Sitting of 29 July 1897

NEW WRIT
For Sheffield (Brightside Division),?. the Right Hon. Anthony John Mundella, deceased.—(Mr. M'Arthur.)
QUESTIONS.

  AFRICAN LIQUOR TRAFFIC CONFERENCE.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inform the House as to the progress of negotiations with reference to the proposed conference of the European Powers concerned in Africa for the further regulation of the liquor trade in their several possessions?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (MR. G. CURZON, Lancashire, Southport): I am afraid I cannot at this stage make any statement as to the progress of negotiations. The matter is, however, being proceeded with.

  VOLUNTEER INFANTRY.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether a Departmental Committee is inquiring into the brigading of the Volunteer Infantry; and whether the size of the Infantry Volunteer brigades in the Home District and the difficulty of finding barrack or camp accommodation and manœuvring ground at Easter and other times for brigades the size of divisions, and the possible desirability of making the units smaller, will be brought under its consideration?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): The Committee to which my hon. Friend refers has already reported, but its inquiry was on the question of the command and not of the formation or constitution of Volunteer brigades.

  NORTHUMBERLAND FUSILIERS (1ST BATTALION).
  MR. T. SKEWES-COX: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that notwithstanding the death of Private Brockwell of the 1st Battalion Northumberland Fusiliers, on the 1st April last, the Accountant General wrote to Brockwell's father on the
  1452
  15th May stating that his son was effective and serving with his regiment in Gibraltar on the first-mentioned date; that the Adjutant of the 5th Regimental District wrote to Brockwell's father on the 19th May stating that no information having been received regarding his son's death, therefore up to the present time he is all right; and that the first official intimation of Brockwell's death was communicated to his family by the War Office on the 16th July inst.; and who is responsible for withholding for so long a period the knowledge of Brockwell's death?
  MR. BRODRICK: I regret to say that the facts appear to be as stated in the Question. The officer commanding a battalion is bound by regulation to notify immediately the death of a soldier to the next-of-kin. The General on the spot has reported that an investigation is taking place into the case, and into the cause of delay.
  MR. SKEWES-COXasked whether Mr. Brodrick was aware that between April and June, Mr. Breckwell and the Revd. Geo. I. Swinnerton, Vicar of St. Luke's, Kingston, each wrote two letters to the commanding officer of the regiment as to the rumour that the said soldier was dead, and that no reply bad been received to either of such communications, and that the letter which Mr. Swinnerton wrote to a chaplain at Gibraltar on the same subject had been returned unanswered?

  NATIONAL MUSEUMS (SCOTLAND.)
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether any of the Culloden House relics were secured for the National museums of Scotland?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): I understand a representative of the National Museum of Antiquities was present at the sale, but that it was not thought desirable that any purchase should be made. I have no information as to purchases by other museums in Scotland.

  SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education when the Annual

  1453
  Report of the Science and Art Department will he in the bands of Members?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST, Cambridge University): The Report has been presented to-day, and is already in the press.

  TRACTION ENGINE WHEELS.
  MR. HERBERT WHITELEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that application was made last year by Messrs. Isaac Boulton and Company, engineers, Ashton-under-Lyne, that their patent wheels in connection with traction engines should be legalised under the Act of 1896; and whether, in consequence, these wheels were examined by the Inspectors of the Local Government Board in the month of February last, and if any objection was taken by them to the wheels; if so, could it be stated to the House?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN, Lincolnshire, Sleaford): An application was made by Messrs. Boulton and Co., and the wheels were examined by Inspectors of the Board as stated in the Question. As regards the reports of the Board's Inspectors in the matter, I can only state generally that they considered that further information should be obtained as to the results of the use of these wheels, and the Board, as I stated in reply to a Question on Monday last, caused communications to be addressed to a considerable number of local authorities on the subject.

  MONAGHAN UNION
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has he seen a letter addressed to the Local Government Board by Dr. Crawford, medical officer of the Castleshane Division of the Monaghan Union, in which he complains that the relieving officer refused to have a fever patient, named Mrs. Duffy, removed to hospital; and a daughter of Mrs. Dully was ill at the same time of malignant typhus fever; that the house in m inch the family, consisting altogether of eight persons lived, contained only two small rooms, and that Mrs. Duffy
  1454
  died from the disease; also that, in another case, where a patient was too ill for removal, the relieving officer declined to supply the necessary nourishment and stimulants, and that the doctor, rather than see his patient die, ordered and paid for these articles himself; is he aware that the Monaghan Board of Guardians refused to refund to Dr. Crawford the money he expended in this case, on the ground that there was a resolution on their hooks against giving out-door relief, which resolution could not be rescinded without 14 days' notice; is it legal for a board of guardians to have such a resolution on their books; and, what action does the Local Government Board intend to take in this matter?
  *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): The Local Government Board are not at present in possession of all the facts of this case, but they have ordered an Inquiry on oath for the purpose of ascertaining the truth of the statements made.

  METROPOLITAN AND METROPLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAYS.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state when the Report of the Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade on the ventilation of the Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways will be issued?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE, Croydon): The Committee is engaged upon the consideration of its Report, but I cannot say When its deliberations will be concluded.

  INISHOWEN BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Ile is aware that an application was made to the Inishowen Board of Guardians by Samuel Long in December 1895, for a labourer's cottage, or to repair the one in which he lived, but that the Guardians refused to do so, although a representation form duly filled and signed by the requisite number of ratepayers was handed in; whether the Local Government

  1455
  Board Inspector specially reported upon the duty of the Guardians in providing suitable accommodation for this man; and whether any money, and if so, how much, is available to the Inishowen Board of Guardians for the building of labourers' cottages or repairs thereof?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It does not appear that a proper representation, as required by the Acts, was lodged on behalf of Long until April last. The Guardians have deferred consideration of the application in consequence of the inability of the Guardian for the division in which Long resides to attend their meeting. It is expected he will he present at the next meeting to be held on Monday. The Inspector reported tins man's house to be a fairly good cottage, but unsanitary because portion of it was used to accommodate a cow, and because there was a cesspool at the door. There is a sum of £183 lying to the credit of the Union out of the Labourers' Cottage Grant of 1890, and the Union would also be entitled, in the event of cottages being provided, to share in the annual grant now payable under the Land Act of 1891.

  GAMBLING TN OPTIONS AND FUTURES.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has made inquiries as to the action of other Governments respecting the prohibition by law of gambling in futures, especially in grain; whether such inquiry will be continuous, and whether the Government intend to consider this subject, and introduce legislation to safeguard the producer and consumer?
  MR. RITCHIE: The replies are not yet complete, but the action of Foreign Governments in connection with this matter will continue to be carefully watched. Tier Majesty's Government have no intention at present of introducing legislation on the subject.

  LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is now able to state whether the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Company have
  1456
  reduced their rates for manures, etc., by 15s. as agreed; and whether the company will now return to their customers the amounts illegally charged in excess for the last four years?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Board of Trade have had another interview with representatives of the railway companies interested, viz.: the London, Tilbury, and Southend and the Great Eastern. They assert their willingness to return to the old rates as from 1st January I893; it appears, however, that there is a dispute between these companies as to the proportion of the rate to which each is entitled. This is a matter which should be settled by arbitration, and I understand that the companies will appoint an arbitrator. I trust that this may be done without delay.

  POSTAL TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT (PENSIONS).
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the possibility of including the ex-Royal Engineers employed in the Central Telegraph Office in the Bill introduced by him on the subject of pensions in the Postal Telegraph Department?
  MR. RITCHTE (for MR. HANBURY): The Bill to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers has already passed.

  BRITISH COLUMBIA.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the reported rich discoveries of gold in the northern district of British Columbia, and the probability of an exceptional rush towards that region, the Emigrants' Information Office will obtain and publish as soon as possible authoritative particulars as to the best available route, and the conditions of life and work on these newly opened-up fields As a very serviceable and satisfactory statement from the Emigrants' Information Office appears in this morning's papers I presume I need not put this Question, unless the right hon. Gentleman has anything he would like to add?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The Emigrants' In-

  1457
  formation Office have already drawn up a memorandum which has been communicated to the Press, and they will continue to give attention to the subject.

