
QUESTIONS.

  BRASS TRADE (INSPECTION).
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if it is proposed to carry out the recent recommendations as to further inspection of the brass trade?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): Special rules which carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, so far as the law allows have been framed and issued, and have been accepted by 1,540 firms; 175 firms have raised objections, but it is hoped that their adhesion may yet be secured without it being necessary to have recourse to arbitration. When the rules are established, steps will be taken for the adequate inspection of the works with a view to their enforcement.

  JURY SERVICE (COLLIERY MANAGERS).
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will provide for the exemption from service on juries of certificated managers and under-managers in cases in which daily personal supervision of mines is required under Section 21 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have considered this question, but do not think there are sufficient reasons for proposing an amendment of the Juries Act. It is possible that some difficulty might be caused in cases where the certificated manager is not assisted by an under-manager in the supervision of the mine. In such cases an application should be made to the judge to excuse the manager's attendance on the ground that daily supervision on his part is a statutory duty.

  TUBERCULOSIS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  MR. KNOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he can announce the names of the Commissioners of the second Royal Commission on Tuberculosis?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: No, Sir; the names of the Commissioners have not yet reached me.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Committee of Experts, to whom the further consideration of the Report of the Commission on Tuberculosis will be referred, have been yet appointed; and whether he can give their names and state the terms of reference?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): I hope to be able to announce the names of the Commissioners in the course of a very few days.
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had received a communication from the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture asking him to place upon the Commission some practical Scotchman familiar with the subject.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he had received such a communication, but he had no doubt that the Scottish Chamber would find that they had no reason to be dissatisfied with the composition of the Commission.

  RHODES (MR. CECIL).
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, what is at present the official position

  829
  of Mr. Rhodes in the territory of the British South Africa Company; whether he is managing director of that Company under a power of attorney, which authorises him to do all acts and exercise all authority in South Africa in like manner as if done by the Company itself, the Company therein expressly undertaking to ratify his action; whether under this authority he is empowered to control and reverse the action of Earl Grey as Administrator, as the Company might do by the terms of the Order in Council of 27th July 1894, which provides that the Company may reverse any action of the Administrator; and, whether the principal authority in the civil administration of the territory of the Chartered Company is at present legally vested in Mr. Rhodes?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Mr. Rhodes has for some years acted as managing director of the British South Africa Company in South Africa, and is so described in the Reports issued by the directors. He also holds a power of attorney from the Board of Directors substantially in the terms stated in the Question. I am, however, advised that the Company cannot delegate to a managing director or attorney the power of reversing or controlling the action of the Administrator of the territory given or reserved to the Company by the Order in Council of July 18th 1894; and that consequently, Mr. Rhodes has no power to control or reverse the action of Earl Grey as Administrator. The principal authority in the civil administration of the territory of the Chartered Company is not, therefore, at present legally vested in Mr. Rhodes.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESasked whether the Chartered Company shared that view?
  MR. SPEAKER: Notice of that Question must be given. ["Hear, hear!"]

  CONSTABULARY (COUNTY CORK)
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to a resolution unanimously adopted by the magistrates
  830
  and cesspayers assembled at the County Cork Presentment Sessions, held upon the 30th ultimo, protesting against the payment of expenses for extra constabulary; and, whether, in view of the peaceable condition of the county Cork, he will consider the desirability of withdrawing this extra police force, and thus relieve the ratepayers from the heavy burthen which this tax entails upon them?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I have seen the resolution referred to. The strength of the extra force of police at present assigned to the county Cork is only 45 men as compared with 65 men at the corresponding period of 1894, and I hope very shortly to be able to carry out a substantial reduction in the number now chargeable to the county owing to its generally peaceable condition; though, unfortunately, there are still a large number of police engaged in affording special personal protection in the county.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police tax still imposed on a peaceful county amounts to close upon £2,000 a year?
  MR GERALD BALFOUR: I have not the figures with me. I will endeavour to reduce it.

  EUROPEAN CONSULS IN ASIA MINOR.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of the state of affairs disclosed in Consul Fitzmaurice's recent Reports, Her Majesty's Government will propose to the French and Italian Governments the desirability of increasing, in conjunction with Her Majesty's Government, the number of European Consulates in Asia Minor, especially in those provinces where massacres have principally occurred, and where the forced conversions of Armenian Christians to Islam has caused widespread dismay amongst all classes of the non-Mohammedan, population?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): The steps which are suggested by the hon. Member have already

  831
  been taken. Upon the recommendation of Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, new Vice Consulates have been established in the course of the last year at Van, Sivas, Adana, Kharput, and Mush, and a salaried officer has been appointed in place of an unpaid Vice Consul at Diarbekir. There is no intention of making any further appointments.

  YEOMANRY.
  MR. ELLIOTT LEES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether there is any information at the War Office to show whether the School for Auxiliary Cavalry at Aldershot has been one of the causes of the increased efficiency of the Yeomanry during recent years; whether it is proposed to abolish the school, and to revert to the long discarded system of attaching Yeomanry officers temporarily to Cavalry regiments; and, if so, upon what grounds; and, whether the opinion of officers commanding Yeomanry regiments will be ascertained by the authorities before arriving at a final decision?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): It is not found that the School for Auxiliary Cavalry at Aldershot is altogether successful in imparting to the Yeomanry cavalry the instruction they most require, and other arrangements are under consideration. They have not yet, however, reached a stage at which it would be desirable to consult the commanding officers of the force, but their views will be ascertained before any final step is taken.

  BRASS MARKETS.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Consul General of the Niger Coast Protectorate has in his possession papers drawn up by the Chairman of the Royal Niger Company which would give the Brass natives free access to their customary markets; and, if he can state to the House the reason why a proclamation to that effect has not been issued?
  MR. CURZON: Yes, Sir, the Commissioner has in his possession a plan prepared by the Chairman of the Royal Niger Company for admitting the Brass men into markets hitherto closed to them on the Niger. He published it by proclamation on the 1st of April last. It was, however, subject to acceptance by King Koko, which it has been impossible to obtain, as, since the attack on Akassa, and subsequent cannibalism of captives in his capital, he has declined to meet any of the British authorities, including Sir John Kirk. In consequence of this behaviour he has been deposed. The settlement is now dependent upon the organisation of a new native Government in Brass, and will it is hoped very soon be arrived at.

  NATIONAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether Irish is removed from the course for assistant inspectors of National Schools; whether, in view of the fact that the study of Irish has for some years shown a continuous increase, especially in the National Schools; that the number of teachers seeking certificates in Irish has also annually increased; and that the Teachers' Congress has recently made a unanimous request for increased facilities for teaching Irish, he will reconsider the decision which has been arrived at in the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Irish is not included in the new programme adopted last year for examination of candidates for the office of Inspectors' Assistant. The Commissioners, however, in view of the desire expressed in some quarters to have Irish re-introduced into the programme, have decided to communicate with the Civil Service Commissioners and to recommend that Irish be again added as an optional subject.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is Greek included in the programme?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will put down a Question on the subject.

  RICHMOND ASYLUM (DUBLIN).
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he is aware that

  833
  the Board of Governors of the Richmond Asylum, on 6th May, dismissed James Duffy and Frederick Brunton because they refused to give up membership of a trades union which had been established in connection with their employment, and registered on the 20th April; and (2) whether he will have an Inquiry instituted into this matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The fact is as stated in the first paragraph. The appointments and dismissals of Asylum attendants devolve by law upon the Board of Governors alone, and I see no sufficient reason for instituting an Inquiry into the matter, as suggested.

  NEWTOWN CUNNINGHAM POST OFFICE (COUNTY DONEGAL).
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a memorial has been received at the Post Office from the inhabitants of Newtown Cunningham, in county Donegal, praying for an improvement of the postal arrangements in that centre; and whether the Post Office authorities will arrange for a further service of letters and the extension of the telegraph service to this centre?
  MR. J. A. RENTOUL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a memorial has been sent from Newtown Cunningham, county Donegal, to the Postmaster General, relative to the defective postal and telegraph service there; and whether any, and what, answer has been given?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,):A memorial from the inhabitants of Newtown Cunningham, asking for the facilities mentioned, has been received, and inquiry is now being made on the subject. A decision will be arrived at as soon as possible.

  KAFIRISTAN.
  MR. ARTHUR PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he has any further information on the subject of the Amir's action in Kafiristan?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): I have received a letter from the Government of India on the subject referred to in the hon. Member's Question, and I shall be happy to lay the correspondence upon the Table if the hon. Member will move for it.

  EVICTION (KIRKINTILLOCK).
  MR. J. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether, in the case of the miner evicted from Langmuir Rows, Kirkintillock, on 29th ultimo, a warrant of ejection had been granted by the sheriff or any duly authorised judge, and what is the date of such warrant?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I have made further inquiry into this matter, and am informed that there having been no petition for ejection, there was no warrant in this case.

  INFANTRY BATTALIONS.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, what are the rules regulating the appointment to second in command of infantry battalions; whether officers who in due course of seniority succeed to this position are required to rejoin their battalions; and, whether, if they hold staff or other appointments, they are permitted to retain them; if so, whether the next senior officer, it qualified, receivers the appointment as second in command?
  MR. BRODRICK: As laid down in Article 18 of Section IV. of the Queen's Regulations, majors succeed by seniority to the position or second in command as a general rule, but subject to exceptions in the interest of the service, and to special arrangements in the case of majors employed extra-regimentally. These rules are, however, at present under revision.

  EDUCATION FEE GRANT (IRELAND).
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury that the Commissioners of

  835
  National Education in Ireland were responsible for the fact that the sums voted for the Irish Education Fee Grant were less than nine-eightieths of the English grant, he is aware that the Commissioners in 1884–85 and 1885–86 made demands which were refused by the Treasury; and, whether he will consent to a Return of the correspondence between the Treasury and the Irish Government relating to this matter, prior to the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury?
  MR. HANBURY,who replied, said: The words attributed to me in the Question are not a quotation of anything I have said, but as a rough paraphrase of my statement, I am quite ready to adopt them. The Act of 1892 fixes the annual fee-grant at £210,000, or such other sum as Parliament may determine, having regard to the amount of the English fee-grant. For the year 1892–93 the Education Commissioners asked—and they received—a grant for three-quarters of a year at the rate of £210,000 a year. For the year 1893–94 they asked—and received—£210,000. For the year 1894–95 they asked—and received—£210,000. For the year 1895–96 they, for the first time, asked nine-eightieths of the English estimate, and it has been granted in full. In all these cases the Commissioners were, of course, responsible for the sum which, through the Irish Office, they demanded from the Treasury. In other words, like all other Departments, they were responsible for asking for what they wanted. The hon. Member asks whether in 1894–95 and 1895–96 they made demands which were not granted. In the last half of 1894–95, or in 1895–96, they made two requests to the Treasury—(1) For nine-eightieths of the English estimate for 1895–96—a request partially granted by the late, and fully satisfied by the present Government; and (2) for alleged "arrears" for the years 1893–94 and 1894–95. In the case of both these years, the request was three times refused by the late Board of Treasury, though 1894–95 was then not completed, and a supplementary estimate for that year might, no doubt, have been presented. The request was repeated to the present Board of Treasury, but by that time the year 1894–95, as well, of course, as 1893–94, had become a year which had closed, and Parliament
  836
  had already definitely made the provision for the annual grant. It is therefore correct to say that, for the years 1892–93, 1893–94, and 1895–96, the Commissioners were responsible for the amounts received, having received each year all they asked for. In 1894–95, however, and before Parliament had finally determined the amount to be received for that year, the then Treasury did grant less than the Commissioners asked for that year. It is, of course, not the practice to lay upon the Table Departmental correspondence of this nature.

  IMBECILE CHILDREN (IRELAND).
  MR. C. J. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Government have decided what steps they intend taking with regard to the recommendation made by the Inspectors of Lunatics and Commissioners of Control in the Report dated Lunacy Offices, Dublin Castle, 8th January 1896, as to the great want existing in Ireland of a National Institution for the training and education of idiot and imbecile children, in order that these classes might be removed from what the Report of the Commission describes as the neglect and poverty of their own homes and from the contaminating influence of association with the adult inmates of asylums and workhouses?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am aware of the views expressed by the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums on the subject of providing State aid towards the establishment of an institution for the training and education of idiots and imbeciles in Ireland. The matter is one which has my sympathetic consideration and I hope to be able at some time to introduce legislation dealing with it.

  NIGHT MAILS TO SCOTLAND.
  MR. J. MCLEOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether steps will be taken to accelerate the London night mails to Inverness in connection with the projected acceleration to Aberdeen?
  MR. HANBURY: The question of accelerating the London night mails to Inverness in connection with the proposed acceleration to Aberdeen is now under consideration, but the Postmaster General hopes to be in a position shortly to continue the acceleration to Inverness.

  INDIA-RUBBER WORKS.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANNI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the statements of various inspectors (in the recent Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops) that proper precautions are still not taken in India-rubber works to protect the workers, often women and girls, from the pernicious effects of sulphurous fumes, which cause various illnesses, nausea, and even paralysis; and also to the statement in the same Report as to the absence in some manufactories of hats of suitable fans and other means of ventilation to prevent the entry into the lungs of the workers of particles of fur and dust given off in the fur-blowing processes; and, whether he has power, and will exercise it with renewed energy, to cause the proprietors in both industries to take every precaution to obviate the highly deleterious effects of these operations?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Yes, Sir; I have seen the statements of Her Majesty's Inspectors. Both points are now under the consideration of the Committees on Dangerous Trades, and when I receive their Reports I will consider what further precautions may be necessary.

  SHUTTLE-GUARDS.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been drawn to the statement by Her Majesty's Inspector in Preston (in the Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops issued during this week) that a large number of accidents have happened through shuttles flying out of looms; and to a further statement by Mr. Birtwistle that he has had considerable difficulty in obtaining the adoption of shuttle-guards, only a few hundreds probably being affixed out
  838
  of about 170,000 looms in the Blackburn district; and to the further statement by Mr. Tucker (of Bolton) that notwithstanding the prominence given to the necessity of shuttle-guards during the last twelve years, there are to-day thousands of looms running without guards; and, whether, in view of the cheapness of various forms of guards, he will put pressure on the inspectors in the districts concerned to enforce the adequate protection of the workers by insisting on guards being applied to all looms?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have seen the statements referred to in the Question. The inspectors fully recognise the importance of shuttle-guards, and have done their best to secure their adoption by employers—in some districts with considerable success. Further progress is stopped for the present by a recent decision of the Recorder of Blackburn, quashing a conviction obtained against certain manufacturers for neglecting to fence the shuttles in their looms. The decision has been appealed against, but the appeal has not yet come before the High Court.

  HYDE PARK (DISORDERLY PROCEEDINGS).
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) whether he has now received the police reports in reference to the disorderdy proceedings in Hyde Park last Sunday afternoon, resulting from the renewed exhibition of sacred emblems by an anti-Roman Catholic lecturer; and (2), what steps are in contemplation to suppress what has been characterised by the presiding magistrate at the Marlborough Street Police Court as a crying and intolerable nuisance?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have received a report from the police. All I can say at present is that proceedings have been instituted by them against two persons for a contravention of No. 12 of the rules of the Park, and that the magistrate has adjourned the hearing for a week in order that legal aid may be given to the police for the further arguing of the case before him. With regard to the second paragraph of the Question, certain draft rules, to

  839
  which I referred in my answer on Tuesday, have reached me this morning, and no time shall be lost in considering them.

  USURERS.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate (1), whether his attention has been called to the operations of a money lender in Birmingham, who, under an assumed Scotch name, and with an office in Scotland, induces unwary persons needing money to give promissory notes for much larger sums than he advances, while stipulating for 25 per cent. interest on the full amount; and (2), whether the Law sanctions usurious operations of this kind; and, if so, whether any amendment of the Law is contemplated?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I am aware that certain cases of the nature referred to in the first part of the hon. Member's Question have recently occurred. In reply to the second part, I would refer him to the answer given by my predecessor on the 16th of April to a Question asked by the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs, and also to the answer given by the First Lord of the Treasury last Monday in reply to a Question asked by the hon. Member for Chester.

  TREASON-FELONY PRISONERS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) whether his attention has been called to a recent meeting of Irishmen resident in the Transvaal, appealing to Her Majesty's Government to extend to the Irish treason-felony prisoners the same measure of clemency as that shown by President Kruger to the Johannesburg leaders who were convicted of treason; and, (2) whether he can hold out any hopes of an early reconsideration of this question?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have seen a telegram in the newspapers stating that such a meeting was held, and a copy of the telegram has also been sent to me privately, but no communication from the meeting has as yet been received by me. As regards the second paragraph of the question, I am afraid I can add nothing to the statements I have already made in the House.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government has any objection to President Kruger detaining in prison raiders convicted of treason, and now confined in Pretoria until the Government decide to release the Irish political prisoners now thirteen years in penal servitude.

  MATABELELAND.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the Land Commission appointed by Her Majesty's Government in 1892 to deal with the disputes of the Matabele in regard to their land and cattle has reported; and, if so, has it been approved by the Secretary of State; and, will he lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Commission.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Matabeleland Commission was appointed in 1894, not 1892, and reported in the same year. The report was approved by the Secretary of State. I have already, on the 4th inst., in answer to the hon. Member for West Denbighshire, stated that the Papers will be presented.
  MR. PHILIP STANHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, in order to avoid further bloodshed, he will instruct Sir Frederick Carrington to enter into negotiations with the rebels now concentrated in the Matoppo Mountains, in order if possible to effect a peaceful settlement before any further military operations in the nature of reprisals are entered upon?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The information before me would not justify me in taking the course suggested in this Question, but I will make it my care to see that considerations of humanity are not lost sight of so far as is consistent with the suppression of the rebellion, the punishment of murderers, and the prevention of a recurrence of the present troubles. [Cheers.]

  RINDERPEST (IMPORTATION OF HIDES).
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that hides of animals which

  841
  have died of rinderpest are being sold to hide merchants in the Bechuanaland Protectorate; and whether he will direct, that the carcases of the dead animals should be burnt, so far as possible, in order to prevent the spread of disease?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information as to the hides of animals which have died of rinderpest being sold, but I have directed that, so far as possible, the carcases should be either burnt or buried, the hide being first slashed.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, what are the regulations concerning the importation of hides from Africa; and what steps he is taking to prevent the introduction of rinderpest in this form into the United Kingdom?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,): It has not hitherto been found necessary to impose any special regulations with reference to hides imported from countries affected with cattle plague, and in the case of Africa I am advised that, owing to the treatment to which the hides are subjected, the length of time which must necessarily elapse between their removal from the animal and their arrival in this country, and the fact that when landed they are not brought into contact with living animals or handled by persons likely to come into such contact, there is practically no risk attached to their importation. The subject is one, however, which naturally causes anxiety, and the hon. Member may rely upon my taking immediate action should any necessity arise.
  MR. FIELDasked the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be practicable to prevent the importation into this country of hides from these affected areas?
  MR. LONGsaid it would be practicable, but he did not think it would be necessary.