  POST OFFICE ACCOMMODATION (THURLES).
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a decision has yet been arrived at in the matter of providing the town of Thurles with more suitable and commodious premises for the transaction of postal and telegraphic business?
  MR. RITCHIE (for Mr. HANBURY): A decision has not yet been arrived at, but a fresh proposal which, it is hoped, may prove acceptable has been submitted, and is under consideration. The matter will be pressed forward as much as possible.

  BECHUANALAND.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Tier Majesty's sanction has been given to the Bechuanaland Native Reserves Bill, which was passed by the Parliament of Cape Colony in June and, if so, whether he will inform the House as to the areas affected and the approximate number of natives whom it is proposed to deprive of lands, as regards which it wits provided by the British Bechuanaland Act of 1895 that they should not, he alienated or in any way diverted front the purposes fur which they had been set apart?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The Bill as passed by the Cape Legislature has not yet been received. I am informed that the area affected is 483,000 acres, or about one-sixth of the total area of the reserves. I have no accurate information as to the population, but I estimate roughly that it is, or was, about 7,500 out of 57,000. The hon. Member in his statement of the provisions of the British Bechuanaland Annexation Act relating to native reserves has omitted the qualifying words "otherwise than with the authority of an Act of Parliament of this colony."

  WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to his Dispatch of 21st August 1896; to the Governor of Western Australia, inviting information with a view to ascertaining the general feeling of the House of Commons as to the proposal to abolish the Aborigines Protection Board, and to other correspondence on the subject published in Parliamentary Paper [C. 8350]; whether it is the intention of Majesty's Government to introduce, in the present Session of Parliament, a Measure for amendment of the Western Australian Constitution Act as regards the Aborigines Protection Board; and whether he will inform the House as to any steps that may have been taken in respect of the contemplated change?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not proposed to introduce any Measure to this House respecting the Aborigines Protection Beard of Western Australia, fur the power of legislation on the subject rests with the Colonial Parliament. That Parliament has already passed, and the Governor has reserved, a Measure repealing Sect it in 70 of the Constitution which is the section relating to the hoard, and after protracted discussion and correspondence I have promised to advise Hen Majesty in Council to assent to this Bill; the colony on its side agreeing, as I stated the other day, to create a special Government department to look after the interests of the natives.

  SOUTH HETTON COLLIERY, DURHAM.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at the Castle Eden Petty Sessions, Durham, held en 17th July, the check weighman at Smith Hetton Colliery was ordered by the magistrates to be removed from his position because it was alleged he had interfered with one of the workmen; and that the interference, as stated by the workman, consisted solely of answering a question which the said workman had put to the checkweighman; and whether he can cause an inquiry to he made into the facts with the view to getting the removal order cancelled.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY, Lancashire, Blackpool): I have seen a report of the case referred to. The checkweighman had a conversation with four men who had been asked to work for a shift and a half on a piece of road that had become dangerous; and as a result of this conversation they stopped working at the end of a shift. The magistrates held that this was impeding the working of the mine within the meaning of the Act; and I have no power to interfere with their decision.

  GERMAN DYNAMITE DEPôT, ALDERNEY.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the Germans have established a dynamite depot in the harbour of Alderney and ship it thence on to German ships, and in such case if the local authorities have sufficient powers to make regulations for the protection of Her Majesty's subjects?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I am informed that a German company is allowed to use the outer harbour at Braye, in the Island of Alderney, for the transhipment of explosives, under an agreement entered into between the company and the Office of Woods with the concurrence of the Admiralty and War Office. There is nothing in the nature of a dynamite dept, as the agreement expressly provides that no explosives shall be landed. As regards the latter part of the Question, I may say that the agreement contains stringent regulations as to the places where the ships are to be moored am I the precautions to be observed.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (WIMBLEDON).
  MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education (1) whether in consequence of the overcrowding of the public elementary schools at Wimbledon, a formal notice for the supply of additional school places was issued in March last year, which notice expired in the following November; (2) whether during the
  1460
  period which has since elapsed any, and what, effectual steps have been taken to provide the accommodation which it was stated in February last was being supplied with due dispatch; (3) whether he is aware that out of the £7,700 required for the erection of additional school buildings only £2,414 has been promised and only £1,846 paid, while the Report of the Voluntary Schools Committee for the year ending 31st March showed a deficit of £573; and (4) whether, having regard to the rapid growth of the population at Wimbledon, the Department will now order the formation of a School Board?
  SIR J. GORST: The facts stated in paragraph 1 are correct. A considerable part of the accommodation required has already been supplied, and plans for the remainder have been approved. I have not been able to ascertain whether the statements in paragraph 3 are correct; but the Committee of Council have no information which would lead him to suppose that the necessary funds will not be forthcoming. They, therefore, see no reason to order the formation of a School. Board at present.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOL RATE (WITHINGTON).
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what has been the result of his communication to the Withington District Council in respect to the inclusion of a voluntary school rate in a demand note for a compulsory rate?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have been in communication with the District Council, and I have no doubt that the practice of inserting in the demand note a reference to the voluntary rate will be d discontinued.

  CIVIL SERVICE (TEMPORARY CLERICAL LABOUR.)
  Mr. HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury have considered the advisability of providing for the performance of the temporary clerical labour required in certain Departments in the manner recommended by the Royal Commission on Civil

  1461
  Establishments, viz.: by the employment of men and boys who have passed examination for man clerkships and who are waiting for appointment, or by boy clerks, or boy copyists, in lieu of employing the large number of personal clerks shown in the Return, No. 288, presented 1st July last; whether the personal clerks referred to in the said Return, including those employed in the legal Departments on account of legal qualifications, could he appointed by open competition and after examination by the Civil Service Commissioners: and whether lie will cause inquiry to be made, by means of a special Inter Departmental Committee, into the necessity in each case specified in the said Return of maintaining the existing arrangement as to the employment of personal clerks?
  MR. RITCHIE (for Mr. HANBURY): My right hon. Friend asks me to say that the recommendation of the Ridley Commission was that urgent but temporary clerical work should be met by employing for a definite period and on particular work men or boys who have passed the examination for the 2nd Division and have not yet been appointed to it. This recommendation is followed as far as possible, but in the first place, if the expectant clerk is only unattached for a few weeks, it is obviously difficult to assign him to work which may last for as many months, and, secondly, it is only the simpler and more rudimentary forms of work- which can be entrusted to him. For instance, the mere fact of having passed the 2nd Division examination would clearly not qualify him for service under the Official Receiver or Treasury Solicitor. The theory of personal clerks is that they are employed, not in the Civil Service, but as the personal assistants of heads of Departments, who both select them and are held directly responsible for their work, and this principle could not be maintained if they were appointed by open competition. No head of a Department is allowed to employ such personal assistants until the particular circumstances of the case have been carefully considered at the Treasury, and nothing would be gained by transferring the responsibility from the Treasury to an Inter-Departmental Committee.

  RICHMOND LUNATIC ASYLUM, DUBLIN.
  MR. D. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the medical superintendent of the Richmond Asylum has been complaining about the overcrowded condition of his institution in his annual reports since 1886 to the governors; and that a contract, involving nearly a quarter of a million sterling, on the new asylum at Portrane, was given away by the Board of Control, which is an unrepresentative body, without consultation with the. Board of Governors; (2) whether he will state to the House the amount of money expended on temporary buildings which have been condemned by Dr. Patrick Manson, of London, and by Sir Thornley Stoker, of Dublin; and (3) whether his attention lets been called to the statement in the Inspectors' Report for 1891 that the Richmond Asylum was originally constructed for 600 patients, that there are now considerably over I,800 patients in the Asylum, and that the additional temporary accommodation does not even provide for the increase in the numbers since the Inspectors reported in 1890 that the congestion paralyses every effort to treat the insane?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The fact is as stated in the first part of the first paragraph. It is not true that the contract for the Portrane Asylum was given away by flue Board of Control without consultation with the Board of Governors. The expenditure on the temporary buildings, which were erected with the concurrence of the Governors, amounts to about £12,000. The medical gentlemen referred to considered wooden buildings unsuitable for the, treatment of been-beri patients, but the buildings erected at Richmond have been designed with every possible attention to sanitary requirements, and are, in the opinion of the Inspectors of Lunatics, suitable for the accommodation of the insane. Similar temporary buildings have been erected in London with the concurrence of the English Lunacy Commissioners. The remarks of the Inspectors in their Report of 1891, referred not to the want of day room and dormitory accommodation, but to the deficiency of the administrative departments, which, originally

  1463
  designed to accommodate 600, were found insufficient for the enlarged institution. But, so far back as 1854, an additional building had been erected for male patients which, with further additions subsequently made, brought the accommodation, long previously to 1891, up to 1,100. The number at present at Richmond and Portrane is 1,821, while there is accommodation at both places, including the temporary structures, for 1,648, made up as follows—accommodation for 1,100 in the permanent buildings at Richmond, and temporary accommodation for 364 at Richmond and for 184 at Portrane. The number in excess of the accommodation is, therefore, 173, and to provide for these accommodation is being prepared, and will be completed in about a month, for 130 at Portrane and for 35 at Richmond. This will still leave a small balance of eight, and at the meeting of the Governors on Tuesday last, a proposal was made by the Inspectors, and approved by the Governors, that further provision should be made for the temporary accommodation of 150 patients, which will leave a safe margin of accommodation under any possible circumstances.

  REGISTRARS OF MARRIAGES.
  MR. A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to a circular issued by the Registrar General to superintendent registrars on the appointment of registrars of marriages, stating, among other things, that the superintendent registrar is expected to take the most effectual means at his disposal, through the ministers of religion or by other means, for ascertaining the Nonconformist feeling of his district on this subject, and that no appointment can be approved with respect to which it might be shown that this important consideration had been overlooked; whether he is aware that great exception has been taken to the paragraph by many Churchmen in the country, on the ground that it will certainly tend to exclude Churchmen from appointments as registrars of marriages, which appointments are generally combined with that of registrar of births and death's, and whether he will cause the paragraph in question to be withdrawn?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have communicated with the Registrar General, arid I am informed by him that he has caused the circular referred to to be sent out on the occurrence of vacancies amongst registrars of marriages since March, 1896. He states that the circular is a reminder on a subject to which the attention of superintendent registrars was drawn when civil marriage in England first came into operation, viz.: in a circular dated January 1837. I am informed that he considers that there is no reason to suppose that the effect of the paragraph' would be to exclude Churchmen from appointments as registrars of marriages, since, as a matter of fact, Nonconformists have since the issue of the circular frequently requested that Churchmen might be appointed. I am advised that I have no authority in this matter, and no power to cause the withdrawal of the paragraph referred to. As regards the Question of the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division, one of the objects of the circular appears to be that to which he refers.

  GRENADIER GUARDS.
  MR. ARTHUR JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can now state what alteration will be made in the uniform and headdress of the officers and men of the 1st Battalion of Grenadier Guards wham they proceed to Gibraltar; and on what date they will embark?
  MR. BRODRICK: The officers and men of the 1st Battalion of Grenadier Guards will leave their bearskin headdress at home, and will wear helmets when they proceed to Gibraltar. The men will not have tunics, white jackets, or tweed trousers renewed while they are at Gibraltar, these articles being replaced by issues of drill and tartan clothing. Regulations as regards the uniforms of the officers will be issued immediately. It is intended that the battalion should embark about September 28th.

  DONAGHADEE HARBOUR
  MR. R. McGHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state how many days of trial were given to the suction dredger of the Board of Works at Donaghadee

  1465
  Harbour in June last; whether lie is aware that the suction dredger was a failure there, and that it was removed after having broken down twice; and whether, considering the present dangerous state of the harbour at Donaghadee, he will ask the Board of Works to send down to that harbour a different kind of dredger to complete the work commenced last year of removing the silting stones, etc.?
  MR. RITCHIE (for Mr. HANBURY): My right hon. Friend desires me to say that he has just heard by telegram that the kingstown dredger was sent experimentally to Donaghadee and worked there for nineteen days, during which she removed 5,000 tons of spoil The material, however, was found to be unsuitable to her class, and she was brought back. The pump broke down once soon after her arrival in Donaghadee, and stopped her for a week. The harbour is not in a dangerous state, though to restore it to the level of 1863 a large amount of dredging, consisting largely of stones, would have to be done at a very heavy cost, probably £1,500. The Board of Works are not satisfied that the trade of the harbour would justify them in recommending such an expenditure.

  RIVERS POLLUTION ACT.
  MR. J. BIGWOOD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board (1) whether he is aware that the procedure under the Rivers Pollution Act is so uncertain that the West Riding of Yorkshire and the Mersey and Irwell district of Lancashire have obtained special Acts, (2) and whether he would be prepared to afford to the Middlesex and other County Councils the power to promote similar Bills without the danger of being surcharged by giving a Government support to the Bill now before Parliament for that purpose; (3) and whether he is aware that, so long ago as 1893, the county of Middlesex asked for such a power: (4) and whether he is aware that they have been endeavouring ever since, though so far unsuccessfully, to grapple with this serious evil now existing in the liver Brent?
  *MR. CHAPLIN: With regard to the first part of the Question, I am aware
  1466
  that the West Riding Rivers Board and the Mersey and Irwell Joint Committee obtained the special Acts to which reference is made. They have no more powers for this purpose than those which have been and are possessed by the Middlesex County Council at present. As to the second and third parts of the Question, it is true that in 1891 the Middlesex County Council urged that county councils should have power to promote, as well as oppose, Bills in Parliament. I answered a Question Of the hon. Member on that point on Monday last, and I am afraid that I can add nothing to it. But, even if that power was granted now, it could have no bearing on the present condition of the river Brent, as no Bill under the new power could be promoted until next year. As to the fourth part of the Question—viz., the existing condition of the river Brent—I am not aware of the action which has been taken by the county council, under the powers which they already possess, with a view to the prevention of the pollution of the river.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYasked what steps had been taken in the matter?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I stated on Tuesday that injunctions had been obtained against tile chief offending districts—viz., the Willesden and Wembley District Councils—and that loans to a very considerable amount had been sanctioned by the Local Government Board for works necessary to deal with the evil, but, of course, they take time. I have also sent an inspector of the Board, since the matter was brought under my notice, to examine the condition of the river and to make an immediate report. The hon. Member may be assured that everything that can be done shall be done; but my powers in the matter are exceedingly limited. ["Hear, hear!"]

  CORK POST OFFICE.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will make inquiries as to the number of the staff employed on night duty in the parcel office of the Cork Post Office, and the amount of work to be done by them; whether three men have to discharge duties very laborious in

  1467
  their nature which would require five men to perform adequately; and, in view of the fact that the officer in charge has to do exactly the same work as his subordinates in unloading baskets and disposing of parcels mails, including the work of carrying baskets from one part of the building to another, will he state whether it is usual to couple duties of this kind with the responsibility of general supervision; whether the hours of duty (including an interval from 10.30 p.m. to 1.45 a.m.) are from 7.30 p.m. (and in one case from 6.30 p.m.) to 5.30 a.m.; and whether complaints have been made that the room in which the work is carried on is ill ventilated, and even in the day time ill lighted.
  MR. RITCHIE (for Mr. HANBURY): The following telegram has been received from the District Surveyor:—Cork Parcel Office. It is not a fact that three men have to discharge duties which would require five men to perform properly, nor does the officer in charge do exactly the same work as his subordinates. The staff on night duty consists of three sorting clerks, one of whom is the officer in charge and one postman acting as packer. Two sorting clerks attend from 7.30 p.m. to 10 30 p.m. and from 1.45 a.m. to 5 a.m., and one attends from 6.30 p.m. to 10.0 p.m. and from 1.45 a.m. to 5 a.m. The packer attends from 7.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m., and from I.45 a.m. to 5 a.m. The officer in charge performs no duty but that of supervision from 7.30 p. m. to 10.30 p.m., and from 1.45 a.m. to 3 min. From 3 a.m. to 5 a.m., in addition to supervision lie assists in sorting parcels and entering them on the X lists; he also deals with the registered parcels. There is no pressure of work except between 3 a.m. and 5 a.m., but the present staff with the assistance of the officer in charge is sufficient to cope with it. The room in which t he parcel work is performed is not well ventilated, although there are four windows and two doors, and it is badly lighted in the day time, but no complaints have been made by the staff to the Postmaster or to me. These two defects will be remedied in connection with the enlargement of the premises now in hand. I may point out that the average attendance of the four officers named is 6 hours 50 minutes.