  CHARITABLE LOAN FUNDS (IRELAND).
  MR. J SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that, contrary
  842
  to the 38th Section of the Loan Fund Act, the Derrygonnelly Loan Fund, County Fermanagh, transacts its business in a public house, and whether he will have the certificate cancelled and the penalty of £10 enforced against the responsible officers for every such offence; (2) whether he will inquire why the Loan Fund Board's secretary and inspector have not brought this violation of the Act under the notice of their Board, particularly after the late inspections of 8th December 1894 and 5th December 1895; (3) how many of the loan funds operating in the counties of Donegal, Fermanagh, and Tyrone have their business transacted in places prohibited by the 38th Section of the Loan Fund Act; (4) has it come under his notice that it is notorious to the police and local magistrates that loan funds under present working are the occasion of much loss of time to borrowers and bailsmen, and an unusual amount of intoxication, resulting in prosecutions at petty sessions; and, (5) will he cause inquiry to be made through the police where loan fund offices are held?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It appears to be a fact that the business of the loan fund mentioned in the first paragraph has been transacted on licensed premises, though I am informed that there is a separate entrance to the office rented by the society, so that persons passing in and out need not pass through the shop or bar. This seems to me to be in direct contravention of the requirements of Section 38 of the Act of 1843, and I am making further inquiries into the matter. In 1892, and again last year, the Inspector of the Loan Fund Board reported to the Board that the office of the Derrygonnelly loan fund was over a public bar, but apparently no action was taken in the matter. I am making inquiry into the points touched upon in the the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is lawful for a loan fund to make to any one person a second loan until the previous loan has been repaid; whether he is aware that there has grown up in Ireland a system of renewal of loans on

  843
  failure of repayment in whole or in part; and whether his attention has been called to the fact that in many cases a loan, instead of being repaid in five months, in compliance with the Act, has been allowed to run on for years under this system of renewal with attendant fines?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is not lawful for a Loan Fund Society working under the Act of 1843 to make to any one person a second loan until the first one has been repaid. I am informed that it is the fact that in several loan funds a system has prevailed of renewing loans which are altogether or partly in arrear as to repayment. The Loan Fund Board were advised, in 1893, that this system was illegal; and the Board so informed the managers of each loan fund at which the renewal system prevailed, and pointed out that the abuse must be abandoned. In April last, the Board's Inspector reported that he had found hardly any abatement of the illegal system at the offices where it had prevailed, and the Board have now under consideration the question as to the best course to be taken by them in the matter.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table the Return for which a Notice of Motion appears on the Paper, relating to Charitable Loan Funds in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I see no objection to the proposed Return.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state the amount of the net profit of the Ballyshannon Loan Fund for the past ten years; whether one-tenth of such net profit was, as required by the forty-fourth section of the Loan Fund Act of 1843, set aside as a reserve for the security of the debenture holders; how much of the residue was expended for useful local purposes, in accordance with the same section; and, what has become of the balance?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The total net profit of Ballyshannon Loan Fund in the past ten years amounted to £750 17s. 6d. The 44th Section of the Act of 1843 prescribes that not less than one-tenth of the net profit is to be annually allocated as a reserve fund for
  844
  the security of the Debenture holders, and I am informed that more than one-tenth of the net profit of this particular society has been set aside yearly for this purpose. As regards the optional appropriation of portion of the residue of the net annual profits towards a local useful purpose, the only grant of the kind given from the Ballyshannon Loan Fund during the past ten years was a sum of £20 which was voted from the profits of 1895 for the poor of the locality. I am informed that net profits not allocated under the provisions of Section 44 of the Act are used as portion of the working capital of the Society.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether the Ballyshannon Loan Fund was established in 1883 for the districts of Ballyshannon, Belleek, Ballintra, and Bundoran; (2) whether a few years later the Loan Fund Board gave a certificate for another Loan Fund at Bundoran, and in 1894 a similar certificate for a Loan Fund in Belleek; and, (3) what precautions the Loan Fund Board take against simultaneous indebtedness to all three funds?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts are correctly stated in the first and second paragraphs, except that the establishment of the Loan Fund at Belleek was authorised in 1885, not 1894. To guard against simultaneous indebtedness by the same persons to different Loan Funds in the same neighbourhood, the Board, some years ago, issued instructions to managers requiring them to have their lists of borrowers and sureties compared three or four times yearly.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORinquired how it was the Loan Fund Board had permitted such a state of things to arise?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he was making inquiries as to whether the instructions had really been carried out.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if it was not the duty of the Loan Fund Board to see that their instructions were carried out?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURthought that it was.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will lay upon the Table a copy of the rules of the Ballyshannon Loan Fund?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I shall be prepared to lay upon the Table a copy of the rules of this Loan Fund if the hon. and learned Gentleman will move for the rules in the usual way. Perhaps the object he has in view would be equally attained if I were to supply him privately with a copy.

  BELFAST POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPHISTS).
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General—(1) will he explain why 11 male telegraphists, who originally entered the Post Office service on the understanding that they would be appointed to vacancies as they arose, and, after having been trained in the school of telegraphy, have been employed in the Belfast Post Office for a period varying from two to three years pending their being placed on the regular establishment as vacancies should arise, were last year for the first time asked to sign a document acknowledging that they had no claim on the Department for employment; and, if so, what the reason for this requirement is; (2) whether it is the case that, in consequence of the Report of a Departmental Commission, a number of females have been admitted to the school of telegraphy, and are being trained to fill the vacancies which the male employees would otherwise have been appointed to; (3) whether these female telegraphists are required to sign a similar document to that referred to; and (4) whether, in view of the fact that the men referred to entered the service before the Report in question, and with a reasonable expectation of being permanently employed, and that their adoption of the employment of telegraphist has made it difficult for them to now obtain other employment, provision will be made for them as vacancies arise before any new comers are appointed?
  MR. HANBURY: The telegraph learners referred to were asked to sign the document after admission to employment because, owing to an oversight on the part of the local authorities at Belfast, they had not been asked to do so on first admission to the telegraph school. It is a stringent rule of the Department that all learners should in
  846
  the first instance sign an acknowledgment that they have no claim on the Department for employment; and, although no document was signed in this case, the Postmaster General is assured, as was stated in the House on the 23rd April last, that the learners in question were admitted to the school on the usual condition that their admission as learners gave them no claim on the Department for appointment to the Establishment or for fixed employment in any capacity. It is the case that a certain number of women are being trained for service in the telegraph branch at Belfast. According to rule, they are required to sign the document referred to. As regards the last part of the hon. Member's Question it has already been stated in the House that the youths have been offered and have refused employment on the postal side of the office at Belfast; and I must repeat what I said in the House on 23rd April, viz.—that the Postmaster General does not feel justified in making exceptional arrangements to retain in the service candidates who are not ready to accept such work as the Department has to offer them.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION BOARD (IRELAND).
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland have, in their programme just issued, reduced the number of marks assigned to the Irish language in the preparatory grade from 600 to 500, as against 1,200 each for Greek and Latin and 700 each for French and German, Irish being now placed on a lower grade than any other language except Italian, with which it is now placed on an equality; what is the object of this action of the Board; and, whether, in view of the fact that the number of scholars presented for examination in Irish has steadily increased for some years past, and that there were more scholars presented for examination in Irish last year than in German, Italian, and Spanish put together, the Board will reconsider their decision in the matter?
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that, under the new regulations relating to the Intermediate Education Examinations in Ireland for 1897, the marks assigned to the Celtic language and literature have been reduced from 600 to 500, although the number of students taking up Irish has more than trebled during the past three years; and whether, in view of the fact that 700 marks are assigned to French and German respectively, he will suggest to the Board the desirability of placing Irish upon an equality with these two foreign languages?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In reply to this Question and that standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for East Cork, I am informed that the marks assigned to Celtic in the preparatory grade have been reduced from 600 to 500 in the programme for 1897, but that no reduction has been made in the marks in any of the other three grades of Celtic. The marks assigned to Greek, Latin, French, and German are as stated. The reduction in the preparatory grade in Celtic is represented by the Board as being in the interest of students selecting Celtic as one of their subjects. Taking into account girls as well as boys, it is not the fact that in 1895 a larger number of students presented themselves for examination in Irish than in German, Italian, and Spanish put together.

  DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND).
  MR. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he would ascertain the number of warders and attendants employed in District Lunatic Asylums in Ireland, and how many of that number are tradesmen, with a view to drawing the attention of the several Boards of Governors to the great benefit to be gained by the employment of tradesmen as warders and attendants, and thus facilitate the useful employment of the patients, which would be so much to their advantage?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The inspectors have from time to time drawn
  848
  the attention of Boards of Governors to the great importance of adding tradesmen attendants to the asylum staffs with the view of increasing the employment of patients, and at present out of 722 attendants employed in the various asylums in Ireland, 176 are tradesmen.

  INCOME TAX AND HOUSE DUTY (FARMERS).
  MR. T. W. LEGH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether a farmer is liable to pay taxes under Schedule B if he is making no profits out of his farm; and if a tenant can be made to pay house duty on more than the actual rental?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): If a farmer assessed under Schedule B can prove, on appeal to the Income Tax Commissioners for the district, that he has made no profit during the year, the assessment is discharged. Assessments to the inhabited house duty are made on the full annual value of the premises, as determined by the Commissioners of Taxes for the district, who are, of course, quite independent of the Government. It may be that the money rent passing from the tenant to landlord does not represent the full annual value, and in these cases the house duty is charged on an assessment in excess of the actual money rent.

  VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can give any further information as to the progress of negotiations with the United States for the settlement by arbitration of the Venezuelan boundary disputes?
  MR. CURZON: Negotiations are still proceeding, but I regret that I cannot, in the public interest, make any further statement upon the matter at present.

  POLICE PROTECTION (COUNTY CLARE).
  MR. MCDERMOTT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) will he

  849
  state how many police are engaged in protecting Dwyer Brothers at Cragrae Tulla, County Clare; (2) whether John Dwyer, Caher, County Clare, has also police protection, and what is the cost, and are the police so engaged charged to the county as extra police; (3) whether he is aware that Patrick Dwyer bought the Caher Estate recently, at a time that the tenants had almost agreed with their landlord Robert O'Hara, Ontario, Canada, to purchase at 13 years' purchase on judicial rents; (4) whether he can state how many years purchase on judicial rents Dwyer gave for the property; and (5) whether, in view of the fact that the delay of negotiations and final settlement between these tenants and their landlords was owing to dilatory proceedings on the part of the Land Commission, he will take any steps to give the tenants now in possession an opportunity of purchasing their holdings?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There are five policemen engaged in protecting the Dwyer Brothers, and Mr. John Dwyer, their brother-in-law, is also protected by three constables. The estimated annual cost of the two parties of police, who form part of the extra force in the county, is about £550, one-half of which is chargeable to the county at large. I am aware that Mr. Patrick Dwyer bought the estate in November 1894; the tenants, I believe, were anxious to purchase, but I have no knowledge of their having made an offer of thirteen years' purchase, or any definite offer. The sale to Mr. Patrick Dwyer was a private one and the amount paid is not known to the police. With regard to the last paragraph, I am informed that no purchase agreements between the late owner of the estate and the tenants have ever been lodged in the office of the Land Commission under the Land Purchase Acts.

  GRAZING GROUND (PARISH COUNCILS).
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether in large parishes with more than one village the parish council may by agreement acquire more than 20 acres for grazing ground; and, if not, whether the Government
  850
  will initiate or assist in legislation giving parish councils, where there are several villages in the parish, power to acquire grazing grounds for each parish?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Having regard to the terms of Section 26 of the Land Government Act, 1894, the answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative—but I may state that a County Council is empowered to provide common pasture for a parish, without limitation to any specific amount by Section 12 of the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1892. The Secretary for Scotland will be glad to consider any proposal the hon. Member may make.

  ST. KITTS (RIOTS).
  MR. J. A. WILLOX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has now received any authoritative information of the causes of the recent destructive riots in the Island of St. Kitts; whether he has been able to fix responsibility for the delay in taking effective measures for the protection of life and property; and, whether compensation will be paid out of the Imperial or Colonial Revenues to the owners of plantations whose sugar crops were wilfully destroyed by incendiary fires during the riots?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, I have received very full information as to the circumstances of the plantation fires in St. Kitts and of the disturbances which took place at Basseterre and other places in that island in February last. As regards the second part of the Question, I am not at present in a position to assign such responsibility. As regards the third part of the Question, it is not proposed to grant compensation in these cases, which, it may be observed, occurred previously to the riots in question.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1), whether he is aware that a resolution

  851
  for the appointment of a Select Committee, consisting exclusively of Members of the Cape Legislative Assembly alone, has been adopted by that Assembly for the investigation of the affairs of the South Africa Company in their bearing on the interests of Cape Colony; (2) whether that Select Committee is to communicate by resolutions or otherwise with any Committee of the Cape Legislative Council; (3) has any Committee of the Cape Legislative Council, to inquire into the affairs of the South Africa Chartered Company, been appointed; and (4), whether there is any exact precedent for the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman for the investigation of the affairs of the South Africa Chartered Company by a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not had any official information as to the proposed proceedings of the Cape Legislature in this matter. In answer to the hon. Member's last Question, I would refer to my answers to the hon. Member for Dundee on the 19th ultimo.

  EDUCATION (SUPPLEMENTARY GRANTS).
  MR. F. A. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, why in Form 9, on which claims for grants are made, there is no item for entry of claims under Section 97 of the Act of 1870, whereas there are items for entry of claims of £10 or £15, as the case may be, under Section 19 of the Education Act of 1876, and Section 2 of the Education Code Act of 1890; and, whether, seeing that Form 9 has given no opportunity of making claims under Section 97 of the Act of 1870, he will modify his reply as to the payment of previously unclaimed arrears of supplementary grants payable under Section 97 for more than the present and the immediately preceding year?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The reason is because Form 9 deals with claims for grant by individual schools, and not by School Boards. The Committee of Council have no power to pay unclaimed arrears of the grant under Section 97 of the Act of 1870.

  WOMAN SHOT AT BANGOR ERRIS, COUNTY MAYO.
  MR. D. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what action the Government have decided to take in connection with the charge brought against Dr. Lavan, J.P., of having shot and seriously wounded a woman named Mrs. Barratt, at Bangor Erris, county Mayo, on Thursday, 7th May; whether any official notice has been taken of the fact that on this occasion of the wounding of Mrs. Barratt by a shot fired from the public street, immediately outside the police barrack door, Police Sergeant Lewis formed one the firing party; and, whether any steps have been taken to bring his conduct, as well as that of any other policeman who may have been present with him when Mrs. Barratt was shot, under the notice of the proper constabulary authorities?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The police were instructed to institute proceedings against Dr. Lavan on the charge of wounding Mrs. Barratt on the occasion referred to, and at Petty Sessions, held at Belmullet on Saturday last, the magistrates unanimously refused informations in the case. Upon the information before me, when the prosecution was ordered, it did not appear that the police were to blame in the matter. I have called for a full report of the facts adduced in evidence.

  LAND PROCESS (COUNTY MONAGHAN).
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that Patrick M'Ginn, Corryagan, parish of Donomoyne, South Monaghan, who purchased his holding under the Ashbourne Act, is processed by the Irish Land Commission for half a year's rent; that M'Ginn sold his farm by public auction in January last, and that the sale fell through owing to the Irish Land Commission refusing to return the deed of M'Ginn's farm when requested to do so; and that the Irish Land Commission hold the deed of M'Ginn's farm since 1894; whether he will direct the Irish Land Commission not to charge M'Ginn any law costs under the circumstances; and whether, if M'Ginn again puts up his farm for sale, and it does not realize

  853
  so much as in January last, he will direct the Irish Land Commission to make up the difference to M'Ginn, owing to their not returning the deed?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The proceedings taken by the Land Commission in this case are for the recovery of three instalments, not one only as alleged in the Question. The statement that the Commissioners refused to return the title-deed of M'Ginn's farm is made under a misapprehension, as the deed was a conveyance under the Land Purchase Act of 1885, and, as such, was retained, in accordance with the invariable rule, pending the repayment of the advance to M'Ginn under that Act. The deed would be of no use in carrying out the sale of his holding, which should be completed, pursuant to the Local Registration of Title Act, by transfer on the Register. The Commissioners do not consider this purchaser has any claim to be relieved of the costs incurred in connection with the proceedings taken against him for recovery of the instalments in arrear, and I cannot give any directions such as are suggested at the end of the Question.

  POLICE PENSIONS (SCOTLAND).
  CAPTAIN PIRIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether the Government is aware that dissatisfaction exists in the police force in Scotland on the ground of the inferiority of the Scotch to that of the English police pension scale; whether the Government intend to propose legislation in the direction of assimilating the scale of pensions for the police in Scotland to that which is enjoyed by the police in England; and, when any Bill on this subject may be expected?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: The Secretary for Scotland, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the member for North Ayrshire in August last, promised to give this matter his attention. He has done so, but it will not be possible in the present state of business to propose any legislation this session.

  TREASURY CHEST (EMPLOYMENT OF INDIAN TROOPS.)
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—(1) whether he can state
  854
  the amount of the cash balance at present in the Treasury Chest; (2) whether it is in accordance with the Treasury Chest Regulations to make, out of that chest, advances to the Indian Government for the ordinary or extraordinary expenses of Indian troops, or for the direct payment of such expenses; (3) whether he proposes to submit to this House a Vote to provide the money for repayment to the Treasury Chest of any sums he may expend out of that chest for the expedition to Suakin of Indian troops; and (4), whether there is any precedent for paying the expense of a military expedition out of the Treasury Chest without such expedition having previously been sanctioned by Parliament?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The exact cash balance in the Treasury Chest Fund at any particular moment cannot be stated, as it depends on the balances in the hands of several accounting officers in the various parts of the world. The answer to the second paragraph of the question is "Yes." The Act of 1877 authorises the Treasury to employ the fund in making temporary advances for any public service, to be repaid out of moneys appropriated by Parliament to such service, or "out of any other moneys applicable thereto." Any advance out of the chest on account of the expedition at Suakin must therefore be repaid either by a Vote of this House or by the Egyptian Government. The answer to the, last paragraph of the question is "Yes."

  STAINES UNION WORKHOUSE.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether there is any legal authority to enable the master of a workhouse to detain parents of the vagrant class on account of the sickness of their children, when the result of their not being detained is, in the opinion of the workhouse medical officer, likely to cause, not only unnecessary suffering and injury to the children's health, but even to jeopardise their lives; whether his attention has been called to a case of this kind in connection with the Staines Union Workhouse; and whether he will take steps to enable the masters of workhouses to deal with such cases?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The attention of the Local Government Board has been drawn to the case mentioned in the Question, and they have stated that they are not aware that the master of a workhouse has any legal authority to detain parents on account of the sickness of their children. If the result of discharging the children would be to jeopardise their lives, they might be detained; but the Local Government Board have no power to enable the master to detain the parents also.

  EDUCATION BILL (IRELAND).
  MR. JOHN DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has considered the statement of the standing committee of the Catholic Bishops of Ireland with reference to the Irish Education Bill; and whether he is now in a position to state what course the Government intend to take in regard to the Bill?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I stated on the introduction of this Bill, that it was not the intention of the Government to proceed with it if it should prove contentious. Up to the present time, no intimation has reached me from hon. Members for Ireland as to the view they take of the Bill; but, since the recent announcement of the Roman Catholic Bishops, I have taken it for granted that the Measure, as it stands, would be opposed. I should still be willing to drop the particular clause to which exception is taken, and proceed with the other clauses of the Bill, if there was a general desire that this course should be adopted.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether it was intended to maintain the 10s. 6d. limit, because that part of the clause would never be accepted without opposition?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That is a part of the clause to which, I understand, exception is taken.
  MR. DILLONasked whether it was the intention of the Government not to accept the conscience clause?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think I ought to receive some intimation from hon. Gentlemen opposite whether, if that is done, the Bill will be regarded as an unopposed Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that unless the 10s. 6d. limit was abandoned he should oppose the Bill for one.

  COAL MINES REGULATION AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. B. PICKARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will move the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Regulation Amendment Bill at Eleven o'clock tonight instead of at Midnight?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I cannot under present circumstances, with any prospect of success, ask my right hon. Friend to grant facilities of the kind indicated.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to bring on this Bill with a view to passing it this Session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Perhaps that Question should be addressed to me. I understand that my right hon. Friend has dropped the only portions of the Bill which are regarded in any part of the House as contentious, and under those circumstances there is no reason why it should not be passed after 12 o'clock. I am afraid there is no immediate prospect of time before 12 o'clock being found.
  MR. PICKARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the coalowners in this House intend to block the Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have received no information to that effect.
  MR. TOMLINSON: May I ask the Home Secretary whether he has ascertained that all parties have acquiesced in the dropping of particular clauses?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I understood that there was a general desire that the safety clauses of the Bill should be discussed by the Grand Committee on Trade. One particular clause contained rather debateable matter, and I intended in Committee to propose to omit that clause.

  ITALIAN GREEN-BOOK.
  MR. J. H. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether

  857
  any representation has been made to the Italian Government in respect to matters contained in the recently published Green-book; and, if so, what explanation has been received?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government have made a friendly representation to the Italian Government on the subject of the publication of Dispatches in the Green-book without previous consultation with them. They have no intention of entering into a discussion or criticism of the Dispatches. The Italian Government have explained that the publication was made in exceptional circumstances.
  MR. DALZIELasked whether, in view of the fact that these exceptional circumstances had been the subject of a Debate in the Italian Chamber, it was possible to have the full text of the Dispatch.
  MR. CURZONsaid he did not know to what Dispatch the hon. Member alluded.
  MR. DALZIELpresumed there had been some communication. Could they have that communication?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better give notice of that Question.