  LETTER BOXES (DUBLIN).
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why since 1st May have the pillar boxes of Dublin had erroneous hours of collection painted on them; and when can the public hope that correct information will appear on the boxes?
  *MR RITCHIE (for Mr. HANBURY): As the hon. Member is aware, the recent re arrangement of mail services in Dublin made it necessary to alter the hours of collection from the pillar boxes. New enamelled plates notifying the correct hours were duly ordered, but the contractors have not yet been able to supply them. They have been requested to supply them as soon as possible.

  PACIFIC TELEGRAPH CABLES.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the actual and prospective increase in trade between Canada and China and Japan on the one hand and between Canada and Australasia on the other, he can lay upon the Table any further Papers or make any further statement as to the proposed telegraph cables across the Pacific Ocean?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot at present lay any further Papers on the Table or make any further statement.

  CHINA AND JAPAN MAILS.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state what proportion of the mails between the United Kingdom and China and Japan are sent via Canada and via Suez respectively; and what have been the average periods of transit by the two routes during the last three months for the mails to Japan, Shanghai and Hong Kong respectively?
  Mr. RITCHIE (for Mr. HANBURY): Mails are exchanged between the United kingdom and China and Japan, not only via Canada and via Suez, but also via the United States. The proportion of

  1469
  the mails sent by each route is as follows:—

  ROUTE.

  TO AND FROM CHINA.

  TO AND FROM JAPAN.

  Via Canada

  ·3 p.c.

  34·7 p.c.

  Via Suez (by British, French and German packets)

  99·5 "

  32·8 "

  Via the United States)

  ·2 "

  32·5 "

  The average periods of transit from London to Hong Kong and Shanghai during the three months ended the 30th of April last were:—

  VIA SUEZ.

  VIA CANADA.

  D.

  H.

  M.

  D.

  H.

  M.

  To Hong hong

  28

  12

  21

  39

  13

  6

  " Shanghai

  33

  6

  44

  36

  12

  27

  The Post Office has no records of the time of arrival in Japan of mails sent to that country via Suez. They are landed at Hong Kong and are forwarded thence as opportunities offer In the case of mails for Japan sent by way of Canada the average period of transit from London to Yokohama during the same three months was 31d. 9h. 19m.

  CATHOLIC RELIEF ACT, 1829.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Statute Law Committee has refused to repeal the obsolete sections of The Catholic Relief Act 1829, which impose numerous penal disabilities on Roman Catholics in Ireland; and whether, as he suggested an appeal to the Statute Law Committee, he now intends to take any steps to repeal these sections; and, if so, when, and by what Means?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received a copy of a letter written by the Secretary to the Statute Law Revision Committee on this subject. I see no practical advantage to he gained in asking the House to give time for legislation repealing Sections of an Act of Parliament, which are admittedly obsolete.

  ABERDEENSHIRE VOLUNTEER ARTILLERY.
  CAPTAIN PIRIEI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state if
  1470
  the 40-pounder guns at present used by the Aberdeenshire Volunteer Artillery can be replaced by guns of a lighter calibre, especially in view of the fact that the heavier guns are in no way suitable for the work required, and also that lighter gulls have been supplied to other Scotch Volunteer Artillery batteries?
  MR BRODUICK: I fear that lighter guns than 40-pounders are not at present available for this Corps.

  LETTER DELIVERY (CHOLDERTON).
  MR. H. C. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that great inconvenience has for a long time been and is at present caused by the irregular and late delivery of letters in Cholderton, near Salisbury, owing to the route taken and the inadequacy of the provision made; and whether he will cause inquiry with a view to remedy and to the provision of improved postal service?
  MR. RITCHIE (for Mr. HANBURY): On several occasions recently there has been delay in the delivery at Cholderton owing to the late arrival at Salisbury of the train conveying the night mail. From Salisbury the mails are conveyed by mail cart to Amesbury, whence a walking postman proceeds to Cholderton, where he is due at 8.50 a.m. The delivery is commenced at once and is completed about 9.45 a.m. Inquiry is being made with a view of ascertaining whether any acceleration is practicable, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS COMMITTEE.
  MR. CHARLES MURRAY: I beg to ask the lion. Member for North-East Manchester, as Chairman of the Merchandise Marks Committee, if he is aware how the Report of the Committee appeared ill certain newspapers on Tuesday morning, when it had not been presented to the House?
  SIR J. FERGUSSION: I do not know how the incorrect report got into the newspapers. But as see that it was accompanied by a memorandum by certain members of the Committee which was not approved by

  1471
  the Committee itself, I suppose one of the members of the Committee was responsible for what appeared in the papers. If so, it was a regrettable proceeding.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked whether it was not the fact that the final revision was only carried by the casting vote of the chairman?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That cannot be asked, nor does it arise out of the Question Oil the Paper.

  DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (LAHORE).
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings of Mr. Meredith, District Magistrate of Lahore, who entered the Court of the local first class magistrate during the trial of a criminal case, rebuked him on account of an order he had passed in the case, and requested him to revise it; and whether the course of action adopted by Mr. Meredith has been taken into consideration?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): I have no knowledge of this matter except from a newspaper report with which the hon. Baronet has favoured me. The case, as there stated, assuming the statement to be correct, is one in which, as at present advised, I see no necessity for interfering, and which may be safely left to he dealt with by the Local Government.

  DEPUTY COLLECTOR (MALABAR).
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received memorial, dated 22nd March last, from C. Kunhi kaunan, late Deputy Collector of Malabar, who was convicted of bribery and served a term of imprisonment; whether he is aware that since petitioner's conviction important fresh evidence has been discovered, and that Mr. Moberly, District Magistrate of Malabar, has recommended that he should be given an opportunity of showing that lie was convicted on evidence winch was either false or so tainted as to be unworthy of belief; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made, and if the petitioner
  1472
  establishes his innocence, will grant him a free pardon in order to vindicate his character?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The memorial in question has not yet been officially forwarded from India, but a copy which was sent to me direct reached me on the 14th of last month. I will ask the Government of India how it proposes to deal with the matter.

  RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION (SCOTTISH SCHOOLS).
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in conformity with Clause 68 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, establishing a conscience clause, and under the regulations of a time table approved by the Scotch Education Department, religious observances are practised or instruction in religious subjects is given according to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, or according to the teaching of the Scottish Episcopal Church, in certain School Board schools in Scotland; and if so, in what schools and in how many such schools respectively?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: I understand that in certain Board Schools in Scotland instruction in religious subjects is given according to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, but the Department has no official information on the subject, and, as the matter is one entirely within the discretion of the School Board, the Department hesitates to make it a matter of official inquiry. I do not know whether in any case such instruction is given according to the teaching of the Scottish Episcopal Church.

  IRSIH LAND COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. JAMES DALY: T beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, owing to the delay of the Irish Land Commissioners in carrying out the sale of the Kenny Estate, county Monaghan, the tenants on this estate are threatened with law proceedings for the May rent; and whether he will stay proceedings against the tenants on the estate mentioned pending the carrying out of the sale by the Irish Land Commissioners?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no knowledge of any avoidable delay on the part of the Land Commissioners in connection with the proceedings pending on tins estate. As I have already stated, a request was issued by the Land Judge towards the end of April for an inspection by the Commissioners pursuant to the 40th section of the Act of 1896. The inspection has been completed, but the Inspector's reports have not yet been furnished. The question of proceedings against the tenants is the subject of an application at present before the Land Judge, and I have no power to interfere in the matter.

  CLOGHER VALLEY TRAMWAY.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade has he seen an extract from the report of the county surveyor of Tyrone upon the condition of the Clogher Valley Tram way, wherein it is stated that a dangerous slackness exists in the guage; that the fish bolts are insecure; that the ballasting is in many places wet and insufficient; and that the line generally is in a very unsatisfactory state; and will any attempt be wade to give the travelling public better security for life and limb on this tramway?
  MR RITCHIE: I have seen the extract from the report of the county surveyor, and the Board of Trade have requested the company to furnish them with observations upon it. I must remind the hon. Member that the responsibility for the condition of the line and the safety of the passengers rests with the company.

  TRAWLING LIMIT.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I hog to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reference to the extension of the trawling limit on the East coast of Scotland, and the views thereupon of the Foreign Powers who are signatories of the North Sea Convention, whether any communication has yet been addressed to any Foreign Government, alai whether any decision has been arrived at by Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government have decided not for the present to address any communications
  1474
  to Foreign Governments. There are not any Papers which could with advantage be laid at this stage.

  OBAN MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the mail steamer Staffa is unsuitable for the service between Oban and the Outer Hebrides; and, whether steps will lie taken to secure the safety of the mails and passengers by placing a more seaworthy steamer on the route?
  MR. RITCHIE (for Mr. HANBUIEY): Complaints respecting the Staffa have on several occasions been made to the Postmaster General, but none have been received recently, The vessel, though small, is stated to be a good sea boat, and to fulfil the conditions of the contract. The mails are now being conveyed by her with safety and punctuality, and no promise can at present be made that she shall be replaced by a larger steamer.

  ADVERTISEMENTS IN PUBLIC CARRIAGES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the recent decision of Mr. Hannay, at the Marlborough Street Police Court, in the case of the Reverend A. E. Clementi Smith, who was summoned for removing from the window of an omnibus a printed notice which intercepted the view of the passengers; and whether, having regard to the fact that the magistrate ruled that it is illegal to affix advertisments in an omnibus in such a manner as to obstruct the veiw of passengers, will steps be taken to require the proprietors of omnibuses to comply with the law on the subject?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: My attention has been called to this case The police, however, are quite aware of the law on the subject, and steps are duly taken to enforce it.

  INDIAN CURRENCY.
  SIR SAMUEL MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the great increase in late years of the

  1475
  fiduciary issue of notes by the Indian Government, and to the large contraction of the paper currency, as shown by the fact that in 1893, when the mints were closed, there were: Rx.26,401,820, total notes in circulation; Rx.18,401,820, coin and bullion held; Rx.8,000,000, Government securities; whereas there were on 31st May 1897; Rx.22,861,621, total notes in circulation; Rx.12,861,626, coin and bullion held; Rx.9,999,994, Government securities; whether the Indian Government intend to coin on t heir own account silver rupees sufficient, to place their paper currency on a sounder basis: and whether they will in future publish their accounts as regards currency weekly instead of monthly, so as to enable prudent' bankers and merchants to provide in time against the possible danger of an extreme scarcity of currency in India?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The figures given in the hon. Member's Question are correct. I am not aware of any intention on the part of the Government of India to coin silver on their own account. As to the publication of accounts, which now takes place monthly in accordance with the provisions of the Act No. 20 of 1882, I will communicate with the Government of India, but I can give no promise that the hon. Member's suggestion will be accepted.

  PHŒNIX PARK (POLO CLUB).
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Works sanctioned the statement in the advertisement in the Irish, Times of 20th July, issued by the "All Ireland Polo Club," that the rule that no one but members or their friends (the latter to be provided with properly filled in vouchers) will be admitted to the club enclosure, Phœnix Park, will in future be strictly carried out; if not, by what authority do private sportsmen claim to exclude the public from any portion of Phoenix Park; and, can precedent in England or Scotland be found for the handing over of portions of Royal parks to clubs, or for the exclusive amusement of individuals?
  MR. RITCHIE (for Mr. HANBURY): My right hon. Friend asks me to say that the advertisement in question was not sanctioned by the Board of Works.
  1476
  In England and Scotland, as well as Ireland, clubs are occasionally allowed to erect pavilions or sheds for their own use in Royal Parks, and of course to exclude the public from them. Whether they should be allowed to exclude the public from the enclosure round the pavilion is a different matter, and my right hon. Friend agrees with the hon. Member that it might lead to abuses. In the case in question, however, he understands drat the enclosure is very small; but he will inquire into the matter further.

  COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PASSENGERS AND GUARDS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the remarks of Alderman Bell, at Guildhall Police Court a few days since, when trying an action for assault on the Great Eastern Railway near Thorpe, to the effect that in his opinion the passengers in the train were not sufficiently protected; and having regard to the fact that one of the persons assaulted stated that she was unable to find the cord communicating with the guard, and that on her arrival at Liverpool Street she discovered that it was fixed outside the carriage, will arrangements be made for a notice to be fixed inside railway carriages indicating where the communicating cord is to be found?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have not seen the remarks referred to. The Great Eastern Railway Company inform me, however, that notices are fixed inside their carriages; that there was one in the compartment in which the assault took place, and that, moreover, the carriage was one of those open from end to end. As the hon. Member is aware, the subject of communication in trains is under the consideration of a Committee.

  POOR LAW UNIONS (IRELAND).
  MR. J. G. BUTCHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in calculating the contribution hereafter to be made to Poor Law Unions under the Local Government Bill of next Session, the rates raised in the financial year current at the date of the passing of the

  1477
  Bill will be taken as the basis of calculation?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This is a matter that may require consideration. In the case of the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896, the English Local Government Board were able to take, as the basis of calculation for the purposes of the Act, the rates raised in a year which heel expired before the Bill was introduced, and before there was any knowledge of the intentions of Government in the matter. In the case of Ireland, however, the intentions of Government having been already announced, it is conceivable that a Board of Guardians, by adopting a higher rate than was necessary, might seek to obtain, in perpetuity, a larger grant than the Union would be entitled to upon the basis of its normal poor law expenditure; and such a proceeding may have to be provided against. I may observe that the English Local Government Board, under Article 3 of the Regulations issued by them, reserved to themselves the right of taking into account any special circumstances affecting the amount raised by the Spending Authority, or their predecessors, during the year preceding the passing of the Act, and they availed themselves of this provision in reducing claims when it appeared from the information in their possession that the expenditure had included expenses of an exceptional and non-recurring character.

  INDIAN PENAL CODE.
  SIR M. BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Lord Hartington, as Secretary of State for India in 1881, in Mr. Gladstone's Government, forwarded a Dispatch to the Government of India, suggesting that the existing defect in the Indian Penal Code, namely, the explanation to Section 124A, which made it ineffective against seditious and libellous writings, should be remedied; whether this recommendation of Mr. Gladstone's Government to strengthen the law of seditious libel was ever acted upon; and if it was not, whether Her Majesty's Government, having regard to the grave results which have followed upon the seditious writings in the vernacular press, will
  1478
  recommend the Government of India to introduce legislation without further delay in the manner suggested in Lord Hartington's Dispatch?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I am aware that it was suggested by the Secretary of State in Council in 1881, that if it were the case that the Criminal Law of India applicable to seditious libel was practically unworkable through the effect of the explanation attached to Section 124A, the existing defect in the code might be remedied by the suitable amendment of some of its provisions. For various reasons, such amendment has from tune to time been postponed; but, as I have already stated, the question of legislation on this subject is now being considered afresh.

  MAJOR LOTHAIR.
  *MR. H. D. GREENE: I beg to ask the Linder Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the publication of the documents, information, and correspondence with reference to the execution of Mr. Stokes, the confiscation of his property, and the proceedings against Major Lothair, which he promised on the 10th August 1896, should be laid upon the Table of the House, and which the stated on the 18th February 1897 would be circulated as soon as possible, is likely to be at all retarded by the requirements of official routine, or by any other, and what, cause equally satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government?
  Mr. CURZON: The Papers will be procurable at the Vote Office before the House rises next week.

  ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES (COLONIES).
  *MR. H. D. GREENE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether the adoption of the title of Archbishop by any Bishop of the Church if England in the Colonies has been sanctioned by Her Majesty; (2) whether without Her Majesty's express permission to assume such style, the Colonial Office or officers would recognise such adoption and use it in official communications; and (3) whether the Lambeth Conference of Bishops has any authority in the matter?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no information upon the subject in my department. I should be prepared as a matter of courtesy, independently of the question of right, to address prelates from any of the Colonies by the title by which they are officially known in the colony. I am unable to answer the third Question.

  FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAY COMPANY.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Midland Railway Company of England is financially concerned with the Fishguard and Rosslare Railway Company in the tender presented by the latter for the purchase of the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway?
  MR. RITCHIE (for Mr. HANBURY): My right hon. Friend has no information on this point.

  POST OFFICE MACHINE MEN.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether certain machine men employed in the Post Office have had their rate of pay per hour for extra duty reduced within the past six months, and also for Sunday duty; and, if so, why this reduction has been made?
  MR. RITCCHIE (for Mr. HANBURY): It is the case that certain lift attendants at the chief office have had their rate of pay per hour for extra duty and Sunday duty assimilated to the uniform rate adopted on the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee; and, as through an oversight the increase of from 5s. to 6s. a week in their ordinary wages recommended by the Committee was not also carried out at the same time, there has been some temporary reduction in their pay for extra duty since April 1st last. The wages will, however, be increased from that date, and this will carry a higher rate of payment for weekday extra duty from the same date, so that, though they lose slightly on the Sunday rate, these men will now be on the whole much better off than formerly.
  MR. STUART: Do I understand that the change has been made?
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes, from April 1st last.

  ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it has been brought to his notice that officers of the Army Medical Department suffer severely from frequent moves at short notice, coupled with difficulty of obtaining leave, to such an extent that an officer of 11 years' service serving at home had recently to pay about £30 to enable him to obtain a part of the ordinary leave to which he was entitled by regulation, although the leave in question was for urgent private affairs, namely, to visit a sick wife at his proper station, he being on detachment; and whether he will take steps to deal with these hardships?
  MR. BRODRICK: Officers of the Army Medical Staff are moved from station to station as seldom as possible, and only when the necessities of the public service demand. Ordinarily a departmental officer can only have leave of absence when it does not cause additional expense to the public; but, as the home establishment of officers is under strength and inconvenience resulted, arrangements have been made whereby a substitute for an officer on leave is provided without expense to that officer when the establishment of the district is not full.

  SEDITION (ALLEGED) IN INDIA.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether Ganguhdar Tilak and three Native agitators have been arrested in India on a charge of Sedition?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I beg to ask him a Question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether the alleged libel for which these men have been arrested was published as far back as 15th June, and whether the prosecution has been eked out to a period when, owing to the prorogation of ParLiament—
  *MR SPEAKER: Order, order! I think the hon. Gentleman should give notice on the Paper of such a Question.
  MR. MACNEILL: I have given notice. I sent private notice to the right hon. Gentleman.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have not read the hon. Member's notice. As to the Question on the Paper, the statements which have appeared in the daily papers as to these arrests are correct.

  ATTACK ON BRITISH FORCES (MALAKAND).
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can give any information as to the attack upon I British forces at Malakand?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The first information received was front Major Deane on July 26. He reported the advance of the local gathering in the Swat Valley, excited by the preaching of a mad fakir. Their attack upon the Malakand Kotal was repulsed after severe fighting. Chakdara was also attacked and communication with it interrupted. A later report showed that another attack on the camp was expected; and shortly afterwards, on the night of the 27th, telegraphic communication with Malakand was interrupted. Certain movements of troops in relief of the Malakand garrison were at once ordered. Last night telegraphic communication was restored, and information was received that the British troops were engaged throughout the 27th, and a general attack was made upon them between 8.30 P.m. and daybreak of yesterday. Desultory fighting continued all yesterday, but the assailants were repulsed everywhere, the British loss amounting apparently to Lieut. Costello, of the 22nd Bengal Infantry, wounded, 11 Sepoys killed and 42 wounded. Further attacks are expected, and reinforcements are being pushed forward with speed.

  EGYPT.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Abu Hamed has been occupied by tribes friendly to the Anglo-Egpytian Expedition?
  MR. CURZON: We have not heard of the occupation of Abu flamed by friendly tribes. According to our latest information Abu Hamed is still garrisoned by the Dervishes.

  CYPRUS
  MR. R. PIERPOINT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Cyprus Report has yet arrived at the Colonial Officer?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The Report Will be laid to-day and distributed shortly.

  ARMY MEAT SUPPLY (IRELAND).
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can now state the result of the inquiry into the question of the meat supply to the troops in Ireland?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS, Birmingham, S.): It would be impossible within the limits of a reply to a Question to give the full results of the careful inquiry which has been made upon the subject of the meat supplied to the troops stationed in Ireland; but it may be stated generally that the cost involved in making the changes which from time to time have been suggested and pressed upon the War Office is found to be much too great to admit of action being taken in the direction indicated. It would cost upwards I £40,000 a year to give a monopoly to Irish meat, and the expense of restoring the abattoir at Dublin and of substituting Irish meat for the meat which the troops at that station now receive would add at least 15 per cent. to the local meat bill. The Secretary of State regrets, therefore, that he is unable to make any change in the present system, but certain suggestions as to alterations in the form of tender which may enable local producers to compete more successfully than they now do will be accepted.

  PARLIAMENT STREET IMPROVEMENT.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can give the House any information as to the probable tune when he will obtain possession of the block of houses between Parliament Street and King Street?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): A large portion of the site between Parliament Street and King

  1483
  Street will he in my hands at Michaelmas, and I propose then to proceed with the demolition of the houses. The remainder of the properties will not all come into the possession of the Government for some months longer, owing to the inevitable delay on arbitrations.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERasked the right hon. Gentleman if he would be willing to defer a thud settlement in order to give Parliament an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon the scheme.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I cannot give a pledge, but I do not think the question will arise. I hope we shall have acquired the site before we shall require further Parliamentary sanction.

  AGRICULTURAL DEPRESSION (ROYAL COMMISSION.)
  Mr. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that a considerable time has elapsed since the Report of the Royal Commission upon Agricultural Depression was laid upon the Table; when will it be delivered to hon. Members and the public; and what is the reason of the delay in its publication; and, whether, in view of the great desire to learn the conclusions of the Commissioners, he will take measures to insure its immediate publication?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): The Report of the Royal Commission on Agricultural Depression is a lengthened one. It will be issued by the printer on August 4, and the appendices, etc., on August 10.

  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON COMMISSION.
  MR. C. HARRISON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to proceed, this Session, with the University of London Commission Bill, having regard to the fact that it proposes fundamental changes in the constitution of the University, and has been introduced without consulting the members of Convocation, who at present enjoy the chartered right of approving or disapproving any new or supplemental charter, and is strongly opposed on the
  1484
  part of the graduates of the University, besides materially differing from the recommendations of the Cowper Commission?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am informed that the leading members of Convocation have been consulted and support the Bill. As to opposition of the graduates, my information is that the majority of this body are in favour of the scheme. The modification in the recommendations of the Cowper Commission do not vary from the principle of the Report, and is supported by the Chairman of Convocation and every responsible body connected with the University. That constitutes a very large body of support behind the Bill, and I confess I should very greatly regret if opposition in this House should prevent its being passed into law in the course of the present Session.
  *SIR C. DILKEgave notice that on the Second Reading of the London University Bill he would move that this House declines to proceed with the Bill in the present Session, inasmuch as Convocation of London University has not yet assented to its provisions in their present form.

  NATIONAL GALLERY.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury (1) whether his attention has lately been directed to the danger of fire to the National Gallery from its close proximity to other buildings; (2) whether, following the precedent in the case of South Kensington Museum, he will obtain a report from some well-known expert as to the nature and extent of that danger; and (3) when the long promised removal of St. George' s Barracks will take place?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The answer to the first paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative; to the second the answer is in the negative, as Sir John Taylor has recently made an exhaustive report upon this subject. With regard to the third paragraph, plans and drawings of the new barracks at Millbank have now been approved and they will be at once proceeded with. Upon their completion the removal will take place.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Will that include the removal of the recruiting depôt?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir, I understand it will not.