  PRISON-MADE GOODS.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he can now state when the correspondence in regard to prison-made goods will be circulated; and, what is the cause of the delay?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): I am unable to name a date. We are waiting for a reply from Germany.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if he can now see his way to translating the sympathy frequently expressed by him on behalf of the Government in favour of the Importation of Prison Goods Bill into action, enabling it to be brought forward?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have to say, in answer to my hon. Friend, that the prospects of public business do not seem to have improved since I last gave him an answer on this Question, and I am therefore afraid that my answer to-day will not be of a more favourable character.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, and having regard to the emphatic declarations of Her Majesty's Ministers on this subject both in the House and the country [Opposition cheers], especially the election, address of the President of the Board of Trade—[Opposition cheers and Ministerial laughter]—he will undertake, on behalf of the Government, to introduce a Bill on this important subject early next Session, instead of leaving it to the accident of the ballot of a private Member?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am not aware of any obstacle to this House carrying out every single pledge given by every Minister, except the conversational powers of the House itself. [Laughter].
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to give notice that I shall raise the question on a future occasion. [Opposition cheers.]

  CRETE MASSACRES.
  MR. C. J. MONK: I beg to ask the First Lord of Treasury, whether Her Majesty's Government, with a view to the prevention of the recurrence of massacres of the Christians in Crete by Turkish troops, will, in concert with the other protecting Powers, take into consideration the desirability of recommending to the Ottoman Porte the cession of the Island of Crete to Greece on the payment of an indemnity or of an annual tribute?
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask whether the Government have any evidence that there has been a massacre by Turkish troops in Crete?
  MR. CURZON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer his Question. No such proposal has been made to Her Majesty's Government, and they have no intention of making it themselves.
  MR. MONK: I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will put down the Diplomatic Vote for an early Friday, in order that an opportunity may be given for discussing the matter?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not like to give any pledge

  859
  with regard to the disposal of Fridays in the future, and I am not aware that from any quarter of the House a sufficient demand has arisen for discussing recent events in Crete.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: May I ask the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have evidence that there has been any massacre by Turkish troops in Crete?
  MR. CURZON: We have heard of warlike operations [laughter] between the Turkish troops and the insurgents in Crete, but I do not know that the information we have received is precisely covered by the word "massacre."
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Has the right hon. Gentleman not received information that a number of Mussulmans have been massacred by Christians in Crete?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Her Majesty's Government have any reason to suppose that the people of Crete are desirous of being ceded to Greece?
  MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question.
  MR. P. STANHOPE: May I ask whether Her Majesty's Government has entered into agreement with the French Government in order to press on the Porte the importance of giving due concessions to the Cretan people?
  MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this Question.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he will move to suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule on Friday night, so as to enable the Committee on the Irish Land Bill to be proceeded with after that hour?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In the somewhat exceptional and unexpected circumstances that took place last Monday, I think it would be desirable to suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule on Friday. [Cries of "Oh!"] But of course it must not be understood from that that I think it is either possible or desirable to have a very prolonged sitting of the House, and the object of suspending the Rule would be to get through the business under discussion at that hour
  860
  and to prevent any undue delay in the discussion of the Bill.
  MR. DILLON: I should like to know whether the First Lord contemplates anything in the nature of an all-night sitting, or whether it is only with the object of concluding any business that may be actually under discussion at 12 o'clock. I should also like to ask whether he would not consider it a more effective way of giving an opportunity for the consideration of this Bill by proposing a few Saturday sittings. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!" and Irish cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think I did answer the first part of the hon. Member's Question before he put it. I have no idea whatever, so far as I am concerned, of aiding or permitting a prolonged sitting of the House on Friday. With regard to Saturday sittings, as the House is aware, they put a great strain, and if very often repeated, an undue strain, both on the Members of the House and the officers. I hope the Bill may be satisfactorily disposed of in the course of the present Session without having recourse to such exceptional methods. [Cheers]
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERasked whether it was not the general understanding, when the so-called Twelve o'clock Rule was adopted and the House undertook to meet an hour earlier, that the Rule should not be suspended except under very exceptional circumstances and with the general assent of all parts of the House?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir; I do not think there was that understanding, and if it had been the understanding that "the consent of all parties" meant practically a unanimous consent, I think I am not wrong in saying that under no Party which has been in power would the Twelve o'clock Rule have been suspended. But I agree with my right hon. Friend that the seldomer we suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule on the whole the better. [Cheers.]
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I will take the sense of the House on that question to-morrow. [Cheers.]
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHEREasked whether there was any precedent for suspending the Twelve o'clock Rule on the first day of the Committee stage of an important Bill?
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether, as the Benefices Bill had already taken two Wednesdays, the First Lord of the Treasury would give them next Wednesday for the Land Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think I have stated to the House that when we begin the Education Bill it will be better that we should make steady and continuous progress with it. It is necessarily interrupted on Fridays by the discussions in Supply, and I think it would not be right to give next Wednesday to it. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman I am extremely desirous that the Bill should be passed, and everything I can do to further that object shall be done.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the First Lord intended to give next Wednesday to the Benefices Bill?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order!

  SOUDAN WAR EXPENSES.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the Law Officers of the Crown were consulted before Her Majesty's Government advised the Egyptian Government to use the reserve funds held by the Mixed Tribunal in payment of the present war expenses.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The general reserve fund is not held by the Mixed Tribunal, as it would appear from the Question, but is under the control of the Caisse of the Public Debt. The vote to which the Caisse came was taken on their own responsibility, and accordingly there was no occasion for consulting the Law Officers of the Crown.

  EDUCATION BILL AMENDMENTS.
  COLONEL MILWARD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the great number of Amendments to the Education Bill, it is possible, either by arrangement, or by the intervention of the Speaker, or by the Committee of Selection, or by an Amendment Committee, to give priority to those Amendments upon each clause or upon each line which are deemed to be the most important, and thus to
  862
  insure that they receive due and adequate discussion?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am afraid that no arrangement is possible on this subject, as it would require, not only the assent of the Government, but also the assent of the Gentlemen who have put down Amendments to the Bill, which assent is not likely to be given. I hope that all the important Amendments to the Bill will receive adequate discussion. With regard to any change of our procedure in Committee, I do not say that such change is not desirable, and that it may not some day become necessary; but I do not think that on the present occasion, or in the present Session, it would be possible to make any large alteration in the Rules to which the House is accustomed.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the First Lord aware that the Amendments to the Bill already on the Paper number 1,335? [Laughter.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not quite know how that Question arises out of my answer; but I have no doubt the calculation of my hon. friend is correct, though I have not made it myself. [Laughter.]

  PRETORIA PRISONERS.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received a telegram this afternoon, dated 11th June, from the British Agent to the South African Republic:—
  "Four prisoners released on payment of £25,000 each—[exclamations of surprise]—and subscribing to same undertaking as other prisoners relative to taking part in politics of the country. Otherwise, banishment for life."

  EDUCATION BILL.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINpresented a petition from the Birmingham City Council approving of Clause 26 of the Government Education Bill, by which it is provided that School Boards shall not, without the consent of the Council of the Borough or Urban District, or of the County Council, as the case may be, receive from the rates a sum in excess of the amount at present being received by them, or a sum equal to 20s. per scholar.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  EDUCATION BILL.
  Order for Committee on this Bill read.
  The following notices stood upon the Paper:—
  Sir ARTHUR FORWOOD: To move—
  (1.) That the Committee have power to insert provisions authorising the education authority for each county to supplement the special aid grants payable to voluntary elementary schools, out of moneys provided by Parliament, by grants out of money derived from local rates; such grants to be deemed to form a part of the expenses of the education authority acting as a school board.
  Mr. H. C. F. LUTTRELL: To move—
  (2.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provision in the Bill for abolishing the cumulative voting at elections for school boards, and that all elections for school boards shall be conducted on the same lines as are the elections held under the Local Government Acts, 1888 and 1894.
  Mr. DAVID THOMAS: To move—
  (3.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, the one dealing with elementary education and the other with secondary education, and that the first Bill be reported to the House before the other is proceeded with.
  Mr. BRYNMOR JONES: To move—
  (4.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for giving to women the right of becoming members of an education authority upon the same terms as those upon which men are eligible.
  Mr. EDWARD MORTON: To move—
  (5.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision in the Bill for women to be members of the education authority.
  Mr. ERNEST GRAY: To move—
  (6.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee to make such provision in the Bill as
  864
  will secure that the appointment of teachers in public elementary schools, or their retention of any such appointment, shall not depend on the, performance of, or the abstention from, any duties wholly unconnected with the office of a school teacher; and also that any teacher dismissed from such schools may have the right of appeal against such dismissal to some competent authority.
  Mr. W. F. LAWRENCE: To move—
  (7.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee to provide that the Education Authority in the Bill named be empowered, should it deem fit, to aid out of the local rates the annual maintenance of the voluntary elementary schools within its district to such an amount and in such manner as by the said Committee shall be decided.
  Mr. YOXALL: To move—
  (8.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to provide for relieving the pressure of the school rate upon heavily burdened districts, for which an education authority acts as school board, by such adjustment of the incidence of the school rates as shall tend to equalise the local burdens in all districts for which the education authority so acts.
  Mr. HARRY FOSTER: To move—
  (9.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision in the Bill for separate treatment for the County of London and for every county borough, and for adequate representation of the Voluntary Elementary Schools upon the Education Authority under the Bill.
  Mr. CARVELL WILLIAMS: To move—
  (10.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to provide that women may be eligible to be members of the education authority.
  Mr. T. P. WHITTAKER: To move—
  (11.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision in the Bill for the special aid grant to voluntary schools being made out of local rates levied in the educational area in which the schools thus aided are situated.
  Mr. BRYNMOR JONES: To move—
  (12.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for the representation upon the county governing bodies constituted by schemes made in pursuance of the Welsh Intermediate Education

  865
  Act, 1889, and referred to in Clause 1, sub-section 6 (b) of this Bill, of classes of persons concerned in public elementary education not now represented or not adequately represented upon such bodies.
  Mr. HENRY J. WILSON: To move—
  (13.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into three parts; the first dealing only with the provision and payment of the special aid grant, the second dealing with the educational authority and the remaining provisions concerning elementary education, and the third dealing with secondary education; and that the first Bill be reported to the House before the others are proceeded with.
  MR. SPEAKER: Before the House proceeds to Committee, it will be necessary for me to call attention to the Instructions on the Paper. The first Instruction is in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ormskirk Division, and proposes to give power to supplement the Special-aid Grant to Voluntary Elementary Schools by grants from local rates. That Instruction is not in order, because it will be competent for the right hon. Gentleman in Committee to move an Amendment to that effect, and it will be open for him to propose that a grant shall be supplemented from local sources. The next Instruction stands in the name of the hon. Member for the Tavistock Division of Devonshire, and proposes that the Committee shall have power to insert clauses abolishing cumulative voting in connection with School Boards. I have had considerable difficulty in dealing with this Instruction, but upon the whole I am of opinion that it is out of order, on the ground that an Amendment to that effect may be moved. The School Board is referred to frequently in the Bill, which is a general Bill, dealing very largely with the reform of the Education Laws, and proposing to affect the duties of School Boards and the control of them by a new education authority. It also proposes to grant money to them in certain cases, and under these circumstances I think it will be in order to propose an Amendment to abolish cumulative voting. The next Instruction, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr, proposes to divide the Bill into two parts—one dealing with elementary education, and the other
  866
  with secondary education; and that, I think, is out of order. The Bill does not naturally divide itself into two such parts and secondary education, it is to be observed, is not mentioned by name in it. I think there is one clause—Clause 12—which deals solely with non-elementary education, but all else that relates to non-elementary education or the machinery in connection with it would have to be picked out of the various clauses of the Bill. I think, therefore, it is not divisible into two parts, and that the Instruction is out of order. The next Instruction stands in the name of the hon. Member for Swansea. I ought to point out to him that he has another Instruction on the Paper; that no Member is entitled to move more than one, and probably, as this one is substantially to be moved by other hon. Members, he will wish to forego his right to move it. [Laughter.] The next Instruction stands in the name of the hon. Member for Devonport. This is an Instruction to the Committee which gives them power to make provision in the Bill for women to be members of the education authority. Now, the education authority is to consist partly of a Committee comprising the members of the County Councils or Borough Councils, and partly of members who are to be selected by these councils. It would be out of order to move an Instruction to this Committee to alter the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act or of the Local Government Act 1888 constituting Borough and County Councils, and therefore it would be out of order to move any Amendment or Instruction empowering the Committee to alter the constitution of these bodies. But as regards the members who are for the first time to be chosen to be added to that committee it would be in order to move an Amendment that those elected members might be women; therefore, the Instruction is out of order. The next Instruction is in the name of the hon. Member for West Ham. That is out of order because it is a mandatory Instruction to a Committee of the Whole House. The next Instruction stands in the name of the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool, and that is substantially the same as the Instruction which stands in the name of the right

  867
  hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ormskirk Division, and the same ruling applies to it. The next Instruction stands in the name of the hon. Member for West Nottingham, and that is out of order as an Instruction, because an Amendment to the same effect will be in order. The next Instruction is one in the name of the hon. Member for Lowestoft. It will be quite competent in Committee to propose separate treatment for the County of London, and to propose the representation of the Voluntary Schools upon the education authority under the Bill; therefore, the Instruction is unnecessary and out of order. The next Instruction, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division of Nottingham, I have already practically dealt with in dealing with that of the hon. Member for Devonport. The next Instruction, in the name of the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire is out of order for the same reason which applies to the Instruction of the right hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division. The next Instruction, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Swansea, proposes that it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for representation upon the county governing bodies constituted under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act of classes of persons concerned in public elementary education not now represented or not adequately represented upon such bodies. In the form in which it stands upon the Paper, I think this would not be in order unless it were altered to the extent of providing that it should only apply to representation for the purposes of this Act. It is not, however, necessary for me to deal with the question whether it could be so amended without notice, because an Amendment to the effect of the Instruction so altered would be in order in Committee, and therefore it would as an Instruction be out of order altogether. [Laughter.] The last Instruction stands in the name of the hon. Member for the Holm-firth Division of Yorkshire, and proposes that the Bill should be divided into three parts, dealing, the first with the provision and payment of the Special Aid Grant, the second with the educational authority and the remaining
  868
  provisions concerning elementary education, and the third dealing with secondary education. The same reasons apply in this case which I gave when dealing with the Instruction of the hon. Member for Merthyr. I am of opinion that this Instruction is bad, because the Bill does not divide itself into three parts naturally. For these reasons, therefore, I am of opinion that all the Instructions on the Paper are out of order, and the House is in a position to go at once into Committee. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Bill Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER in the Chair.]
  Clause 1,—

  COUNTY EDUCATION AUTHORITY—ACTION OF COUNTY COUNCIL AS EDUCATION AUTHORITY.
  (1.) Every County Council shall appoint an Education Committee for the purposes of this Act, and the County Council acting by that Committee shall be and is in this Act referred to as the Education Authority for the County.
  (2.) The number of the members of the Committee shall be fixed by the County Council.
  (3.) The County Council may appoint persons, whether members of the Council or not, to be members of the Committee, provided that a majority of those members shall be members of the Council.
  (4.) A member of an Education Committee shall hold office for three years, and one-third, as nearly as may be, of the members of an Education Committee shall retire annually at such time and in such order as may be fixed by the County Council, and their places shall be filled by a new appointment, but retiring members may be re-appointed.
  (5.) Two or more County Councils may combine for all or any of the purposes of this Act.
  (6.) Provided as follows:—

  (a.) A County Council may submit to the Education Department a scheme for providing separate Education Committees for different parts of the county or for otherwise modifying or supplementing the provisions of this section so as to adapt the constitution of an Education Committee to the needs of the county or of different parts thereof, and for making any supplemental provisions which appear necessary for carrying into effect the scheme, and if the Education Department approve any scheme, without modification or with any modifications agreed to by the Council, the scheme shall have effect as if enacted by this Act, but shall be subject to revocation or alteration by a scheme made in like manner.

  869

  (b.) Where a county governing body has been constituted for any county by a scheme made in pursuance of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889, the county governing body shall be the Education Committee for the purposes of this Act, and the County Council acting through that governing body shall be the Education Authority for the county.

  MR. W. ALLENmoved that the consideration of the clause be postponed. His object, he said, was to assist the Government in passing the more useful portions of the Measure, as it was perfectly obvious that in the time at their disposal it would be impossible for the Bill as a whole to become law. If his Amendment were successful he intended to move the postponement of Clauses 2 and 3, so that they might at once proceed to the consideration of Clause 4, which dealt with the special aid grant. This was the portion of the Bill which was mentioned in the Queen's Speech and which it was important to deal with. If the grant were increased from 4s. to 6s. or 8s., the authority under which that grant was to be administered would have much more important duties imposed upon it than if it was kept at its present limit of 4s. The argument for an authority to administer the grant would be stronger if the grant was increased. They would have more important duties to deal with. In view of these facts and not at all with the view of delaying the Bill or doing anything likely to harass the Government, he begged to move his Amendment.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The Government are extremely obliged to the hon. Member for his benevolent intentions but they do not take the same view of this matter as he does. They do not think the postponement of the clause is likely to advance the discussion of the Bill. In the opinion of the Government Clause 1 is the most important clause in the Bill. I said so when I introduced the Bill, when the Bill was read a Second time. It was read a Second time by a large majority of the House and I hope the Committee will allow us to proceed to the discussion of this important clause.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that when the Bill was introduced they understood that the most important part was that relating to the relief of Voluntary Schools, now they were told that the most important clauses were Clause 1 and the two following clauses, which sought to tear to pieces our present educational system and substitute a new one. If that was the attitude of the Government, they must expect not only from the Liberal but from other parts of the House unmitigated and continual opposition to every word of the Bill.
  MR. JOHN DILLONsaid that he would not have intervened in the discussion but for the extraordinary statement of the Vice President of the Council. He denied that Clause 1 was the most important in the Bill. It did nothing for Voluntary Schools. In the opinion of the Catholic body of this country Clause 1 was a very minor part of the Bill. What the Catholics of this country wanted—and he was authorised to speak for them was—equal and fair treatment for their schools, and Clause 1 gave no such fair treatment. The declaration of the Vice President would carry dismay and alarm to the advocates and defenders of Voluntary Schools. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!"] As regarded these Schools Clause 1 was a minor matter. His attitude towards the clause would depend on what he learned of the intentions of the Government as to Clause 4. Catholics were willing to give a large measure of popular local control over the Catholic Schools of this country, if Catholic parents were not fined for I sending their children to schools in accordance with their religious convictions. They were prepared in the words of the letter of Cardinal Vaughan published on Wednesday, so far as it was consistent with the maintenance of the religious character of the schools to "trust the people," and invite the inspection and control of the ratepayers of the country. But they demanded, and trusted that they might be able to enforce that demand, that the Catholic parents of the country should not be fined.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the

  871
  question, which is a narrow one—whether Clause 1 should be postponed or not.
  MR. DILLONsaid he was only giving reasons why he thought it might be a reasonable course to postpone the clause until they had learned the definite intentions of the Government, as regarded the financial aid they were going to give to the Voluntary Schools—a subject which was now involved in the densest fog.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELsaid the statement of the Vice President would have an important effect on the Debates on the Bill. The view of the right hon. Gentleman as to the importance of Clause 1 was not, he submitted, the view of the Government at the commencement of the Session. It was said that the Bill was to be for the relief of Voluntary Schools. No mention whatever was made of the proposed uprooting of an educational system. While the Government had practically declared that they were going to stand by Clause 4, the Committee might alter materially the provisions of the clause. They were setting up machinery without knowing what power they were going to give under Clause 4. It was only right that they should know what the power of the local authority was to be before that local authority was set up. The whole Bill would not be passed. Then, which part was to be passed and which postponed? He submitted that this clause should be postponed, and that there should be time to pass the clauses that really were important.
  MR. H. H. ASQUITH: My hon. Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme was well warranted in making this Motion, and in making it he was only following well-established Parliamentary precedents of which one, perhaps the most recent, was set on the occasion of our going into Committee on the Home Rule Bill, when, I remember, the present Secretary of State for the Colonies moved the postponement of the first eight clauses that we might come at once to the retention of the Irish Members, and the right hon. Gentleman proceeded on the same principle on which my hon. Friend has proceeded to-night—that it is desirable with a Measure of great complexity to get at once to the kernel of the Bill, and not occupy, and
  872
  possibly squander, precious time in the discussion of provisions which are subsidiary and may turn out to be superfluous. I regret very much the perfunctory and somewhat contemptuous manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with this Motion, although my hon. Friend may congratulate himself upon having elicited, in the name of the Government, a most remarkable and, up to this moment, unexpected declaration.
  SIR J. GORST: It is exactly what I said on the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. ASQUITH: My recollection does not exactly tally with that of the right hon. Gentleman. If he said so on the Second Reading it is clear he was expressing his own individual opinion and not the opinion of the Government. What was the language of the Queen's Speech? We are entitled to treat that as the authentic mouthpiece of the Government, the authoritative exposition of the intentions of the Government. The Queen's Speech said that—
  "Elementary schools under Voluntary management are a valuable portion of the educational system, and their condition, which in many places is precarious, requires further assistance from public sources."
  That statement, put into Her Majesty's mouth by her advisers, is the groundwork on which the Bill proceeds. There is no word in the Queen's Speech suggesting the necessity for the decentralisation of authority or any of the provisions which are found in the first and third portions of the Bill. My hon. Friend is well entitled to raise this question, and the answer he has received is to us a most surprising answer. How is it possible for us truthfully and usefully to discuss the composition and constitution of this authority till the Committee has got some kind of a notion what are the functions it is to be clothed with, and, in particular, what are to be its relations to the distribution of the public money, which, under this Bill, is to be given to Voluntary Schools? We have a right to express and record our views on this, which is the very essence of the Bill, the additional aid which the Bill provides for necessitous schools. Many of us are quite prepared to assent to it, subject to what we consider reasonable conditions. Many of us would assent to it who are entirely