  SATURDAY SITTING.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I ought, perhaps, to take the opportunity of saying that I fear it will be necessary to have a Saturday Sitting. [Cries of "Oh!"]
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether the announcement just made contemplated that the London University Bill would occupy the prominent position it now did on the Order Paper?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I will not put it as the first Order.
  MR. MACNEILL: What business does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take on Saturday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Bills, Sir. [Laughter.] It partly depends upon what we get through on Friday.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYmoved: "That To-morrow the other Government business have precedence of the Committee of Supply."
  Motion agreed to.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    SUPPLY.
    [TWENTY-FIRST ALLOTTED DAY].
    Considered in Committee.
    [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, Mr. Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]
    CIVIL SERVICES ESTIMATES, 1897–8.

    CLASS IV.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £710,865, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898, for Public Education in England and Wales."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: This is a Vote to give effect to what is called the Voluntary Schools Act. It proposes to give £619,475 to Voluntary Schools and £91,000 to the School Boards. I am not going to renew the controversy on what we, at all events, regard as the unjust and unjustifiable distinction between these two grants. 'We shall on every occasion, as I do now, protest against the injustice of the small sum of money given to the School Boards as compared with the large sum given to the Voluntary Schools. As that was decided on the Second Reading of the Bill I shall not repeat the arguments here to-day; but my object is rather to obtain some information, if we can, as to the principles upon which this money has been, and is being, administered and will be administered by the Education Department. The first point to which I desire to call attention is a Minute of the Committee of Council on Education of June 16 defining the town schools and country schools. In it the Department appear to have determined that the town schools' rate is to be 5s. 9d. per scholar, and the country schools' rate is to be 3s. 3d. per scholar. I think it extremely necessary that we should have some explanation from the Education Department of the grounds upon which they have arrived at this extraordinary distinction between the grant to Voluntary Schools in the country and Voluntary Schools ill the towns. [Cheers.] I myself am much more familiar with the Voluntary Schools in the country than I am with the Voluntary Schools in the great towns; but I have always understood that the schools that are most backward in regard to education are unquestionably the Voluntary Schools in the country. [Cheers.] Many of the Voluntary Schools in the towns are admirable schools—schools which rival even the Board Schools; but any one who knows, as I know, what are the conditions of the Voluntary Schools, especially in the districts in the south of England, and all over England, is aware that they are deficient in teachers, in apparatus, in all the resources which are required to give education, and that they are far below the general run of Voluntary Schools in the towns. [Cheers.] I do not desire in any way to disparage grants for schools in the towns, but it

    1487
    seems to me a most extraordinary proposal if this grant is intended—and it professes to be intended—to raise the standard of education in the country, that the schools it is proposed to starve are those which most require to be fed. A question was asked of the Vice President on this subject during the present month by the hon. Member for West Denbighshire whether an investigation had been made by the Education Department into the comparative cost of elementary education per child in rural and urban districts, and whether the results obtained confirmed the impression that urban education was more costly than rural education. The Vice President, in his reply, stated that—
    "The best investigation possible has been made. There is no information in the possession of the Committee of Council which enables an accurate comparison between the cost of town and country schools to be made. In the opinion of the Committee of Council it is the income rather than the cost which is the determining factor in estimating the amount of aid required by a necessitous school."
    What is the consequence of that? It means this—where people have subscribed the least there the assistance is to· be given. [Cheers.] In the southern parts of England the subscriptions are much more adequate than they are in Lancashire; and therefore in Lancashire, where the population is dense, where the inhabitants are rich, you are going to give them 5s. 9d., and in the poor agricultural districts, where the education is thoroughly below "par," to use a moderate expression, they are only to receive 3s. 3d. because the test which the Education Department has taken is not the cost of education, but the income. I have thought of an explanation for this distinction, and the only one I can find is this—that in, the towns they want to run against the School Board; and therefore they give the Voluntary Schools there 5s. 9d. In the country districts, generally speaking, there are no School Boards; therefore they give them 3s. 3d. It is not because they care about raising education; their only object is to fight the School Boards. That is the meaning of the distinction to my mind. Where they think themselves safe, where they have a monopoly of the country village— there they do not care about raising the standard of education; but where they
    1488
    come into competition with the School Board there they enforce this grant of £600,000. This point well deserves the attention of the House and the country. Passing from that I go to the question of the voluntary associations. I have before expressed my view in the House of these voluntary associations. We anticipated from the first that these voluntary associations were intended to be, and would ultimately be, ecclesiastical organisations for the purpose of promoting sectarian objects. [Cheers.] They were said to be the most innocent bodies in the world; and the Colonial Secretary in his speech in support of the Bill said:
    "The Government have thought, therefore, that it would be advantageous to encourage advisory associations which might lay before the Department facts which at any rate it might reasonably take into consideration. That is all the section does. It encourages the formation of associations, which may submit to the Department to be used or not at its sole discretion facts and information which otherwise it could not know."
    Of course it was for the distribution of the money; that was what was stated by the Government in reference to voluntary associations; but the Vice President of the Council threw, I think, more light on this Bill outside the House than he did inside its walls. [" Hear, hear!"] Speaking at Girton in March the Vice President said: —
    "I will tell you one or two things which I hope these associations will do. In the first place, I hope they will be comprehensive; I hope they won't be narrowed down to any single sect, because the work of improving secular education in village schools is not a thing which touches any question of religious differences. It is one of those things we can all work together for without bringing up our unfortunate divisions and dissensions; and it will be far better to see all the schools combine in one association than to see them split into two or three. Another thing I hope is that these associations will confine themselves within some area in which they can act in union with the powers that are already in existence."
    That is the account given by the Department. These associations, according to the Vice President of the Council, were to include all sections; they were not to be associations of one sect or of another, and if they were to be useful they were to be comprehensive and to include all. But they reckoned without their hosts. As soon as the Bill was safe and certain,

    1489
    the Archbishop came into the field and took a very different view of what the associations ought to be. He seemed, from what I can recollect of it, rather to have reversed the miraculous conversion, and from Paul to have become Saul. [Opposition laughter and cheers.] Well, the moment the Bill was safe, he beat the drum ecclesiastic, and sent forth his command to his clerical hosts—he issued the Golden Bull from Lambeth. He said at once,—
    "Oh, it is all very well to talk about these voluntary associations including all sects. Nothing of the kind";
    and he told the Nonconformists pretty plainly he would have nothing to do with them. Then took place the meeting of the National Society, at which the Archbishop said these words—words which will have a very serious effect on the history of education in this country. He said,—
    "The Act gave them for the first time a very potent voice indeed";
    they were not to be merely an advisory body, as you will see—
    "and where the associations were well worked he had no doubt they would become very powerful bodies; and it would be found that strong associations of Church schools all over the country would have a very powerful effect upon both Houses of Parliament."
    Now that is not voluntary associations. They were not to be innocent advisory bodies of the Education Department; they were to be "potent" sectarian institutions which were to have "a very powerful effect upon both Houses of Parliament." The Archbishop went on to say: "He was of opinion "—differing altogether from the Vice President of the Council—
    "that it would be distinctly better that the associations should be associations of the Church schools."
    That is to say, they were not to comprehend any but Church schools, and thereby they were to become potent in their effect upon both Houses. I shall come presently to the mariner in which it is proposed to act upon both Houses of Parliament. Then followed next to
    1490
    the Archbishop one of the most distinguished champions of the Church. I always observe here with great attention and respect the utterances of the noble Lord the Member for Rochester, whom I have always regarded as a sort of Adjutant General of the Church Militant. [Laughter.] If he has not all the ecclesiastical qualities, he has great ecclesiastical sympathies, and, if he has the innocence of the dove, he sometimes seems to me to want the wisdom of the serpent—[laughter—]—and he generally on those occasions lets the cat out of the bag. He told us on that occasion eactly what this Act was meant to do and what it would do. He said,—
    "They might depend upon it that the education question was not yet settled. They were only at the beginning of what was going to be a very bitter and prolonged controversy; and it was because he saw in the Voluntary Schools Act the machinery by which they would be able to fight a better battle against the enemy that he accepted it."
    ["Hear, hear!" from the Ministerialists.] Against the enemy." What enemy?
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The secularists.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: That means, I presume, the Nonconformists—[An HON. MEMBER: "No, it does not!"]—and Board Schools. Are they not "the enemy?" [Opposition cheers.] The noble Lord is too candid to deny that "the enemy of mankind "—a phrase sometimes applied in a different sense— in his point of view is really the Board Schools. [Opposition cheers.] Now that was the declaration which went forth from Lambeth on the 16th of June; and you will see at once that what was intended by those voluntary associations was to create a sort of College of Propaganda, and it was at once acted upon. Now the first proposal, I think, in many cases—I do not know whether in all— was to make these organisations county organisations, and they were to include all the Voluntary Schools. Let us see what happened. We had a revelation of what occurred in Berkshire. There was an election of delegates front managers of schools to represent to the Education Department what the voluntary association was to be, and these delegates, as I gather from the accounts I have seen, went up with their mandate to vote, as