  873
  opposed to these earlier clauses and regard them as a gratuitous and wanton interference with existing machinery. On these grounds we are entitled to say, in the interests of the Bill itself, to facilitate the logical order of discussion and to prevent unnecessary waste of time, the Government would be well advised to accept the proposal to postpone these clauses.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Clause 1 be postponed."—(Mr. William Allen.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 121; Noes, 262.—(Division List, No. 234.)
  THE CHAIRMAN: The next three Amendments are not in order, because they propose to amend words which are not enactive but descriptive. The next Amendment, that of the hon. Member for Carnarvon, is really the substitution of a fresh clause for Clause 1, and cannot be raised here. If Clause 1 is negatived, then the hon. Member may bring his clause up as a new clause. The same remark applies to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Shoreditch, I have pointed out to him that his Amendment is in the wrong place. With regard to the series of Amendments by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, they raise a scheme alternative to that contained in the first clause, and an Amendment which raises an alternative scheme is not properly an Amendment. Therefore, the proper course for the hon. Member to take would be, if this clause is negatived, to bring forward a new clause.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I would ask, on the point of Order, whether, under those circumstances, it will be now competent for any Member to move to omit Clause 1, Sub-section 1, and, if not, what is the proper place at which to make that Motion?
  MR. F. A. CHANNING: May I ask on that point whether, if that Motion were made at the present time, it would not exclude a number of Amendments?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That would be so, no doubt If that Motion were made now, Amendments would be excluded.
  MR. DALZIEL: On the point of Order, Sir, before the Amendments which you refer to are dealt with, I would ask whether I should be in order in moving to insert after the words "County Council" the words "unless two-thirds of its members otherwise decide"?
  THE CHAIRMAN: We have not yet reached that point. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tavistock, that should properly come in as a proviso to the clause, as I pointed out to the hon. Member. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee also stands in the wrong place; there is a clause in this Bill dealing with the date at which the Act is to come into force, and that is the proper place to bring in that Amendment. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lowestoft making an exception in regard to the county of London, that should be raised as an Amendment to Clause 31, where the exceptions to the Act are dealt with. The Amendment of the hon. Member for South Islington, as I have pointed out to him, should also more properly be raised later. The Amendment of the hon. Member for West Islington is also really a new clause. The same remark applies to the Amendments of the hon. Members for Ipswich, for West Nottingham, and for the Cambridge University.
  MR. WARNER: On the point of Order, Sir, ought not the omission of Clause 1, Sub-section 1, to be moved now?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The purpose of the hon. Member is, I understand, to omit the sub-section with a view of subsequently omitting the whole clause; the proper way is to negative the clause—then it would be open to the hon. Member to move a substitution.
  MR. CHANNING: Are we to understand your ruling, Mr. Lowther, as excluding any and every form of alternative proposal to the county authority proposed in the Bill? As I understand your ruling it excludes several Amendments which were expected to be brought before the House, and I should like to know how far we are to interpret your ruling.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not like to speak with regard to any Amendments except those I have seen on the Paper.

  875
  ["Hear, hear!"] In my opinion the Amendments which are now on the Paper before me, and to which I have referred, are of such a character as not to be Amendments to the clause, but suggestions for wholly different machinery. Those matters cannot be introduced as Amendments to a clause because they practically destroy the whole clause by substituting machinery of a totally different character. That can only be done by introducing a new clause.
  MR. CHANNINGasked whether this applied to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Jebb), which proposed to submit a scheme to the Education Department.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that so far as submitting a scheme to the Education Department was concerned that was an Amendment, but he understood the hon. Member did not intend to move it.
  MR. LUTTRELL*MR. LUTTRELL moved to omit the word "county" from the headline of the clause, and to insert the word "district." He said the object of this Amendment was to substitute district for county. There were great objections, and he sympathised with them—to any interference whatever with the present system under which the Education Department had the control and made the inspection. But if there was to be interference at all, and if there was to be one body responsible for this work, then, if the choice lay between the County Council and the District Council, he contended that the district was better than the county. He based this on two grounds—first, that it was more representative, and second, that it was more in touch with the locality. As to the first point—upon the County Council there was a considerable number of aldermen, one quarter of the whole Council were co-opted aldermen, in no sense representative, in some cases even chosen because they were not representative, they having been rejected as representative councillors were appointed aldermen to reward them for having taken the trouble to stand. On the District Council almost all the councillors were direct representatives of the people. As to the latter point—the District Council was more in touch with the locality. Owing to the distance people had in many instances to travel and to
  876
  the cost of travelling, it was only those who had much business and much money who could take part on these County Councils. With District Councils this was not the case. A farmer or a working man could more easily attend, and therefore he asserted that on the two grounds, if the choice lay between district or council, the district was preferable. He pointed out to hon. Members who sat around him that this Amendment was only to substitute district for county as the area. There was nothing to prevent having Boards elected ad hoc for educational purposes.
  SIR J. GORSThoped that in the long discussions which they would have on this Bill, Members of the Committee would not mistake brevity on his part for discourtesy; he was most desirous of treating every suggestion made by the Committee with proper consideration—["hear, hear!"]—but he should endeavour to make his remarks as terse and brief as he could. This was an Amendment which the Government could not possibly accept, as it would destroy the whole intention and scope of the Bill. The hon. Member had carefully abstained from telling the Committee how many of these District Councils there were. There were upwards of 1,000 rural district councils, to say nothing of the number of urban District Councils, while the number of County Councils dealt with by the Bill was 120 or 130. He confessed he should be glad if out of all the numerous areas they had been able to find a more satisfactory one than, the county, but under the circumstances the only educational area was the county. They therefore had adopted the recommendation made that the county should be the unit for educational purposes. The suggestion that the duties of the Education Department should devolve on District Councils of five members was a proposal so monstrous—if the Committee would forgive him for saying so—["hear, hear!"]—that he did not think he should be justified in taking up the time of the Committee further on the subject. This was an Amendment which he was sorry to say he could not accept.
  SIR C. DILKEsaid no one could be more opposed to this clause than he was. He differed from the view of making the county the authority—of placing the county in the

  877
  position of the Education Department; but he did not see how they could substitute the District Council unless his hon. Friend produced a series of other Amendments. Unless that was done it would not be workable. There were a good many School Boards which were not confined to one district, and he knew of one Board which extended into two counties, and if they substituted district for county without proper arrangements to deal with the case the whole thing would be unworkable. The same objection applied, in a certain degree, to the Government Bill. He did not know whether that point had met with attention. He did not know whether there were many School Boards of the kind he had referred to—Boards which extended to more than one county. He regarded this as a difficulty in the way of the Amendment which applied to the Government Bill itself. No provision had been put in dealing with a school authority which had to deal with more than one district. This was a matter which ought to be dealt with by the Government. If his hon. Friend would deal in some way with this difficulty he should support him.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid that the points referred to by the right hon. Baronet would be revised by subsequent Amendments and this proposal if combined with other proposals appearing on the Paper—if it got rid of the utterly preposterous and premature devolution powers of the Education Department—if it got rid of the small School Boards—he thought the Amendment was one of first class importance and they were quite entitled to deal with the arguments which bore on the elementary education part of the question, and leave secondary education, whether the question of devolution was to be included or not. They contended that in that district they got the necessary authority. The county authority would not be able to deal with local wants. In the District Councils they would get men to go about and see what the actual features of school work were and form their own impression, and see whether they were to be carried out or not. That was an important issue to be raised. They were entitled to contend that the county authority was entirely too large to carry out administrative
  878
  work. He spoke as the representative of a rural district. The first object of an Education Bill should be to organise and perfect the case of isolated schools that they had in those districts. He thought that the Bill, as he recognised and admitted on the First Reading, was an attempt to go in that direction, a stroke of real Statesmanship. He gave the Amendment his hearty support.
  SIR G. OSBORNE MORGANconsidered that this was an important Amendment. Take his own county as an illustration. One end was entirely English and the other end entirely Welsh. It was 50 miles long. The Welsh part really would not understand and could not possibly be in touch with the wants of the English part, and they proposed under this clause to give this County Council, appointed for entirely different purposes, the enormous power of controlling the whole education of the county. No doubt it would be necessary to follow up this Amendment by other Amendments. But because he believed that this Amendment had very fairly and clearly raised the principle for which he had already contended, he should, if his hon. Friend went to a Division, follow him into the Lobby.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid, as he understood the scheme of the Bill, it proposed that certain powers now exercised by the Education Department under the Act of 1870 should be delegated to the educational authorities. It appeared to him that the authority representing a small area was not the most suitable for the discharge of administrative and departmental functions. But when they came to the other duties they found things wearing quite a different character. Take Clause 2— the duties of school attendance committees. He should be glad to have a larger area even than the county, but how then would they constitute their school attendance committee? He suggested the case of Wales. They would have to provide smaller bodies than County Councils for the local duties.
  MR. B. B. HALDANEsaid he had been convinced by what had been said of the difficulty which surrounded this matter. It was quite evident that this Amendment was

  879
  only put forward as the first of a series of Amendments, which would be consequential one upon the other. It was plain that some attempt would be made to separate elementary from secondary education—["hear, hear!"]—as regarded their treatment under the Bill. If once they could treat the Amendment as one dealing with elementary education, he felt there were very great advantages in taking the district council in place of the county council. The county council, or the education committee of the county council, was not a body which could deal properly with all the matters which would devolve upon it. Not only was it elected for various purposes, but it was difficult for its members to be got together. ["Hear, hear!"] But there were other considerations besides those which had been urged which made him think the Amendment was a useful one. For one thing, it would get rid of the whole difficulty as regarded the representation of women upon the body which controlled education. Taking everything together—taking the fact that the district council system was a better representative one than the county council system, that the district council area was a more local area, and more calculated to be effective for the purpose of enforcing school attendance, and that they would get over the difficulty with regard to the representation of women upon these committees—he thought a strong case had been made out for the Amendment.
  SIR W. HART-DYKEthought the clause was admirably drafted, and very properly put faith in the administrative capacity of the men who now did the county business. The Local Government Act itself indicated that this very duty was to be delegated with other duties to the county councils; but this Amendment would cast a stigma upon the members of those bodies, for it would declare it was not possible or easy to find a body of men in each county who could undertake the proposed educational duties. It was said a county was too large an area for one of the new educational bodies to have. It was part and parcel of the scheme, however, that the county council should have ramifications by which they could cover their whole district; and one of their first
  880
  duties would be to frame a scheme and submit it to the Education Department.
  MR. WARNERsaid it was quite true that the Local Government Act of 1888 contemplated certain educational duties being handed over to county councils. Those duties had been already handed over, inasmuch as county councils had been given the control of technical education. County councils, however, were in his opinion, most unsuitable bodies to do school board work, especially school attendance work. District councils were much better able to look after the work of a school, or of several schools, than county councils, who were not in any way representative of the parents. Many members being elected simply because they were almost the only people who could attend at the county town and give time to the work of the council. Besides that, there was a great objection to co-opted aldermen. This Amendment would give direct representatives direct control over the educational system of the future. Under the Amendment there would be real decentralisation, which he feared was not the object of the Government. He trusted the Government would reconsider their decision in respect to the present proposal.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESasked whether it was contemplated to make any arrangements by which the work of the school attendance committees under the Act of 1870 should be performed by those bodies who at present performed them.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsupported the Amendment because he regarded the county too large for the purpose of local supervision and control over elementary schools, and too small for the purpose of the work of the Education Department. An ideal system in his opinion was that there should be a central education department supervising the whole of education, that there should be provincial education departments in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and that the country should, for educational purposes, be divided into districts. Demands had been made in recent times for the delegation of the powers of the Education Department to County Councils. It was true that some County Councils, while condemning the Bill, had expressed approval of the proposed transfer

  881
  of educational powers to them; but it would not be found that before the introduction of the Bill any County Council had asked for such powers to be conferred on them. It would be infinitely better, for many reasons to have District Council control than County Council over elementary education.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid a question had been asked as to the intention of the Government, in regard to Sub-section 2 of Clause 2. It had been always intended that the powers given to the new educational authority could be exercised by means of delegation; and if that was not clear from the sub-section as it stood it would be made clear when the sub-section was reached.
  MR. D. F. GODDARDthought the better course would be to postpone the consideration of the clause until the powers of the new body were known. There was no doubt that if they wanted efficient control of elementary education they must have a smaller area than the county, which was too large and cumbersome for such a purpose. The County Councils had already got their hands full of work; and if they were given new duties they could not possibly discharge them unless they relegated them to some other authority over which the people would, perhaps, have no control at all.
  MR. H. J. WILSONsaid that not alone were the County Councils already overworked, but, apart from that objection, the county, with its scattered population, was altogether unsuited as an educational area. The members of the new authority ought to be in touch with the feelings of the people in the matter of education, and that was impossible in a large area like the county.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid that if this was a Bill dealing with secondary education alone, much might be said in favour of county areas. They had the experience of Wales in regard to the control of secondary education by the County Councils. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that in Wales the County Councils had already plenty of educational work. The Government now proposed to hand over the management of elementary schools to the County Councils, and while he was confident that the County Councils would be able to discharge that
  882
  duty, so far as intelligent ignorance went—and that was said to be an important consideration in a matter of that kind—he did not think they would have the time or the energy to do the work efficiently. Of course, if the County Councils could delegate their educational work to the District Committees it would be a solution of the difficulty.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid the Durham County Council had declined, if they could possibly decline—the honour the Bill proposed to confer on them, he believed by 27 votes to nine. No County Council had token more care of the appropriation of the money voted to them for technical education than the Durham Council, but they did not want to have the charge of the elementary schools as well. He thought the speeches of the Vice President were too short—a complaint that was not often heard in the House. The right hon. Gentleman had not told them what the delegation was to be, nor to whom it was to be made. A different view would be taken of the Amendment if it were made plain that the County Councils could delegate the charge of the elementary schools to the District Councils or some other body; but the proposal to hand over the control of the elementary schools to the County Councils would, in practice, soon turn out a failure.
  MR. A. H. D. ACLANDsaid they could not take up the position that secondary and elementary education naturally went together. They thought that for the purposes of elementary education the County Council was the wrong authority. They thought that the powers proposed to be given to the County Councils ought not to be given to them for the purposes of elementary education; the authority which was much nearer home was certainly the much more satisfactory authority. [Cheers.] In regard to technical education and secondary education the case might be different, for this education applied to a smaller number of young people; but as far as elementary education went the District Council, which was a truly representative body, was, in his opinion, the proper authority to have charge of it. It was perfectly well known that if

  883
  this power in regard to elementary education were handed over to County Councils it would be impossible, in many counties, for the members of the Council to travel backwards and forwards in order to carry on the duties of an educational authority. Whatever the delegation might be the responsibility must rest on the educational authority. They could not by delegation relieve that body of the great responsibility under the Bill in reference to elementary education. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the discussion had illustrated the difficulties that would be encountered in trying to do away with the School Boards. ["Hear, hear!"] The Vice President had not attempted to deny that great difficulties would arise through the County Councils having to carry out the work of elementary education. The necessity imposed on members of many County Councils of having to travel from one part of the county to the other involved great expense, and this disadvantage had been complained of again and again. The imposition of this educational work on the Councils would largely increase that expense. In England County Councils were not often representative of the people, and in no case were they so representative as the District Councils. ["Hear, hear!"] Among other things it was proposed the County Councils should do, was the work of the Attendance Committees, but here he understood the Vice President to say that when they came to Clause 2 he would propose something in the nature of delegatory power, whereby the County Councils would be relieved of the work attaching to those Committees. Hitherto, in places where there was no School Board, this work had been done almost entirely—and, speaking generally, had been done well—by the Boards of Guardians, and it was the fact that those bodies all over the country had petitioned against the work being taken from them. Moreover, if the work of the School Attendance Committees was to be delegated by the County Councils to some other body, then they would all the more lose the principle of representation. ["Hear, hear!"] So far did the desire of the Government go to prevent real representation, that when they came to Wales,
  884
  where the County Councils did their work well, they, for some reason or other, said that in Wales the County Council should not be the educational authority at all, but that another authority would be set up later on in the Bill. For the effective management of Elementary Schools, the County Councils covered much too large an area, and he thought the Government would do wisely in the interest of the Bill itself if they allowed the management of the Elementary Schools to be placed in the hands of these bodies which were directly interested in the localities, and upon which the parents themselves had a voice, namely, the District Councils. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid that the District Council might not be the very best authority for carrying out the objects of the Bill, but it was certainly a better body for the purpose in question than the County Council. In his own county he had had the privilege of working on the Technical Education Committee of the County Council, and that Committee was obliged to meet fortnightly in order to do its work properly. It was obvious that there must be great difficulty in getting members to attend Committees from all parts of the county. Already the County Councils had their hands full, and if this additional work was placed upon them, he was quite satisfied that it could not be properly done. The matter had been discussed among the County Councils, and there was a general objection against this educational work being imposed upon them.
  MR. H. E. KEARLEYsaid the objection which had been urged against placing elementary education in the hands of District Councils, namely, that the area was too small, was rather in favour of the work being placed on those bodies than otherwise. Whether that were so or not, there was no overcoming the fact that if this smaller area were adopted, the educational work would be under the immediate control of the parents, who would, therefore, feel a greater interest in it. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to school attendance, he was perfectly certain that District Councils would be more effective bodies than the County Councils to superintend that part of the work. The labours of the

  885
  County Councils were already very heavy, and were likely to still further increase, and for that reason alone he thought the District Councils would be the better bodies to undertake the management of elementary education, especially as they had more time at their disposal.
  MR. HENRY BROADHURSTsaid he should support the Amendment. As one who had had considerable experience of both County and District Councils, he had no hesitation in saying that most of the County Councils, especially in agricultural counties, had quite sufficient work to do at the present time, and that in these circumstances to impose upon them the additional work in reference to elementary education would be most unwise. He supported the Amendment, also, because the District Councils were more representative, and because it was impossible, especially in large agricultural counties, for anyone to become a member of these Councils unless he was a person of considerable means. What was wanted was that the parents of the children should have some controlling voice in elementary education work, which they could not have in the County Councils. Reference had been made to the amount of travelling expenses which members of many County Councils had to incur in carrying out their duties. If, when the Act establishing County Councils was passed, the travelling expenses of members had been provided for, there might have been a better system of representation of the people provided on these bodies, but the Act was now the law, and therefore the point could not at present be dealt with. The moment that this work was relegated to County Councils he feared it would create divisions of the most serious nature, lead to much acrimony, and do much to destroy their effectiveness for the good county work they were now able to do successfully, and with profit and advantage to the people. As between County Councils and District Councils there was an advantage in handing over education to the District Council, because the people were more closely in contact with the wants and requirements of the district. In ordinary agricultural districts, the Council meetings and chief Committee meetings
  886
  were held on the market day, and he had seen the greatest difficulty in adequately discharging the business of the day in order to enable the members to attend to their other duties in the town. If they added to all this the further question of education, it would raise difficulties of the most serious kind, all sorts of party prejudice and passions, and they would, by throwing in this apple of discord, place education in jeopardy, and in some cases destroy these Councils for the good work they had hitherto done. He supported the Amendment, because of the two the District Council was much more preferable for the work to be done than the County Council.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSEthought it was necessary, after what had been said about County Councils, that someone who had an acquaintance with the majority of County Councils, as represented by the County Councils Association, should say a few words. It was quite true, as had been stated, that one or two County Councils had signified their unwillingness to undertake that portion of the duties assigned to them under the Bill that related to elementary education. He was not aware that any County Council had signified its unwillingness to under take the duties which had relation to secondary education. He thought it would be little short of an absurdity if, by putting in District Councils in this clause, they were to give to District Councils for the first time duties with regard to higher education, and thereby, of necessity, take away from the County Councils the duties they had so well performed for the last five years in respect of a greater portion of secondary education. Although hon. Gentlemen opposite might find it convenient, for the purposes of this discussion, to separate the two subjects of elementary and higher education, he would remind the Committee that they were not separated in this clause, and if they were to decide that the District Council should be what the Government had called the paramount educational authority, they would be dealing a very severe blow to the interests of higher education. He did not think that hon. Gentlemen who were at all conversant with local government would contend that, if there was to be any devolution on a local

  887
  authority from the Education Department, that devolution ought to be on a smaller body than was represented in the County Council. The Secondary Education Commission did not altogether exclude the questions that might arise with regard to elementary education, because they expressly proposed to give to the secondary authority the supervision of all evening schools which were at present recognised as a branch of elementary education. If they had any doubt in the matter at all, their doubt was entirely as to whether it was not advantageous, from the point of view of education, to combine some of these county authorities together. He knew that many County Councils had very serious misgivings, at least, as to whether they could carry out the school attendance branch of their duties, and he had put Amendments down, when they came to the sub-section, to limit the duties of County Councils to the supervision of school attendance and fixing of the standard of exemption. It was said that County Councils were unsuitable bodies to intrust with the local management of Elementary Schools. But the Bill did not propose to do that. The tenth clause obliged them to delegate the local management of every school which might come under their control. It was only general powers of supervision and jurisdiction which it was proposed to give to County Councils, and he thought the Committee would be making a great mistake if they substituted for that authority, certainly none too large for the supervision of education, an authority like the District Council, who would not perform the duties in respect of the higher branches of education or the supervision of elementary education with such efficiency as they could be performed by the County Councils.
  EARL COMPTONsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had set them all right, but he had overlooked the speeches which had been made on that side of the House, and especially the speech of the hon. Member who introduced the Amendment, and who made it perfectly clear that the alteration of District for County Council was only to affect the elementary authorities. He should like to state that the County Council of the West Riding had passed, irrespective of
  888
  party, one resolution approving of the Bill so far as concerned the provisions with respect to the control and supervision of technical and secondary education, and a second resolution stating that they did not approve of the proposal to transfer to County Councils the duties associated with the administration and supervision of the Elementary Education Act. He could not but comment upon the extraordinary silence of the Vice President. He had refused this Amendment, and had told them that at some future period he was going to introduce a delegation for the——
  SIR J. GORSTsaid that what he said was that it was the intention of the Government that the powers given under the clause constituting the education authority should be exercised by delegation, and that if it was not quite clear, if there was any doubt about it, when they came to the clause he would consider any Amendments with the object of making the intention of the Government clear.
  EARL COMPTON: A delegation clause which affects school attendance.
  SIR J. GORST: Only the attendance.
  EARL COMPTON: So that what it comes to is that the right hon. Gentleman proposes at some period or other to delegate something to some authority or other which he does not indicate.
  SIR J. GORST: That is not a fair representation of what happened. What happened was this: a question was asked me upon the intentions of the Government with reference to a future clause which I had grave doubts as to whether I should be in order in discussing. I got up and gave an answer, and it is not fair of the noble Lord to represent that as the only answer I have given.
  EARL COMPTONhad no wish to be unfair to the right hon. Gentleman, whose explanation he accepted. But he had refused to substitute the District for the County Councils, and had given no reason whatever for such refusal. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would enlighten them a little bit as to why he would not accept the District Council, after all the speeches that had been made, instead of County Council. The District Council was, in his opinion, a much better body than the County Council for this purpose.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHthought there would be a practical agreement that with regard to elementary education the District Councils were the better body and for secondary education the County Councils. For elementary education it was obvious there must be a body conversant with the local facts of the village for which that education was required. Could anyone contend that the County Council for a large rural area was competent to deal with elementary education for an outlying district? With regard to secondary education, when there were perhaps only three or four or five secondary schools in a county, surely in that case the County Council was the better body to look after the matter. Under these circumstances he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not make some concession on these lines: that the County Council should look after secondary education, and that with regard to elementary education the matter should not be relegated to a central body which had already too much to do, but should be relegated to a local body that was in touch with the needs of the locality, and better able to perform the business.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSobserved that two main objections were urged against the Bill as it now stood. The first was that the County Councils, or many of them, were unwilling to take upon themselves the responsibility imposed upon them by this clause, and the second was that they would find the greatest difficulty in doing the work, because of the extent of the areas with which they would have to deal. There was another difficulty. One strong ground of objection to the Measure as it at present stood was that it was proposed to confer large powers on a body that was to a large extent non-elective, and which, in so far as it was elective, was not elective for the purposes of this Bill. The proposal to confer these powers on District Councils, to a certain extent, met that objection, because District Councils were wholly elective. Many on that side would prefer that the education authority should be not merely an elective authority, but one elected ad hoc. If they could not, however, attain that, the next best thing was to give the power to a body which was wholly
  890
  elective. The promoters of this Measure attached great importance to the principle of devolution. In order successfully to carry out that principle two things appeared to him to be needful. First of all, they must have local interest in the bodies on whom they proposed to confer these powers, and in the next place they must have confidence reposed in those bodies. It seemed to him they were far more likely to have those two things in the case of the District Council than they were in the case of the County Council; which was a far off body, which did not fully represent the people, and which in many parts of the country had not secured the confidence of the electors.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYhad no particular affection for the scheme laid down in the Bill, but to adopt the Amendment would rob the Measure of what worth it had in his opinion. He most strenuously opposed the delegation of the powers of the Education Department to an authority less competent, and covering a smaller area than that of the County Council. One of the most objectionable features in the present system of education had been the administration of small School Boards, yet the Amendment before the Committee suggested that these evils should be stereotyped by setting up the District Council as the authority. During the Second Reading Debates they heard a good deal from the other side as to the objection of School Boards to some supervising authority such as the County Council. But the proposal now was not to put the County Council as the authority, but to make the smaller authority with less power the controlling authority over the School Boards. If the Government had ventured to propose such a thing every supporter of the School Boards throughout the country would have risen in arms against them for having suggested such an absurdity as that the District Councils should be the supervising authority over the School Board, instead of the County Council. Every lover of education would agree it was essential that one and the same authority should have control over primary and secondary education. Had not there been great waste of money and effort by a number of existing authorities having control over education, and was it not desirable, now that the opportunity offered, that one authority

  891
  should have the control over both primary and secondary education? Yet the proposal now before them was to have the District Council for primary education to supervise the School Boards, and that the County Council should be the authority for secondary education. He felt it was desirable also, in the interests of the ratepayers, that the cost should be spread over the widest possible area. There would be power given to the new authority to incur certain expenditure, and it was most essential, in the interests of the ratepayers, that the cost should be equally distributed over the widest possible area. He largely preferred the County Council area to the District Council area, and he, therefore, opposed the Amendment.
  MR. JOHN BURNSremarked that the Bill and the clause they were now discussing were practically based upon the theory that the centralised State authority had become over-worked, beaurocratic, and complex in every one of its operations, and to get over that difficulty they were to devolve certain work from the central authority to the County Council. They (the Opposition) asked that the Government should go a bit further, and if they were going to interfere with the School Board system at all, they had better get over the difficulty suggested by the hon. Member for North-West Ham, not by sneering at District Councils, not by intensifying the work of the County Councils, but by following the excellent example of Scotland, and if the centralised State authority could not deal with education, then "devolute" in fact and reality by establishing an elected School Board in every parish, against which none of the arguments could be directed that had been directed either against the County or District Council. He was surprised at the hon. Member who had last spoken identifying himself with anything which would detract from the interest that parents, and especially electors would have in the local education authority as to the education of their children. He was under the impression that in the rural localities which required education the most, they would get it the least if centralised County Councils, swelled up with squires, farmers, and local magnates had either the distribution of the fund or the administration
  892
  and the determination of the curriculum. He was positively convinced of this, that if the hon. Member for North-West Ham had been consistent in his proposition, he ought to have put down an Amendment on the Paper to have a School Board in every parish, and where the parishes were small, a group of four or five could have a School Board amongst them. The hon. Member had urged as a reason why the District Councils should not have control over elementary education, that there had been a large waste of public money, a large dissipation of energy, and much overlapping, due to the fact that so many authorities had dealt with education. That was perfectly true, but what was the reason? The reason of it was the instinctive distrust on the part of the framers of the Bill, and the hands behind it, of their educational system; the reason was because every School Board had, unfortunately, been made a clerical cock-pit for ecclesiastics to wrangle over fundamental differences. That was partly why the Bill was introduced. He ventured to say if the County Councils, over-worked as they were, had control of education in local centres, that would be much better catered for by local School Boards, and in their absence, by grouped District Councils. Such districts would practically get very little of that education which, under either a District Council or representative School Board, they would get much better than would be given them under this Bill. He objected to this clause because it proposed to give the control of education to the County Councils, simply because they were County Councils. The area of County Council jurisdiction might be well fitted for the control of roads, bridges, drains, and tramways, but it certainly was not fitted for the control of education. He intended to emphasise this point because the principle, or rather the want of principle, was at the bottom of hundreds of Amendments to this Bill that had been placed upon the Paper, and he intended to lay his objections to the proposals of the clause before the Committee, notwithstanding the impatience of those few hon. Gentlemen who did not like School Boards. There was but little, if any, demand on the part of County Councils to any share in the control of elementary

  893
  education, and it would not be long before they would protest against these extra duties being imposed upon them. The duties arising out of the control of education were precisely those which the County Councils could not properly discharge, because they ought to be discharged by a local body. Ideally, education ought to be carried out by the fathers and mothers of the children, and if they could not discharge the duties of their position, those duties ought to be discharged by the next best persons—namely, their neighbours and friends, or, more properly speaking, by the localities who know the characters and idiosyncracies of the children. That, at all events, was his view of the matter. He was judging by his own experience. If hon. Members opposite did not have good fathers and mothers that was their misfortune—he did. Failing the ideal educational authority—the parent—it was not necessary to go higher up than the local community in which the children were situated. Therefore, failing the School Board, they ought not to go higher up than the District Councils. The right hon. Gentleman had been studiously brief in his explanation of this clause. It was quite possible that in a small county like Rutland, the County Council might be intrusted with the control of certain branches of education, but it would be impossible in the cases of large counties such as Lancashire, Yorkshire and Norfolk, the County Councils of which were already overworked. They had been told by the right hon. Gentleman that he desired to put himself in accord with the criticisms which had been passed upon the proposals in the Bill by hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, but in that case he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman how absurd it was to attempt to transfer to the County Councils the work of the School Boards. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he desired that school attendance should be placed under the control of the School Attendance Committees. But the duty in connection with school attendance was not the only one that required minute daily investigation on the part of some local body. There was the duty of the supervision of the sanitary condition of the school buildings, of seeing that the staff did not go wrong, and of
  894
  considering the case of the aggrieved parent. It was impossible for the County Council to be in close touch with the latter. There was another point to which he desired to call attention. Unfortunately, the County Councils had become political in their character, and it would be most disastrous if education were to be mixed up with politics as well as with religion. In his opinion the proposal in this clause to transfer this authority to the County Council was an ingenious device on the part of the promoters of the Bill for keeping all share in the control of education out of the hands of the poor man. He was glad to say that at the present time there were in this country some 500 or 600 working men who had been elected to serve upon the School Boards, especially in the smaller towns and in the rural districts. If the powers of the School Boards were transferred to the County Councils, upon which the working men were not represented, the confidence of the working men in our educational system would be permanently destroyed. It would have been better, in his opinion, if this clause had been withdrawn for a time in order that the Government might have had an opportunity of reconsidering it. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that whereas at present the numbers of educational authorities in the country was 123, if the powers in question were to be transferred to the District Councils, that number would be increased to 1,000, a number which he characterised as being unnecessary and superfluous. But why was it that Scotland produced the best artisans, how was it that our best captains of industry came from that country, and why was it that so many Scotchmen occupied seats upon both the front Benches in that House? It was because Scotland had had thousands of School Boards during the last two centuries, and that the education given was not interfered with by ecclesiastical bigots as was the case in London. In Scotland they had believed in the parish authority as the local educational authority. Next to Germany Scotland had one of the best educational systems in the world. The transference of the control of education to the County Councils meant the centralisation of the power and the destruction of local education in the best sense of the term. He

  895
  should, therefore, vote against the proposal in the clause, not only once, but often.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down overlooked the fact that under Clause 10 the County Councils could delegate the management of schools to the local authorities. On the other hand the proposal was quite inconsistent with the 3rd Clause. He hoped that the Committee would support the Bill as it stood.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid that if they omitted the word "county" it would be open to the Vice President of the Council to say that there should be some other local body which they were all pressing for so much to attend to elementary education. He for one was not wedded very much to District Councils. He had taken it as the only alternative they had at this moment. He asked the Vice President whether he would allow the delegation of control over elementary education to some locally-elected body. If School Boards were to dwindle away under the Bill—[cries of "No!"]—the parents of the children should constitute by election the bodies to have charge of the elementary schools, as the School Boards had now to a certain extent. But how much power and what authority would the Vice President delegate away from the County Council?
  SIR J. GORSTreplied that his objection to the Amendment was stated when the Amendment was moved. By that objection he stood. He had nothing to add. Those who were not in the House at the time he stated it would read it in the newspapers to-morrow morning. [Opposition cries of "Oh!"] In answer to the hon. Baronet who had just spoken, the county authority was not created for the purpose of carrying out the details of elementary education, which would be carried out by School Boards and Voluntary School managers, the county authority exercising a general supervision over it. If the Committee were not willing to give delegated powers to the County Council, he had no other body to which he wished to delegate them. He thought the County Council was the proper body. The Bill explained the nature of the authority to be given to it. That authoirity would be amply discussed in detail. The Government
  896
  were open to any modification or amendment that the wisdom of the Committee might determine upon, but the County Council was the authority the Government would ask the Committee to assent to, and it was the only authority they proposed.
  Question put: "That the word 'county' stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 298; Noes, 125.—(Division List, No. 235.)
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT*SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.) moved after the word "council" to insert the words "and every council of a municipal borough." He said his Amendment raised an important question, in which there was much interest and also much feeling; and its effect was to substitute for county boroughs, i. e., boroughs having a population of 50,000 and upwards, the whole, or at least most, of the boroughs as local education authorities. He did not move it in a spirit hostile to the Bill, the municipal principles of which he heartily approved, and he had, in fact, long before the Bill was heard of, given evidence before the Royal Commission on Secondary Education in favour of making the municipalities, acting through statutorily independent Committees, the local education authorities, and the present clause entirely commended itself to the corporations. He assured himself of the sympathetic consideration of the Vice President, and he would, of course, listen to any suggestion in favour of the non-county boroughs, and, on the other hand, he might assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Municipal Corporations' Association, consisting of both county and non-county boroughs, which had fully discussed this subject, and knew well the circumstances of all the towns, were unanimous in regarding the distinction made between the two classes of boroughs as wrong in principle and one which it was meant to attack and destroy, if possible. The Bill was based on the localisation of education as its central principle. Why, then, limit this decentralisation by a population line and one which was purely arbitrary? That it was so was shown by the fact that in the Local Government Bill of 1888, the line first

  897
  drawn between county and non-county boroughs was double what was ultimately passed, for it was proposed to fix it at 100,000, but it was reduced to 50,000; and even then it was neither uniformly nor universally applied, for several towns with less than 50,000 inhabitants, e.g., Canterbury, Chester, Exeter, Lincoln and Worcester, were made County Councils (upon the practically obsolete pretext that they were counties in themselves), and they would, therefore, under the Bill, be education authorities. Now who could consistently vindicate this fact—that Canterbury with 23,000 and Chester with 37,000 populations, would be so, while two towns most notable educationally, namely, Cheltenham with 47,500 and its great schools for both boys and girls, and Cambridge with 37,000 would be the reverse? Moreover, inroads had been made in the county-borough clause of the Local Government Act of 1888 in many directions, and to-night he meant to try to finally breach it. Not one but several population lines had been drawn—e.g., while in the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882 the limit in new boroughs for a separate police system was 20,000, in the Act of 1888 the standard of even old ones was reduced to 10,000, for police and for the appointment of coroners, analysts, etc. Again, in the transfer of local powers by other Bills, he himself had obtained several concessions, while in the Light Railways Bill now before the House, the line of power for construction and working was drawn at 10,000 inhabitants. And, from the first enactment of the county-borough line at 50,000, it had been a source of friction between Town and County Councils, of constant irritation and ill-feeling, and of detriment to the interests of both, and, if this feeling were to be aggravated by the present Bill it would be a great disadvantage to the cause of education which no one had more at heart, for both individual and national and material and commercial reasons, than himself. The true distinction between town and county lay in the difference between borough life and organisation, in the long continuity of municipal experience in the former, in the fact that the towns were centres of thought and action as compared with the placidity of rural existence,
  898
  in the variety of civic conditions,—all of which were the bases of the autonomy of the boroughs, which gained it by conflict and sacrifice, which retained it under the first Municipal Act, and which was confirmed to them, and each of them, as of right under the Municipal Act of 1882. It was all this, not comparative population, which logically was only an accident and not of the essence of the problem, which really explained the migration of the labourers into the towns, just as it was centuries of experience in local government and of historical traditions which made the boroughs the precedent and example for the extension of local self-government to the counties, and it was not to be expected that borough councils would now submit to the predominance of other bodies, which were the creations comparatively of only yesterday. The boroughs, moreover, were competent, and the best judges of their own local interests and wants, and he asked could such a County Council as that for the West Riding, sitting at such an agricultural centre as Wakefield, and composed very largely of rural members, know better than Keighley, where he knew by personal experience such splendid facilities for technical and other secondary education had been established by local initiative and efforts; or Batley or Dewsbury themselves, what were their own educational and industrial requirements, and how they would be best and most efficiently supplied? Why, then, had the Government thus tried to differentiate the non-county from the county boroughs? Was it because the number of the education authorities would otherwise be unduly increased; and, if so, did they not overlook the facts that the problem only became one of more organisation, that the Local Government Board dealt successfully with an infinitely greater number of local areas, and that variety and elasticity were two of the things which ought to be chiefly kept in view in any educational system? Or, was it that the boroughs were to be kept chained to the counties in order to help to pull rural education out of the slough into which it had been permitted to fall, to the great prejudice of the agricultural industry in this country as compared with others, such as Denmark, which

  899
  were our great competitors, the competition being based on better primary and secondary education, and upon a wider knowledge of the application of science and co-operation to agriculture? If so, while he most heartily sympathised with every effort to improve rural education, which was one object of this Bill, he protested against the unjust prejudice to boroughs, which, having regard to their position and opportunities, ought rather to be the educational, as they were the intellectual, centres of the less advanced rural districts which surrounded them. And the House was not without actual experience for its guidance. The boroughs, so far from being open to distrust, had already done great educational work, and done it well. Under the Technical Instruction and Customs' and Excise Acts, none of them, except one in an exceptional position, where other resources largely existed, had used their windfall from whiskey to relieve the rates instead of devoting it to secondary education. Nottingham—perhaps our best example of municipal education, though one which was vastly eclipsed by foreign competing centres, as by Strasbourg, where, since the war of 1870 a College eight times as large as that at Nottingham had been built at a cost of over half a million, and with an endowment of nearly a hundred thousand a year,—not only showed what our municipalities could and would do, but by its example had stirred the spirits of towns which were much smaller than itself, which had shown by their work that there was no real instruction between county and non-county boroughs based merely on the test of population, and which had grown, and would grow, in educational enterprise. Thus, in Lancashire, while the county boroughs had raised, by direct rating, for educational purposes, £8,000 per annum, the non-county boroughs, with a less population, had collected £10,000. He showed in detail from the cases of Colchester (where marine biological work was being done), Doncaster, Faversham, Nelson, Chesterfield and Dover, what excellent educational work had been done by non-county boroughs, and also cited the exemplary case of Worcester, which, though technically a county borough, had less than 50,000 inhabitants, and was therefore available as an example of what the
  900
  smaller boroughs had done for public instruction; and he pointed out that in their co-ordination and grading of schools, in their practical work and industrial training, and in the improvement of the qualifications and remuneration of teachers—and if we wanted to make our teaching good we must elevate our teachers—the very lines of the present Bill had been anticipated by some of these and other comparatively small towns. For instance, Luton, a borough of some 30,000 inhabitants, presented the very best instance of the value and success of technical education. It had lost its trade—the straw plait and hat industry, a bye-trade of depressed agriculture—owing to the competition of Switzerland and Italy. With great difficulty, owing to the defects of primary instruction, the people were convinced by the Corporation that the remedy lay in technical and scientific knowledge and in the adoption of the best and newest methods and processes of manufacture. This was effected, and now Luton was exporting to Germany hats made in England, while the wages of its workpeople had been increased by 100 per cent. Why and how? Because of local knowledge of its own wants; and was all this local work to be endangered, and perhaps strangled, by administration from a distant county town, and by the County instead of a Town Council, which could have no special knowledge of the varying conditions of the boroughs scattered throughout the county? Unfortunately, too, the boroughs had other, and not encouraging, experience of County Council administration, and this led them to resist further absorption and merger in the counties. There had been financial friction ever since the Act of 1888, and this must not be increased. Let them look at the County Council administration of the Technical Instruction and Customs' Acts. He was told that some Councils, like that of Kent, had established its own county agricultural school, in which Dover had no real interest, and had deducted part of Dover's proportion of the technical instruction grant in order to help to pay for it. Lancashire was also said to have set up its own schools, and paid only the balance of the grant to Wigan and other boroughs, after deducting a proportion of it for the support of the County schools.

  901
  Other Councils, with doubtful legality, had annexed conditions to the payment of the grant, such as that of their levying the penny rate; while some boroughs had never got the grant at all, though they had done their educational duty and borne the cost and burden of it. Was the House going to aggravate this by the present proposal, and by depriving, under Clause 3 of the Bill, boroughs which had done such excellent public work of their existing right to deal directly with the Education Department, and by sinking them in the counties, instead, rather, of giving them directly their own share of the technical education grant and the control and administration of it? Verily, with such a Bill, their last state would be worse than the first. Therefore, he moved his Amendment to improve and carry out the very principle of the Bill, the localisation of public education; he sought to utilise, for public instruction, the experience and enterprise of the boroughs, and to maintain their desire for autonomy; and the results of their action in the past gave the House and the nation the fullest assurance that confidence might safely be reposed in their due administration of what was a great educational trust. [Cheers.]
  SIR J. GORSTassured the hon. Member that the Government was quite conscious of the excellent educational work done by the municipal boroughs. They were also most anxious to preserve municipal independence and he thought the clauses of the Bill supplied ample evidence of the care which they had taken to preserve it. He could not, however, accept the present Amendment, because it would be difficult, if not impossible, to make every municipal borough an independent educational authority. The chief difficulty in the way of the acceptance of the proposal arose from the enormous number of independent educational authorities which would be created. Under the Bill as it stood there would be 128 authorities of the kind. He thought that number already too large, and hoped that it would be reduced by the exercise of the power of combination. The Chairman of the Lancashire County Council had told him that the Council had great hopes that the smaller county boroughs would throw in their lot with the county authorities. He had heard, also, that a great many of the Welsh
  902
  counties were anxious to combine. One hundred and twenty-eight being the maximum number of independent educational authorities under the Bill, the effect of accepting the Amendment would be to add to that number 241 more authorities of the kind. But they would not be able to stop there, for populous urban districts would claim to be treated like municipal boroughs, and he calculated that at least 49 of these districts would have to be added to the number. The total number of separate authorities with whom the Education Department would have to deal would then be 418. This increase of number constituted one of his objections to the Amendment. His second objection had been well stated by the Secondary Education Commission, who decided that the only area which they could recommend was the area of counties and county boroughs. He would not repeat the arguments which had led the Commissioners to that conclusion, and which were fully set out in their report. Another reason that induced him to prefer the plan adopted in the Bill was that local taxation accounts had been given to the County Councils, and that a great deal had already been done with the money. Technical Instruction Committees had been formed, schools had been built, teachers engaged, and engagements entered into, and if these additional educational authorities were set up now confusion would ensue. A good many of the non-county boroughs and urban sanitary districts were, no doubt, large enough to be efficient educational centres, but a great many of them were not large enough. If the Committee took all those centres of activity out of the county to which they belonged, they deprived the county population of their natural leaders in education. He agreed that no part of our educational system more required reform and progress than the education of our country districts, but he would have poor hopes of improving the education of those districts if they were to cut out of the county all the towns in which there was this municipal life. Those reasons made it impossible for the Government at the present time to accept the Amendment.
  MR. MARK OLDROYDacknowledged the recognition which the right hon. Gentleman had made of the

  903
  active work which had been done by the non-county boroughs in their different areas, but his speech did not lead them to expect that anything would be conceded to those making the demands represented in this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman objected to increase the number of educational authorities, and hoped that some of the County Councils would amalgamate for the purpose of constituting themselves into one instead of several educational authorities. That, however, seemed to be rather inconsistent with other provisions of the Bill, which made arrangements for the sub-division of the larger counties like Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire, in order to facilitate their work. If the desire of the right hon. Gentleman were carried out, and they were to have fewer educational authorities than 128, he thought it was a pity they had moved in this direction as all, and had deviated from the principle of the last 25 years, when the one central authority had the full control of educational work, and was responsible for seeing that there was no section of the country in which educational work was being neglected. Personally, he should like to have seen this clause postponed, but in any case, he thought it would have been better if the Committee had adhered to the practical rule hitherto in force, and had not made any devolution from the central educational authority. Now that they were to have devolution, it seemed to him to be utterly inconsistent with any proper and rightful appreciation of local government, that they should forthwith tread under foot and over-ride those municipal boroughs in whose interest this Amendment was proposed. The County Boroughs Association had expressed a desire that this work of education should be referred to these boroughs, in the interests of their own local government. They felt it to be a marked disrespect and a disparagement that they should be entrusted with all the other functions of local government, and then be told, after so much experience, that they were unequal to the work of carrying out education, and that the County Councils were to be put over their heads. If there was to be any devolution, he thought that no one could neglect the claim of the non-county boroughs. He appealed
  904
  to the Leader of the House. In the course of the Debate on the First Reading, the right hon. Gentleman, by an interjection, acknowledged that he was in favour of municipalising education. ["Hear, hear!" from the FIRST LORD of the TREASURY.] Here was an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to apply the principle he favoured. If the very small boroughs could not be allowed this privilege, why not adopt the suggestion of applying some limit of population to the boroughs and urban sanitary authorities? By that means an opportunity would be given to those communities which were centralised and had a strong and marked individuality of furthering their own educational interests. A great many of the smaller non-county boroughs were centres of a particular industry. There were textile centres in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and at such places as Kidderminster, where technical work was carried on dis-distinct from anything else in the same county. Those centres of population had a knowledge of their requirements, both as to elementary and secondary education, which no other locality, however near, could possibly possess. One difficulty was that if they were united with the counties, and had to take their position on the County Councils as isolated boroughs, and sat on the Councils with the representatives of rural areas, they might make what representations they chose as to their necessities, but they would never be able to make the rural representatives sympathise with their position. He pointed out that under the Technical Instruction Act provision was made that County Councils should have power to distribute to the non-county boroughs the proportion of the money received from the Central Fund, in proportion to their rateable value. That was a permissive provision, and all that was necessary was to make that which was now permissive compulsory, so that by the alteration of a single word in the very clause which the right hon. Gentleman was proposing to repeal, the non-county boroughs would receive the fair share of the money which ought to fall to them. He believed the exclusion of these powers from the non-county boroughs would be taken by them very seriously. There was amongst

  905
  those boroughs the very strongest sentiment on this point. They felt that their honour and dignity were at stake if they allowed themselves quietly to acquiesce in the provisions contained in this Bill. Within the district he represented, there were two of these non-county boroughs, each of them containing nearly 30,000 people. They carried on an industry which required a special training, and they had shown their consciousness of the need there was for secondary and technical instruction by putting their hands into their pockets and liberally subscribing to setting up secondary and technical schools, which were now flourishing institutions; and although one of the boroughs which he represented contained only 30,000 inhabitants, yet there were no less than 1,000 young men and women attending the technical schools. That was a proof at once that these people felt the need there was for special training and of their public spirit in that cause. He challenged production of any evidence showing want of the true educational spirit in these boroughs; and accordingly he claimed for them full jurisdiction, subject to the Education Department, over their educational affairs. Some Members had an idea that in the smaller boroughs there would be a lack of suitable men for the working of these educational bodies. The evidence, however, was all the other way, and went to show that in the matter of elementary, secondary, and technical education, these smaller boroughs had shown a public spirit and appreciation of duty which had not been excelled in any part of the kingdom and that there were plenty of eligible men capable of discharging these educational functions. The boroughs in his own neighbourhood had been amongst the earliest to establish Board Schools, and in a large number of cases, the capital expenditure in connection with the schools had been met by annual contributions from the rates. After they had for so many years made these sacrifices, a new authority came along and said: "You have done well, you have been noble and high-spirited, but you must give up the position you have held and stand aside." [Opposition cheers.] He hoped, therefore, the Government would make some concession, and not proceed by this Bill to crush out
  906
  the independence of the smaller boroughs who had struggled so nobly with their large responsibilities. In this work of technical education non-county boroughs had distinguished themselves, and they ought to inspire the Government with confidence that they would carry out in the future with this same spirit any further duties laid upon them. [Opposition cheers.] In 1894, the county boroughs of Lancashire raised £10,500, and the non-county boroughs representing a very much smaller population, raised £8,500, and they did this under conditions almost humiliating, because the County Council of Lancashire, who received and distributed the Imperial grants, imposed such rigorous conditions. The bodies who imposed these conditions on the smaller boroughs did not impose the same conditions on themselves. ["Hear, hear!"] Having regard to what the non-county boroughs had suffered from the County Councils in the past, they looked forward with considerable dismay to the prospect of being put under the thumb of the County Councils in educational matters. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The very moderate and able speeches of the hon. Member and of my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, have convinced the Government that there are strong reasons for accepting some part of the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"] There are difficulties and objections, and whether they would be got over by the public spirit of the small boroughs, if they were given the advantages of the Amendment, only experience can show. But I believe that at this moment there are many cases of non-county boroughs in which there are important secondary schools, where the scholars, to the extent sometimes of 45 per cent., are drawn from the adjoining county districts. If you are both to deprive the county of the advantage of drawing on the rateable value of the borough, and to require the borough to deal with only a small population, you may have the absurdity and inconvenience of an imperfectly-equipped borough school. Unless there were a power of combination between the county and the municipal authority that evil might arise, and it would be a serious blow to secondary education. [Cheers.]
  MR. OLDROYDsaid that contributions were made by the County Council to the borough educational institutions, but not in proportion to the rateable value of the borough. They were proportionate to the educational facilities offered.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: If the rateable value of the area is too small, you will have imperfectly-equipped schools. There are boroughs with interesting and independent histories which are too small to be set up as separate educational authorities. ["Hear, hear!"] But, having listened to the arguments on both sides, I have come to the conclusion that if the Committee will put a limit of 20,000 to these authorities, the Government will be prepared to risk the experiment, trusting to the public spirit and educational zeal of the counties and of the non-county boroughs to get over the difficulties presented by the fact that the educational areas are in some cases too small for carrying out certain educational schemes. [Cheers.] I hope this will satisfy the Committee that we are ready to listen to arguments. [Cheers.]
  MR. ASQUITHpointed out that there were a considerable number of urban districts which, although not organised into municipalities, had a local life of their own and a large population. Would the concession of the Government extend to such urban districts?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: That matter had better be considered at a later stage. There is a distinct difference between municipalities and urban districts; but the question shall be fully considered before Report.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid that many important industries were carried on in places with a population below 20,000. Such were the lace, silk, boot and shoe, bottling, shipbuilding, and agricultural implement making industries. Communities where specific industries like these were centred, and where foreign competition was being faced, ought to have the right to demand special consideration from the County Council in carrying out the education. Macclesfield and Yarmouth had recently been making enormous strides in the textile and silk goods industries, where colour, design, and finish was required. They were
  908
  coping well with foreign competition, and they ought to be encouraged.
  After the usual interval,
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSONtook the Chair.
  MR. J. SAMUELsaid he had no desire to continue the discussion after the important announcement made by the Leader of the House, in which he granted an education authority to boroughs with a population of 20,000 and upwards. But he rose for the purpose of putting this question to the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill. The question had reference as to whether the boroughs at the present time, say of 19,000, would, if they increased above 20,000, be held to be educational authorities within the meaning of the Act? There was no provision in the Act of 1888 with regard to boroughs under 50,000. Was the Government prepared to allow boroughs which should increase and pass 20,000 to become automatically educational authorities?
  SIR J. GORSTsaid he would consider the matter before the Report.
  MR. HENRY LOPESsaid he merely wished to point out the position the Government had placed him in. They had placed him in an awkward difficulty. The population of his borough was something over 19,000, and therefore it would be excluded by the Amendment accepted by the Government. The question was one of considerable importance to his constituents. They were deeply interested in technical education, and they had not been met in a generous spirit by the County Council. They looked, therefore, with much jealousy upon the proposal to subordinate them to the caprice of County Councils with regard to educational questions. He felt it would be obviously imprudent for him to divide the House on the present occasion, and therefore he should reserve his remarks until the Report stage of the Bill, when he should have time to consult the wishes of his constituents as to the course he should pursue.
  MR. HOBHOUSEexpressed exceeding regret that a question of this importance should have been dealt with

  909
  without a word about the Amendment before the House being said by any representative of the County Councils. Now, he felt that he was labouring under a great difficulty. He had always regarded this Amendment as destructive of county government in education, and destructive of county government generally. ["Hear, hear!"] What would be the position of Lancashire? Lancashire was already honeycombed with county boroughs. There were now 15 of them, and under the concession now made there would be 15 more boroughs, which would be independent education authorities. There were many urban districts of over 20,000 inabitants which would be entitled to the same concession, and if that was obtained the figures which he held in his hand showed that there would be 42 different educational authorities in Lancashire. [Laughter.] Considering that the Vice President in his opening speech told them that there was to be in every county a "paramount" educational authority, how could he reconcile that with the Amendment which had just been made. ["Hear, hear!"] As his Department knew very well, in these large boroughs there had been set up various institutes and secondary schools; scholarships had been established out of county funds. Now they were told that all this work and these arrangements were to be upset, for the proposal accepted by the Government would apply to secondary as well as to elementary education. If he was wrong he should he glad to have it pointed out. This concession struck at the root of county government, and at the root of the Bill. The County Councils had no wish to depreciate the work done by the borough authorities, but they contended that there had been great advantages to town and country from their working together. Secondary Schools required a larger area than that of an ordinary town. They served the country districts all round, and in future the County Councils would not be able to provide for many of the country districts efficient secondary education. He was not at all sure after this concession that this Bill would confer more good than harm on county government. There were many advantages in having larger areas, and from every point of view
  910
  it was a most unfortunate concession, and ought not to have been made without having the opinions of the representatives of County Councils in that House. He could assure the Government there would be a strong feeling of regret and annoyance among all those engaged in county work.
  MR. YOXALLthought it absurd that a county borough like Preston—which had no School Board, had no School Rate, and spent none of the "whiskey money" on education—should be intrusted with powers denied to a borough so advanced in educational spirit as Luton, for example. If there was to be a distinction between boroughs, the line should be drawn according to the educational record of the borough. But there was a graver question than that. The clause did not merely propose that boroughs of 20,000 should set up their own Boards of Education. He should cordially agree with such a proposal as that. But Clause 3 proposed to take away from Whitehall the duties of the Education Department so far as boroughs of 20,000 population were concerned, and to give to the representatives of those boroughs the entire duties of the Department in respect to those boroughs. These small boroughs would take over not only the local share of duties of the Education Department but those of the Science and Art Department, and they would expend the money granted by the State in aid of the schools of the districts. They would have to secure and to certify the efficiency of the schools within their areas. That meant that the Inspectors of the Education Department would, as a rule, cease to go into the schools of towns with 20,000 inhabitants. The Councils would have handed to them part of the national grant for education, and would give to their own schools the grant which was now only given to those schools upon the assessment and certificate of the high and experienced and independent officials of the great department at Whitehall. Would there not be a great local temptation to certify the schools as efficient when they were not efficient? The First Lord of the Treasury could not have fully realised the situation. The Technical Education Act gave County Councils and county boroughs the administration of about £750,000, and many persons were

  911
  not satisfied with the way in which those bodies had dealt with the money. Now, however, it was proposed to give to much smaller bodies the administration of much larger funds. He certainly was a young member, but he had always understood that the function of the Committee of the House was to improve the details of a Bill. He was already disillusionised. ["Hear, hear!"] If the First Lord of the Treasury had understood—
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON): The hon. Member is not in order in going back to the first Amendment. I think it would be convenient if the hon. Member for Islington would withdraw his Amendment and propose it again in the form in which he desires it to be put. That would make the hon. Member's remarks in order.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he acknowledged the desire of the Government to meet the views of the bodies which he represented, but he was not able to simply accept the Amendment; he could only do so formally, and reserve for the future consideration of the bodies he represented whether the Amendment could be regarded as a settlement of the case. At any rate, it was a step in that direction, and he would be willing, with the above reserves, and only as a matter of form, to recognise the concession of the Government by moving to insert after "council," in line 7, Clause 1, "and every council of a municipal borough in which it shall at any time appear from the census last held that there is a population of not less than 20,000."
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON): Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn? [Cries of "No, no!"]
  MR. STRACHEYprotested against the withdrawal of the Amendment, the effect of which, he said, would be to throw over entirely all boroughs with less than 20,000 inhabitants. There were many Members on the Opposition side of the House, and he hoped there were
  912
  many opposite, who would object to that course.
  MR. YOXALLasked if he would be allowed to continue his speech when his hon. Friend had concluded? [Laughter.]
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON): Oh, yes.
  MR. STRACHEYsaid the hon. Member for Islington had most strongly argued that one of the reasons why boroughs that were not county boroughs should be educational authorities under the Bill was that those boroughs had for many years been carrying on the affairs of their districts with success, and that it would be a hardship to deprive them of the charge of educational matters. The hon. Gentleman made out a strong case for boroughs of every description, but now he had accepted a concession—drawing an arbitrary line at 20,000 population.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITpointed out that he said he only did it formally—that he expressly reserved to himself and those he represented the right of future action.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS, rising to a point of order, asked whether, as he had objected to the withdrawal of the Amendment, there could be any discussion on the withdrawal of the Amendment. Was it not a fact that withdrawal must be unanimous, and that therefore there could be no discussion?
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON): It is quite true that the Amendment cannot be withdrawn unless with unanimous consent, but I understood the hon. Member was speaking to the original Amendment.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: That is not so.
  MR. STRACHEYrose to continue his remarks, when
  SIR H. FOWLERsaid: I rise to order, Mr. Grant Lawson. What is the question before the Committee?
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON): The question is the Amendment of the hon. Member for Islington—that is, after "council" insert "and municipal borough."
  SIR H. FOWLER: Was not the hon. Member for Nottingham addressing the Committee on that question?
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON): That is true, and I propose to call upon the hon. Member for Nottingham again as soon as the hon. Member for Somerset has finished his speech.
  MR. STRACHEYsaid the non-county boroughs in Somerset had a good deal to do with education, and it would be very unfair that by the Bill they should be placed under a disability. The hon. Member for East Somerset, speaking for the County Councils, argued that it was undesirable that any but county boroughs should be withdrawn from the control of the County Councils. That was an entirely different line of argument, and there might be a good deal to be said from that point of view; but if there was to be any limit at all, why draw it at 20,000 population? The Vice-President ought to agree that all municipal boroughs should have the right to be educational authorities within their own areas. That would relieve the Education Department of an enormous amount of work. One point had not been sufficiently considered by the Committee, and that was that already friction had arisen between County Councils and the different municipalities in the working of the Technical Education Act. Friction had arisen in Somerset, and he believed in other counties, between the County Councils and the municipalities under the Education Act, for the municipalities felt that they had been unduly interfered with. If the Bill passed in its present form he believed that friction would be increased, and what the Committee were now asked to do would be a discouragement to the municipalities to rate themselves in regard to the matter of technical education. If more power
  914
  in these matters was placed in the hands of the municipalities, he believed it would tend to maintain and increase their public spirit, especially with regard to technical education, and that the Bill would be made much more effective by them for education generally. The fact of the County Councils having had the command of technical education had so far been a disadvantage to the municipalities. He strongly supported the Amendment as originally proposed by the hon. Member for Islington.
  MR. YOXALL, resuming, said that when he was interrupted he was remarking on the inconvenience of the Committee discussing the area of the local authority without having a clear knowledge of what the duties of that authority were to be. He would remind the Committee again of what it was understood the duties of the authority of a town of 20,000 inhabitants were to be according to the Bill. It was to administer all or any of the duties of the Education Department and the Science and Art Department; to secure the efficiency of the schools, and also to certify their efficiency. The School Boards secured efficiency, but did not certify it. The Education Department certified efficiency, and unless the School Board secured it to their satisfaction the grant was withheld. But, under the plan now before the Committee, the Council of a town of 20,000 inhabitants were not only to secure, but also to certify, the efficiency of their schools; they were to inspect, examine, and assess their own work, and to give grants to themselves, of course, with a liberal hand. [Laughter.] They had had from the Vice President a very able speech against the Amendment. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman admitted that 128 education departments, or educational authorities, were too many, and he said he hoped the number would be considerably reduced by many of them combining. What then happened? A few moments later the First Lord of the

  915
  Treasury rose, and, in a light, airy, and dégagé fashion entirely threw over the Vice President by consenting to a course that would very largely increase the number of the education authorities. The Royal Commission, after 17 months' careful labour on the question of secondary education alone, recommended areas no smaller than the county and the county borough. Now they were to have authorities for secondary and primary education for an area containing 20,000 inhabitants. He thought this was absurd. He should like to know, however, for the future guidance of the Committee, whom they were to regard as being in charge of the Bill—the responsible Minister of the Education Department and the Minister who introduced the Bill, or the First Lord of the Treasury, who, yielding to pressure not of an educational kind, had introduced an element into the Bill which one of his own supporters had declared had turned all that was good in the Bill into something bad. In the name of education, of the schools, and of local government, he took a strong objection to this course. ["Hear, hear!"] It was proposed to decentralise the Education Department, which had done excellent work during the last seven or eight years, under the Vice Presidency of the right hon. Member for the Dartford Division of Kent, the right hon. Member for the Rotherham Division of Yorkshire, and now the right hon. Member for Cambridge University. ["Hear, hear!"] It had maintained a high level of education throughout the country, had amended and modified its Code, and had improved its method of certifying the efficiency of the schools. The Bill at first proposed to devolve the powers of the Education Department on 128 authorities, but now it seemed that they were going to devolve that educational work on 267 education authorities, a large number of which consisted of boroughs of no more than 20,000 inhabitants. He contended that boroughs
  916
  of that size were not proper authorities to perform the educational work it was proposed to impose upon them. He hoped even now that the experienced views of the Department and its chief would have some weight over the hasty and sudden views expressed by the First Lord of the Treasury. He strongly objected to the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. GODSON MR. GODSON moved as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to add, after the word "borough," the words "of not less than 20,000 inhabitants." This would, he remarked, carry out the proposal of the First Lord of the Treasury.
  MR. STUARTsaid he understood that the Amendment to the Amendment now proposed was practically an embodiment of the proposition of the First Lord of the Treasury. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY signified assent.] Then he must say that if the consideration of the Bill in Committee was to be opened by complete revolutions like this, introduced by the Government themselves, they would be in great difficulty before they had proceeded very far. ["Hear, hear!"] This change was of a most far-reaching and enormous character, and, in one respect, affected education to the very roots. One of the difficulties in connection with this question of establishing an outside authority, apart from the School Boards, was the condition under which they would bring these bodies. That condition would be serious and troublesome, so far as education was concerned, in those cases where the School Board authority and the municipal authority were coterminous. It was under those circumstances that they were going to put the two bodies, elected by almost precisely the same constituency for different purposes, the one to control the other. It was different when they got a whole county and a whole County Council, where they had School Boards which occupied a certain limited area,

  917
  and they had a Council which was elected over a large area embracing all those School Boards, and they gave to that Council a certain authority and control over those School Boards. In the nature of the election of that body, and in the character and extent of authority of that body, they had at least a reasonable ground for giving it control over those School Boards which occupied only a portion of its area. But the whole position was changed at once when they came to one of those great municipal boroughs like Manchester, where the School Board was coterminous with the County Council or Municipal Council. In such an authority as that they had the same electorate electing the two bodies, and they put the body not elected for educational purposes to control the body which was specially elected to control education. He believed, especially in regard to the budget framed by the education authority, that would lead to the greatest friction between those two bodies. This Amendment proposed enormously to extend the area in which that friction would take place. A very large number of those boroughs of 20,000 inhabitants had School Boards, and they would be coterminous with the municipal authority, and in these smaller places they would have these difficulties arising even in a more intensified form than in great centres like Manchester, Birmingham, or London. But this Amendment was also important, because it more than doubled the disintegration of the present central education authority. It split it up into more than double the number, and the argument which had been always made for the counties being the area had been practically their size. This was an administrative change which altered the whole view that one could take of this education authority.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLsaid he heard with amazement and disappointment the concession that he understood had been made by the First Lord of the Treasury—a concession
  918
  which certainly did not encourage very much many of the county Members, who were urged to support some principles in the Bill of which perhaps they were not altogether very fond. [Opposition laughter.] He could not understand what inducements had been made to the Government in order to persuade them to make this enormous change. There had been no inquiry made among the supporters of the Government that he knew of. On the contrary, he heard a whisper that the Government were determined to resist this proposal of the hon. Member for Islington, and they could have resisted it upon the very best and soundest grounds. Although the boroughs themselves might like this change, yet the counties in which the boroughs were included had to be considered, and while they might be doing, possibly—he did not think so himself—some good to the boroughs, they were doing infinite harm to the counties from which they were subtracting the boroughs. [Cries of "No!" and cheers.] In 1888 they had a very long discussion upon the question of the inclusion of boroughs in the County Councils Act, and it was agreed that all those above 50,000 were to be exempted from that Act. They naturally thought that, having laid this foundation of local government, nothing would induce any Government, and especially a Conservative Government, to uproot, to a certain extent, the arrangement then made, and to establish 118 new authorities throughout the country. There were 64 boroughs of over 20,000 inhabitants and 54 urban districts, and he inferred that if the boroughs were to have this privilege so also were urban authorities. ["No!"] This was very interesting. [Laughter.] Why were boroughs to have this exceptional privilege, and urban authorities, which were arranged on almost the same principle, to be excluded from it? The concession that had been made by his right hon. Friend was a concession which would, he thought, be made worse by

  919
  the Amendment to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Islington. The hon. Member who moved to amend the proposal of the hon. Member for Islington desired that all boroughs should be included. The small borough with which he was associated took that view, but he thought, in the interests of education, apart from the wishes of small boroughs, and in the national interest, which was far above the individual question of these boroughs, his right hon. Friend ought never to have made this concession. [Opposition laughter.] It was a wretched Amendment to introduce so early in the Bill, and that, too, when not a single county Member on his side of the House, as he was informed, had expressed his views upon the question. ["Hear, hear!"] The principles of local government established a few years ago were only beginning to take root, and they ought to be encouraged, with all the responsibility that could be given to them, to extend their influence and draw to them the best men in the county. He ridiculed the idea that County Councils had too much to do, declaring from personal experience that they had very little work. Here was an admirable opportunity to give really useful, important, and responsible work to the County Councils, and yet upon the first blush of resistance his right hon. Friend gave in to the boroughs of over 20,000 inhabitants. He had not sufficient Parliamentary language at his command of proper vigour to express his profound regret that this concession had been made. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"]
  SIR JOSEPH LEESEheartily thanked the Vice President of the Council for the very sensible concession he had made. ["Hear, hear!"] He represented a non-county borough of 40,000 inhabitants, where for several years they had conducted their elementary education without a School Board. They had done it efficiently, satisfying all the requirements
  920
  of the Education Department, and they were proud of their achievements. ["Hear, hear!"] They had spent £12,000 during the last two or three years on a large technical school. They thought they were still able to manage their educational affairs, and they protested against being handed over to the Committee of a County Council sitting at Preston, some 35 miles away. [Cheers.]
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESobserved that, whatever argument there might be for or against the proposal of the hon. Member for Islington, the Amendment to the Amendment, proposing to limit this right to boroughs of 20,000 inhabitants, was to his mind sheer nonsense. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] It did not affect the matter one jot whether a borough had 20,000 or 200,000 inhabitants. If it were pretended that the smallness of a borough was a reason against having a share of the management of its own educational affairs he should say that the smallness was an additional reason for it, because it would require additional protection against the overweening and overbearing importance of the County Council. ["Hear, hear!"] Why were small boroughs to be deprived of a right which was to be given to large municipal boroughs? Was a man not to have the management of his own family because it was a small family? [Laughter.] Was it to be only the father of 20,000 who was to have a voice in the management of his own children? [Laughter.] He should resist this Amendment to the Amendment with all his might. He could conceive arguments upon the proposal of the hon. Member for Islington, but upon this Amendment there was nothing to be said. He defied the hon. Member to produce any argument in support of his proposal that boroughs having a population of less than 20,000 should not have the management of their own educational affairs. Judging by the history of this country, it was clear that the people refused to be

  921
  bound by more numbers. If a right were to be given to boroughs having more than 20,000 inhabitants, the same right should be given to the smaller boroughs.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER resumed the Chair.]
  MR. GRIFFITHsaid that, seeing that the Government had already made one concession, they might surely make another small one. It should be borne in mind that the circumstances attending elementary education were very different from those attending secondary education. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that, however small it might be, a borough was still a borough and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of a borough. He agreed that a borough, whatever its size, ought to have the management of its own elementary education, but it was important that every county should have a uniform system of secondary education. It would strike a deadly blow at secondary education if every small borough was to have its own system of such education.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid that he represented a borough in his county division which had managed its elementary education with great success. He thought that to draw the line at boroughs having 20,000 inhabitants would work considerable injustice to the smaller boroughs. If a borough having a population of 19,950 were to be excluded from the advantages enjoyed by boroughs having over 20,000 inhabitants, it would be hung up for four or five years until the next census was taken, and during that time would have a sense of injustice. Considerable irritation had arisen under the Local Government Act in consequence of the interference of County Councils for certain purposes, and that irritation would be increased tenfold under the present Bill if the limit were retained
  922
  and the County Councils controlled the education in such a borough. This was another illustration of how unwise it was to have refused to accept the proposal that had been made on the Opposition side of the House that the census should be taken every five years.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid the scope of the devolution proposal of the Government had been greatly enlarged, and they were entitled to ask that the powers of the Education Department should not be so recklessly and profusely devolved on small bodies all over the country. Would the Government introduce or accept an Amendment to Clause 3, which would prevent the devolution of the full powers of the Education Department going to these small bodies? Otherwise, there would be a large addition to the rates.
  MR. BROADHURSTsuggested that the Leader of the House might give some indication of the position of the Government with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kidderminster. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman would consider the effect of the Bill on communities smaller than 20,000. They should not be at the mercy of County Councils when they were in competition with foreign trade in special industries. At Leek, Staffordshire, the late Mr. Nicholson, at a cost of £20,000, presented the town with a technical institute. The result had been to enormously increase the special industries of that township. It would be unfair that such towns, of which there were dozens in this country, should be left at the mercy of a County Council which knew nothing of the merits of that industry.
  SIR J. GORSTreplied that under the Bill every municipal borough had perfect power, as far as education was concerned, to be independent, except that the County Council would exercise over it the same supervision as to grant as now. [Opposition cries of "Oh!"] He was rather surprised that an hon.

  923
  Member, who an hour or two ago voted for the suspension of the proposed powers, should be so much alarmed by the extension of those privileges to 69 municipal boroughs.
  MR. E. STRACHEYdesired to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out 20,000 and to insert 5,000, his object being to give all municipalities the power the Government was ready to concede to boroughs of 20,000.
  THE CHAIRMANruled that the Amendment would not be in order until they had negatived the Amendment before the House.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsubmitted that the Government were not far wrong in fixing 20,000 as a reasonable limit. He hoped that the Committee would accept the compromise which the Government had adopted, or at all events would come to a vote upon it. The arguments on both sides had been very adequately stated, and he appealed to the Committee to come to a decision upon the Amendment.
  MR. STRACHEYsaid that he understood that the ruling of the Chairman was that he could move his Amendment when the Amendment before the House was negatived; but after hearing the First Lord of the Treasury it was quite clear the Amendment would not be negatived, and therefore he would not be in order in moving it subsequently.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he certainly remembered the same thing occurring before, and his predecessor ruled that it was very unusual indeed to move an Amendment to an Amendment to an Amendment and declined to put it. He thought he was bound to follow that course.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid that on one occasion Mr. Courtney had allowed him to move an Amendment to an Amendment to an Amendment.
  MR. LOPESsaid that, as he understood the compromise, it was that those boroughs with a population of 20,000 were to have the advantage of carrying out the Act, and that smaller boroughs were to have the same advantage when their population had increased to 20,000. He considered that a very important concession, if that was the true state of
  924
  the case, because hon. Members who represented such boroughs would be able to point out to their constituencies that if they can only increase their populations [laughter] during the next five or six years they would become the educational authority. He would be glad to know if that was the intention of the Government?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsuggested that the concession should extend to all Parliamentary boroughs.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS, who spoke amid cries of "Divide," was understood to express his willingness to accept the compromise offered by the Government. He also referred to the Third Clause of the Bill, under which the transfer to the education authority was to be made on such terms as might be agreed upon between the education authority and the Education Department. This, he contended, made it discretionary with the Department whether or no they should transfer the whole work to the education authority.
  Question put, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 287; Noes 117.—(Division List, No. 236).
  Question put, "That the words 'and every council of a municipal borough of not less than twenty thousand inhabitants' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 332; Noes 83.—(Division List, No. 237.)
  MR. GODSON MR. GODSON moved to insert after the words last inserted, "as ascertained at any time by the census last held."
  SIR WALTER FOSTERprotested against being referred back to the last census, as the standard by which increasing boroughs should be judged as regards this Bill. The Borough of Ilkeston had a population of close on 20,000 at the last census in 1891; it was now over 22,000, and had a right to educational independence. He pointed out that the taking of a census of a borough at any time was not a serious matter, and he suggested that in the Bill there should be some form of words introduced after

  925
  careful consideration by the Law Officers enabling any borough to furnish satisfactory evidence of its population being over 20,000 persons to the Local Government Board.
  MR. DALZIELput the case of a borough with a present population of 19,000, increased in two years' time to 21,000. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that the borough would not enjoy the privilege of the Amendment until the next census?
  SIR J. GORST: At the end of ten years, when the census is taken, there will be a revision, and those boroughs which have a population over 20,000 will have what the hon. Member calls the privilege of being a separate educational authority. Those boroughs which are below 20,000 will, if they have been educational authorities, cease to be so.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANShoped that the Government would not accept the Amendment moved on the front Opposition Bench. The regular method of obtaining the population was by the census. There had been an agitation for a quinquennial census, and force would be given to the agitation if this provision were added to the Bill. One peculiar effect of it was that if at the last census a municipal borough had a population of 2,001 it would become an educational authority; while if its population sank to 1,998 it would cease to be an educational authority.
  MR. STUARTsaid one of the remarkable effects of the Amendment would be that a borough educational authority might cease to exist, or come into existence by the loss or gain of an insignificant fraction of the population of the borough. Looking at this provision from a purely educational point of view, it produced a state of things little short of a farce. This was only one of the results of the unfortunate step which had been taken at the threshhold of the discussion of the Bill, in allowing amendments of overwhelming importance to be suddenly sprung on the Committee.
  MR. J. SAMUELsaid that under the Amendment, if carried, as he understood it, boroughs with 20,000 inhabitants would not come under the arrangement proposed by the Leader of the House until the next census was taken.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the arrangement was that
  926
  when a borough reached 20,000 it should have the privileges of the Bill. There was no method for determining whether a borough had the required number except by the public census, and he thought it would be a very ill service to the boroughs which hon. Gentlemen opposite championed to leave them liable to be plunged into legislation as to whether they had or had not reached the line of 20,000 inhabitants. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. T. LOUGHasked what would happen if an industry failed, and a borough came down to 19,000 or any smaller number?
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid that the local authorities would have the power of borrowing money for certain purposes, and if a borough went backwards and forwards from one authority to another according to the accident of the number of its population things would get into great confusion. [Opposition cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYthought his hon. Friend had raised a practical question. He did not think the number of boroughs which would thus oscillate between 19,500 and 20,500 was very great. However, before the Report stage he would consider the question of putting into the Bill a provision arranging that when a borough had lost its 20,000 inhabitants it should not lose the privileges it acquired under the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsuggested that these words should be added instead of the words proposed—"if at the date of the passing of this Act it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Local Government Board that the population exceeds 20,000." There were some instances in which a borough had at the present time considerably over 20,000 inhabitants, but would have to wait for recognition until the next census in the ordinary course, and in such cases he suggested a census might be taken by the borough itself without much expense. The borough census so taken could be certified by an adequate and impartial authority, and the Local Government Board could have control over the whole matter. The right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Local Government Bill of 1888 might remember that something of the kind was done then with

  927
  reference to a county borough. An injustice had been done to the borough of Grimsby, and in order to avoid that injustice the borough was allowed to prove that it had a population sufficient to justify it being made a county borough.
  SIR JOHN GORSTreminded the Committee that his hon. Friend the Leader of the House had promised to consider this matter before the Report stage.
  MR. KEARLEYpointed out that the point raised by his hon. Friend was a different one, namely, that some machinery should be set up whereby the municipalities which had at the present time the requisite population could be recognised.
  SIR J. GORSTsaid he would undertake that that point also should receive consideration before the Report stage.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLasked whether it would not be necessary to insert words to prevent county councillors representing towns of 20,000 inhabitants from voting on the general education questions which came before the County Council?
  MR. WARNER(who spoke amidst cries of "Divide!") said that the question of oscillation was a very serious objection; and the only way, he thought, in which it could be met was that no borough which had once been allowed into the 20,000 privilege should be eliminated until it was proved to have less than 15,000 inhabitants. That was the system they had gone on in the case of Reform Bills in the House. The only way to meet the difficulty was to make a large difference between the number in population which would give the franchise and the number which was to disfranchise. Many hon. Gentlemen would find that their constituents would object to be disfranchised on education because the borough in which they lived was only 19,000 in population. This was a very serious thing, because there was a great difference in character betweeen borough and county population, and it was not fair that a borough school should be controlled by a County Council.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid he quite understood that what had occurred involved the withdrawal of the Amendment for the time
  928
  being. It was quite clear the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could not carry out his promise to give the matter further consideration unless the Amendment was withdrawn.
  MR. J. M. PAULTONsaid it was evident that hon. Members had no clear idea of what would be the effect of the Amendment, and they had better wait until they had the whole matter before them.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that it would be a retrograde step to accept the Amendment, and it would be better to adopt the suggestion of the Leader of the House and to deal with the whole matter on the Report. Two suggestions had been made—one, that the decennial census should be taken; the second, that proof should be accepted from a borough; and then the cases had to be dealt with of boroughs which had declined below 20,000.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTScontended that the clause as it stood would be quite unworkable.
  MR. KEARLEYthought it would be well if the Committee had once more explained to it by the First Lord of the Treasury how the matter stood.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the principle on which they meant to construct the Bill had been explained, and it had been accepted by large majorities. When a borough had a population just over 20,000 it should be given privileges accorded to localities under Clause 1. The question was whether the Amendment of his hon. Friend was the best way to obtain that result, and that was the only question before them. He was not convinced that it was necessary ["hear, hear"] and that in the existing Local Government Act they might not find an analogy to guide them to a more accurate and rapid method of carrying out what the Committee had pledged itself to. Perhaps his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment, and he should investigate what had been done in the Local Government Act in similar cases and bring it up on Report. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the next Amendment, in his name, was rather

  929
  an important one, and he begged to move to report Progress.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  TEACHEKS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT (1887) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  EDINBURGH GENERAL REGISTER HOUSE (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  PUBLIC OFFICES (SITE) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Tuesday next.
  EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (PORTS) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday next.
  BURGLARY BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY GUARANTEE BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  COLLECTING SOCIETIES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  SUPPLY [9TH JUNE.]
  Resolution reported.
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1896–7.

  CLASS III.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £781,992, 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 1897, for the expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary."
  Resolution agreed to.

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  UGANDA RAILWAY (CONSOLIDATED FUND).
  Committee thereupon deferred till Monday next.
  CABS (LONDON) BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  AGRICULTURAL LAND RATING BILL.
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday next.
  FINANCE BILL.
  Committee deferred till Tuesday next.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
  Further proceeding on Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Thursday next.
  LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  TROUT FISHING CLOSE TIME (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Tuesday next.
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS AND LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday 25th June.
  SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  PRISONERS' EVIDENCE BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SCOTLAND) LOANS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  MARKETS AND FAIRS (WEIGHING OF CATTLE) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
  On the Motion, "That this House do now adjourn,"
  MR. W. J. GALLOWAYasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he could allow some opportunity for the discussion of the Friendly Societies Bill and the Collecting Societies Bill.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he should be extremely glad to give the opportunity his hon. Friend desired, but he might remind him that the Friendly Societies Bill was a purely consolidating Bill, and hardly required discussion; and that the Collecting Societies Bill was one which would not meet with much opposition. He was afraid he could not hold out any very great hopes of discussion.
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONsaid there were one or two points in the Friendly Societies Bill which were not quite of a consolidating character, and he hoped some opportunity would be given for discussing those.
  House adjourned at Five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

LORD BELLEW.
Petition of Charles Bertram Bellew Baron Bellew in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
MARQUESS OF WATERFORD.
Petition of Henry De la Poer Beresford Marquess of Waterford in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  BOYNE NAVIGATION TRANSFER BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills, made, and to be printed.—[No. 125.] Bill reported with amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next; and to be printed as amended.—[No. 124.]
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL [H.L.]
  To be read 2a on Monday the 22nd instant.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
  THE EARL OF RANFURLY THE EARL OF RANFURLY moved that this Bill be read a Second time.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDENasked whether the Bill had anything to do with that very mischievous and pauperising Act called the Labourers' (Ireland) Act.
  THE EARL OF RANFURLYsaid the object of the Bill was simply to remove certain doubts as to whether Town Commissioners had the power to work under the Housing of the Working Classes Act. It was nothing to do with the Labourers' Act.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: I am very glad to hear that.
  Read 2a (according to Order) and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  SHERIFFS AND UNDER SHERIFFS BILL [H.L.]
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said it was meant to remedy some of the grievances and hardships of which those who were appointed Sheriffs at present complained. Briefly summarised, those grievances were as follows: In the first place, the Sheriff, when appointed, received no information whatever with regard to his duties, and had no means of obtaining that information except from reports he might receive from his Under Sheriff, who had not, necessarily, any experience in the matter. In the second place, some of the duties of the Sheriff, owing to their legal nature, were such that he was incapable of performing them. Things were done in his name and on his responsibility of which he knew nothing. The third grievance was that the Sheriff alone, of all Her Majesty's subjects, was required to expend out of his own private means considerable sums on account of his public duties in connection with the administration of justice within his county, expenses which ought to be defrayed by the community to which they relate. The Bill, therefore, provided in the first place that regulations should be made by the County Council, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, to inform the Sheriff as to the manner in which he should receive the Judges of

  815
  Assize. In the second place it was proposed to transfer the legal and certain other duties of the Sheriff to the County Council, which as a permanent body, had the means of obtaining and controlling such matters; and, in the third place, it was proposed to enable the County Council, if it saw fit, to pay the expenses incurred by the Sheriff under the regulations made by the County Council. This Bill was a considerably bigger Bill than that which their Lordships were good enough to pass in 1890. It not only dealt with the expenses of the High Sheriff, as did that Bill, but it also provided that the Under Sheriff should in future be appointed by the County Council, instead of by the High Sheriff. On further inquiry since 1890, he found that if any real economies were to be effected, it was absolutly necessary that the office of Under Sheriff should be dealt with, and on the advice of Lord Herschell, he obtained a Committee from their Lordships which inquired into the office of and the profits received by the Sheriff or his deputies. Although reports were received from Under Sheriffs in many cases, in many others none were received, and of course the Report of the Committee was based on such information as they received; and the conclusion to which they came was that while a considerable amount might be saved in a large number of counties, and in a few counties the amount saved would be small, they did not report that in their belief the amount saved would be sufficient to defray the whole of the expenses of the Sheriff. Nevertheless, the Committee were able to report that in their opinion the saving might be considerable, and they recommended that the Under Sheriff should in future be appointed by the Crown, and that his office should be a permanent one. The Under Sheriffs themselves were also anxious for this change. The second clause of the Bill stated that the Bill was not to extend to Scotland or Ireland. In Scotland there was no Sheriff, and with regard to Ireland, the system of local government in that country was so different from that in England, that he did not feel himself able to draft clauses to make the Bill apply to Ireland. The third clause of the Bill dealt with the question of making regulations. It stated that "the County Council in each
  816
  county in England and Wales shall make regulations as to the manner in which Judges are to be received at Assizes," and so on. He could easily understand that it might be said that the County Council was not in all cases the body best suited to make such regulations; but it seemed to him that this matter of Assizes was essentially a matter which was very closely connected with the locality in which the Assizes were held, and if the County Council was not a suitable body, the Bill gave the Lord Chancellor power to make the regulations sufficiently uniform. What other body was there that could be suggested? He had made inquiries with regard to every other body that would be capable of making the regulations. There was, first, the Privy Council. The President of the Council, every March gave a dinner to certain of his colleagues, and at that dinner the Sheriffs for the year were virtually appointed. But when his appointment had been notified to a Sheriff, the connection between him and the Privy Council ceased. The Council had nothing further to do with the Sheriff; it gave him no orders and it received no returns from him, and therefore the Privy Council would hardly be the right body to make regulations of this kind. Then there was the Home Office; but the Sheriff's connection with that Department was almost exclusively limited to matters relating to the execution of the criminal law, and except in regard to these matters the Home Office had little to do with the Sheriffs. There was, thirdly, the Treasury. To the Treasury the High Sheriff was responsible for certain payments, the duty of the Department in relation to the Sheriff being limited to financial matters. Hitherto the Treasury had not attempted to interfere with the discretion of the Sheriff in any other respect, and it had shown no disposition to widen the area of its action. It seemed to him—and it was the conclusion accepted by their Lordships in 1890—that the County Council, acting under proper control, was the only body left to make regulations for the reception of the Judges. The 4th clause of the Bill simply provided for the employment of police in Courts of Assize. It made compulsory the exercise of a power which was at present optional, although

  817
  generally exercised by those who had the control over the police. The 5th and 6th Clauses dealt with the question of expenditure, and provided that after the accounts of a Sheriff had been examined and audited by the Treasury, the Sheriff, if he thought fit, might apply to the County Council for the payment of costs which he had incurred under the regulations, but the Bill left the County Council free to pay these expenses or any part of them or to refuse to do so. He had been assured that the provisions of the last Bill, imposing a compulsory charge upon the County rate had no chance of acceptance. After considering the matter carefully, he had selected the plan embodied in the clause. For that plan he was indebted to Lord Belper, and it seemed to him to furnish a possible solution of the difficulty of the case. He might point out that the complaint in regard to expenditure did not come from all counties. In counties like Yorkshire and Lancashire, the position of the Sheriff was eagerly sought after, and high expenditure was willingly incurred. There was, of course, no reason for defraying out of public funds costs which private individuals were ready to defray themselves. The clauses, therefore, left the matter optional. The regulations would simply stale what it was necessary and proper to do, and any extra expenditure could be incurred by any Sheriff who so desired. The 7th Clause enabled the County Council to undertake on behalf of the county the whole or any part of the arrangements for receiving the Judges under the regulations. It had been suggested that some County Councils might think it desirable to maintain carriages, and to make other suitable provision for the reception of the Judges, and this clause would enable them to do anything of that kind legally. The 8th and 9th Clauses were really the two most important clauses of the Bill. By the 8th clause all the powers and liabilities hitherto imposed upon Sheriffs in connection with the summoning of juries, the election of members to serve in Parliament, and the execution of civil process were transferred to the County Council, and the 9th Clause provided for the appointment of an Under Sheriff by the Council, to discharge on their behalf, the duties transferred to them.
  818
  He had inserted these clauses in the Bill for the following reasons. A High Sheriff was a layman and elected annually. In most cases he knew nothing of the law, and had no notion of the nature of his responsibilities. The Under Sheriff generally gave the Sheriff an indemnity, but in case of failure by the former to discharge the duties of the office in such matters as civil process, the Sheriff was held responsible. The County Council occupied a different position—at any rate it was a permanent body. He believed that ultimately the County Council would appoint as the Under Sheriff the Clerk of the Council, who at the present time was also Clerk of the Peace. In that way only was any saving to be effected. He did not see how any High Sheriff who occupied office for a year only could be expected in his year of office to effect any economical changes. The second half of Clause 9 provided that any person who had been appointed Under Sheriff by the Sheriff, either during each of the past three years, or during at least five of the 10 years next preceding the commencement of this Act, should be the first Under Sheriff under this Act, and should hold the office during good behaviour. He might be asked why should a vested interest be created where none existed at present. To that he would reply that although it was no doubt true that an Under Sheriff was appointed annually, some firm and individuals had filled the office through a long series of years, and might thus be considered to have acquired a certain interest in the post. There were in the Bill, he knew, many details which would require careful consideration in Committee, and to any suggestions for their amendment, he was ready to give close attention. One thing was clear, however—namely, that the Sheriff's representations deserved to be considered. They had shown that they had a very strong case before two Committees of their Lordships' House. The office of Sheriff was almost an anachronism, but as it was retained for ceremonial or other reasons, those who filled it had a right to know what were the duties which they were expected to discharge, and any duties which were of such a nature that they could not perform them satisfactorily, ought to be transferred

  819
  to the hands of others. He begged to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HALSBURY)admitted that a case had been made out for some relief to the Sheriffs. He thought it was very hard indeed that some gentleman should be selected simply because it was supposed that he was able to pay the bill, in order to perform the work which was in truth part of the administration of justice. That some relief should be granted was no new opinion of his, because on the occasion of a former Bill he induced the Lord Chief Justice to withdraw a Motion he had made in connection with it, on the ground that, according to his judgment, a case had been made out for relief. But, having made that admission, and expressed his sympathy with the Sheriffs, he could not refrain from saying that he could not conceive anything more unworkable, anything more unjust to the Sheriffs, than the Measure which the noble Lord now proposed. One leading feature of it seemed to him to condemn the Bill at once. The Sheriff was to be made an officer of the County Council, and he was bound under the Bill to comply with the directions made, with or without the assent of the Lord Chancellor, to incur certain expenses. In the Select Committee very intelligible provision was made that this having been done the expenses should be defrayed by the county. But, according to the Bill, the Sheriff, being a servant of the County Council, should be at liberty to make an application to the County Council to be paid, and the County Council should be at liberty either to pay or refuse, as they thought proper. That was the oddest kind of relief he had ever heard suggested. Further, the whole Bill appeared to him to be absolutely unworkable. The County Council in each county, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, were to make regulations; but suppose they did not agree, what was to happen?
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The present state of things shall go on.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORreplied that the noble Lord did not say so in the Bill. As a matter of fact they could not go on because the noble Lord had made the County Council practically the
  820
  Sheriff; the County Council had all the duties and all the authority that the present sheriff possessed. It seemed to him that the noble Lord endeavoured to preserve the Sheriff as a name while giving all the duties of that official to the County Council. At almost every turn he found inconsistent enactments in the Bill. What had the County Council to do with the propriety of summoning juries or with the election of Members to serve in Parliament? Was that the kind of body to be intrusted with powers of that kind? Whether the Sheriff should be relieved was one thing, but to transfer all his duties to the County Council and to make it the body to summon juries, and to make arrangements for elections was about the most extraordinary suggestion he had ever heard. Next, as to the administration of justice and the execution of writs. Imagine the County Council being the authority to carry out the execution of the law throughout England! He could hardly conceive a Bill more filled with matters which would lead to conflict. Take the question as to the receiving of Judges. He thought that the questions between the Sheriffs and the Judges were fewer in point of number than was imagined, and so far as his experience went they were only applicable to questions in connection with the eccentricity of particular Judges and particular Sheriffs. He did not believe that if they took the whole body of Judges and High Sheriffs for the last 50 years they would find more than a dozen cases of such conflict. According to his own lengthened experience on circuit he had never met with a case of conflict between the Judges and the High Sheriffs. On the contrary, the best feeling had prevailed between them, and therefore he believed that the real remedy was to be found in a totally different region of inquiry. Let it be ascertained what was made by the fees in the administration of justice and the execution of the law. There were the Sheriff's cravings which he received from the Treasury, and the fees themselves, which, if he did not receive himself he ought to take care to see that an account of them was presented to him by the Under-Sheriff. Though he admitted the serious nature of the burden often cast on the sheriff, yet he believed

  821
  that the Under-Sheriffs throughout the country, in consideration of the indemnity they granted to the Sheriffs against actions at law, had received a large sum of money from time to time; and if accounts were taken it would be ascertained that the amount of which the Sheriff was left in default was a small one indeed. At present the Under-Sheriffs took all the fees in consideration of the indemnity. When he was Chairman of Quarter Sessions it came to his knowledge that the Treasury had from time to time paid money for the lodgings provided for the Judges. He found that the money had been appropriated by the Under-Sheriff as his perquisite. Their Lordships would be at a loss to understand how that deficiency was made up. He found on inquiry that it had been placed on the county rate, so that the county had paid for that the Treasury had already paid for. If proper inquiry was made as to the amount actually necessary for the Sheriff's duties, he thought it would be found that an ample sum was provided for the expenses of the Sheriff. He had looked at this Bill with great care to see whether it was possible to get out of it any machinery by which the relief which ought to be provided could be afforded to the Sheriff; but without altering every section of the Bill and the whole machinery of it seemed to him that it would be impossible. Reluctant as he was to oppose any Measure in favour of the Sheriffs, which he heartily admitted was needed in point of justice, he must ask their Lordships to reject this Bill.
  LORD HERSCHELLagreed with the Lord Chancellor in the criticisms he had made. Whatever relief should be given to the Sheriffs he thought that this was not the method to be adopted. He did not think that it was correct to regard the execution of the law as merely a local affair in the different counties. It was a matter of general interest to the country at large; and, in fact, the execution that was put in force in county A was very often for the benefit of county B which had brought the action. At the present time certain grants were made by the Treasury and there were fees received in connection with the execution of legal process. Those fees at present were practically
  822
  received by the Under-Sheriff who undertook the liabilities. There might not be in every county in every year enough received to meet all the Sheriff's expenses, but he had a very strong conviction if the country at large was taken year by year that the fees would be sufficient for that purpose when added to the sums now paid by the Treasury. He had always thought that the proper course was to treat the question as one in which the country at large was interested, that the fees should be received by the Treasury; and if this method was adopted he believed that all the funds for the proper fulfilment of the duties carried out could be found without any additional burden being cast on the public Exchequer. That was the direction in which he thought relief should be sought, and it would be open to no practical objection.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOKalso strongly took the view that this was not a local burden but one which should be imposed by the Treasury. He thought that the noble Lord who introduced the Bill would now see that nothing could be done in this matter effectually except by the Government of the day.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he wished he could feel greater confidence than he did in the sympathy which had been expressed by the Lord Chancellor and other speakers. Everyone was agreed that the present arrangement pressed very hard on the Sheriff, and that a remedy should be found; but whenever it was proposed to do anything everyone appeared to agree that the remedy was not the right one. The Lord Chancellor pointed out how absurd it was to speak of the execution of writs by a County Council. Was it not equally absurd to speak of the execution of writs by the Sheriff? The Sheriff had no more to do with the execution of writs than the man in the moon. In the circumstances, of course he should accept the advice which had been tendered to him from the other side and withdraw the Bill, and he only hoped the Government would bear in mind what had been said to them. They had been urged to meet this grievance, for it was admitted to be a real one, and although the remedy which they proposed seemed to him very difficult to

  823
  carry out, he trusted that next Session of Parliament they would draw up a Bill to deal with the matter. He begged to withdraw the Bill.
  Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order); further Amendments made; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  DERELICT VESSELS (REPORT) BILL.
  Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.
  ELECTIONS PETITIONS BILL [H.L.]
  Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.
  LARCENY BILL [H.L.]
  Amendment reported (according to Order); and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.
  RESERVE FORCES BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order); and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

  NORFOLK ISLAND.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there was any objection to laying before the House, copies or extracts from reports on the state of Norfolk Island which might have been made to the Secretary of State for the Colonies by the present or the late Governor of New South Wales. His object, he said, was to obtain information as to the reasons why it was proposed to do away with the self-government of Norfolk Island and annex it to
  824
  the other colonies in the South Seas, either New South Wales or New Zealand. The reason he took an interest in this matter was that for more than four years, when he was Governor of New South Wales, he was also Governor ex-officio of the dependency of Norfolk Island, and at that time—now a good while ago—he knew more about the island than perhaps anybody else. He recalled the early history of the island, and mentioned that when the sending of convicts to New South Wales was put an end to Norfolk Island was placed under the jurisdiction of the Lieutenant Governor of Tasmania. The convict establishments at that place had been kept up to 1856, when they were finally broken up and the convicts removed both from Norfolk Island and from Van Diemen's Land, or Tasmania, as it was now called. At that time Sir W. Denison, the Lieutenant Governor of Tasmania, was on the eve of being appointed Governor General of Australia and Governor of New South Wales. Sir W. Denison took a great interest in philanthropic objects, and among others the condition of the Pitcairn Islanders, the descendants of the mutineers of the Bounty. Pitcairn Island was considered to be over populated, and a movement was made in this country to remove the islanders to Norfolk Island; and this movement was in due course carried out. He wished particularly to draw attention to the fact that when this community was moved from Pitcairn to Norfolk Island it was on the clear understanding that it was to be a self-governing community, and that it was to be, if he might use the expression, run on temperance lines. In 1870 he paid an official visit to the island, and found that the people were as well behaved as any orderly English village, with the exception that there was practically no drunkenness in it. With regard to the change now contemplated, there might be good reasons for it, but he did not know what those reasons were, and accordingly he asked for information on the subject?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOCR),replying to the question in the absence of Lord Selborne, who was detained at the Colonial Office by an important conference, said: The Secretary of State has no objection

  825
  to present to Parliament the Reports referred to by the noble Lord, but I would suggest to the noble Lord that it may be better to defer doing so at present, as the Governor of New Zealand has intimated by telegraph that his Ministers wish to submit certain propositions to Her Majesty's Government respecting the island, and his Dispatch has not yet arrived. The Reports, if laid on the Table now, would therefore be necessarily incomplete; but when the Dispatch has been received there will be no objection on the part of the Secretary of State to give the Papers suggested.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid that he would fall in with the noble Lord's suggestion.

  IRISH PROBATES.
  THE EARL OF RANFURLYasked the Lord Chancellor why probate taken out in England should be acted upon in Ireland, and why probate taken out in Ireland should not be acted upon in England; and whether the Lord Chancellor could see his way to recommend Her Majesty's Government to make such an alteration in the law that persons owning property in both countries, being under one Sovereign and one Parliamentary constitution, should not in future be subjected to the vexatious delays and unnecessary expenses occasioned by the existing system. He said that the matter pressed unduly hard on Ireland, for in 1894 the number of Irish probates proved in England was exactly double the number of English probates resealed in Ireland. Only the other day an Irish probate had to be resealed in England on account of there being a £1 share in some stores, and the cost of the operation was £10.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am delighted to give my noble Friend and colleague—[laughter]—all the information in my power. As I am not familiar with the expense of administration in this matter, I sent the noble Lord's question
  826
  on to the Judge of the Probate Court, and his answer is certainly inconsistent with the experience of the noble Lord. He writes:—
  "I believe that the objection to Irish probates requiring resealing before they can be acted on in England is very small, and the difficulties connected with any other course practically insuperable. Last year the Irish grants resealed were 427. If the estate be under £500, the total expense is 2s. 6d. The expense is increased, but to no great extent, in larger estates. If resealing be not required, no grant could be made in either country without a search in both countries to ascertain that no objection exists. Notice in every case must be sent to England from every Irish registry, and to Ireland from every English registry. As the grants in England are between 50,000 and 60,000 a year, it is obvious what delay, expense, and probable errors this must occasion. I do not think that the present system could be improved, unless (which is, of course, impracticable) all the Irish registries were placed on the same footing as the English district registries, and subordinate to one principal registry."
  THE EARL OF RANFURLY: A solicitor has to be employed, and there are a number of legal expenses besides the fees.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid that he expressed no opinion himself; but if the noble Earl would inquire into the case he had mentioned he would perhaps find that there had been some extravagance.
  THE EARL OF RANFURLY: I will give the details any time.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I do not rise to intervene in this intricate matter; but I must call attention to the curious precedent of a subordinate Member of the Government interpellating the Government in Parliament. [Laughter.] I do not say that the practice is reprehensible, but it is unusual, if not unprecedented; and I should have thought that in a Government which boasts of being so united and harmonious as the present Government does, the information might have been sought and afforded without the resort to Parliamentary machinery. [Laughter.]
  House adjourned at Twenty minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a Quarter past Four o'clock.