    1491
    I understand, in favour of such associations as I have described. They went up to London, and when they got there they were instantly seized upon by Bishops and rural deans and all the rest of the panoply of ecclesiasticism, and they were coerced, not only into violating their mandate, but into voting, not for the county of Berkshire, but for the diocese of Oxford. What was the ground of this miraculous conversion—a conversion as sudden and complete as that of the Franks to Christianity? [A laugh.] A Bishop said,—
    "If they would only vote against the county and for the diocese they would have the great advantage of having a strong representation of Church educational work which could be brought to bear with all the power of a united diocese upon the Education Department itself."
    This is the body which was to be an advisory body to the. Education Department. "The prospect," he went on,
    "of a diocesan organisation becoming the engine and instrument of Church education in the diocese itself would be an untold advantage. They would get rid of the parochial, and, perhaps, the individual factors, which had been the great impediment to all advance."
    [Ministerial cries of "Hear, hear!"] Yes, they are going to get rid of the parochial and the individual factor; and I think that when it becomes known in this country that their object is to get rid of your parochial parson and to put the schools under this ecclesiastical domination, there will be a good deal to say as to that. ["Hear, hear!"]
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Where does that come from?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: It is a speech of the Bishop of Reading.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Read it again.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: "The prospect of a diocesan association becoming the engine and instrument of Church education in the diocese in itself would be an untold advantage." Observe, as I have said, that this is the "advisory" body which is to become an "instrument of Church education." It is no longer to be advisory as to the spending of the 5s., but it is to become the instrument of an educational policy, and
    1492
    it is to bring its power to bear upon the Education Department.
    "They would get rid of the parochial, and, perhaps, the individual factors, which had been the great impediment to all advance."
    I will explain it a little more fully to the right hon. Gentleman in the language of a rural dean, who on the same occasion put the matter quite clearly, so as to leave no doubt at all about it. He said that,—
    "it ought to be a distinctive Church organisation, and should be exclusive; and they should not only not invite, but refuse to receive, the offers of any alien body to join their association."
    [Opposition cheers.] That is the basis of the whole thing. Then he goes on,—
    "The diocesan association would have the effect of doing away with that wretched parochialism which eats out the very heart of their Church life in their different parishes."
    Now I know very well what that means. One of the most admirable institutions in this country, whether from a secular or an ecclesiastical point of view, is the independence of the parish and of the parish priest, who has been in the main a person who has carried on with great zeal and great interest the cause of education in his own locality. ["Hear, hear!" from the Ministerialists.] Well, then, this is the "wretched parochialism" that is to be got rid of. The school and all that concerns education is to be put under this ecclesiastical and episcopal domination, who are to conduct the business of education generally and who are to bring their pressure to bear on the Education Department. This, then, is the policy which is to be carried out in consequence of the action of the Archbishops. We know perfectly well what it means—this doing away with parochialism. It tends to raise up a domination of high dignitaries, who are to govern and keep in subordination all these "wretched" parochial "factors." I confess I should like to know what is to be the position of a class of men for whom I have a good deal of sympathy—the poor old-fashioned country clergyman who still believes in the Protestantism of the Church of England. [Opposition cheers.] How is he going to fare in these voluntary

    1493
    associations which are to be manipulated by this dominant priesthood? ["Hear, hear!"] He is to be told, "You are not the right sort of man, and your 5s. will not go very far in the schools in your district." Those who live in the country know very well what this means and how it is intended to deal with him. When these views were expounded and it became apparent that it was determined that these voluntary associations should be of an exclusive and sectarian character, there came forward a personage, who, at the first blush, might be supposed to be of some importance—I mean the President of the Council, the Duke of Devonshire—and he ventured to say what was rather audacious, because I think it is apparent that the Archbishop of Canterbury, not only in Court matters, but in matters educational, takes precedence of the President of the Council. The Duke of Devonshire said:—
    "The most reverend Prelate seemed to be under the impression that the governing bodies of these associations would have the power of deciding in some way upon the character of the schools and of the religous instruction which is going to be given in future in them. He seemed to fear that if the association was not of an ecclesiastical character the religious character of many of these Voluntary Schools would he given up. These associations or their governing bodies, so far as I know, will have absolutely nothing to do with the management of the schools which they represent. They are simply formed for the purpose of advising the Department as to the distribution of a certain grant in proportion to the necessities of the schools. They do not assume, and they would not be permitted by the Department to assume, any power over the management of the schools, and therefore it seems to me that in the advice which the most reverend Prelate has given to school managers upon the subject and in the observations he has made this afternoon he has somewhat misapprehended the question, and has perhaps induced some of those who are guided by his advice to attach an unnecessary degree of importance to what. so far as I am able to ascertain, is, after all, a very minor question indeed."
    Yes, if the Duke of Devonshire had any authority it would be a minor question. [Hear, hear!"] He continued:—
    "As to the last question, in which he asks what steps it is proposed to take for the assistance and protection of undenominational as well as British and other schools, the information which the Department has received is that the British and other denominational schools generally desire to form separate associations of their own. If, however, there are any in
    1494
    any district who do not desire to enter into any such association composed chiefly of Church schools, the Department will endeavour to see, as far as it is in its power, that the rules of the association are such as will secure to them adequate protection."
    But what is the use of that when the Archbishop and his followers have declared that they are not to be admitted at all? ["Hear, hear!"] Then the Duke of Devonshire, referring to Lord Kimberley, said: —
    "Let me say, in reference to my noble Friend's statement that in his county a Diocesan association has been formed which does not propose to admit other than Church schools, that schools which have not an opportunity of joining an association will not suffer. They will have to be dealt with by the Department individually."
    Let me ask whether, if these voluntary associations choose to exclude all schools but their own, the children who are excluded will have their 5s. What the President of the Council said is very good sense, and is very satisfactory as far as it goes, but we are obliged to inquire who and what the Duke of Devonshire is in relation to the question of education. ["Hear, hear!"] He is only the head of the Department; but that goes for nothing. [Laughter and cheers.] The question of education in this House has not been in the hands of the Vice President, and apparently the people who have least to do with the question of education in this country are the Ministers who are responsible to the Houses of Parliament. We learnt a little about the position of the President of the Council the other day, when a Measure relating to education was before the other House. It referred to a scheme which had been approved by the locality concerned, by the Joint Committee, and by the Charity Commissioners, and which had been confirmed by the Education Department. The President of the Council, the head of the Department, supported the scheme in the House of Lords, but there descended upon it, as usual, the Archbishop, with a posse comitatus of Bishops. The scheme was destroyed. The Archbishop smote the President of the Council in the face and, what is more remarkable, the Prime Minister stabbed him, in the back. [Laughter and cheers.] Thus, in one of these questions, which, we are told, have nothing to do with party, have

    1495
    nothing to do with the religious difficulty, the Prime Minister brought down a party majority to the House of Lords to defeat his own colleague, the head of the Education Department. Such a thing, I suppose, never happened before. There is only one thing I know at all like it. We have most of us seen the stone in the portals of St. Mark's, at Venice, which recalled the occasion when the Pope put his foot upon the neck of the Emperor. [Laughter.] The Archbishop does what he likes with the supporters of the Prime Minister, and the Education Department is of no more account in the other House than in this. I suppose that by this time the Duke of Devonshire finds himself in the position of Frankenstein, and regards the Voluntary Schools Bill as a sort of monster which he can no longer control. We have learnt now where the control of the education of the country lies. It is not in the Education Department. It lies principally in the bench of Bishops, supported by a very powerful and very able family triumvirate, the Prime Minister, the First Lord of the Treasury, and the noble Lord the Member for Rochester. [Cheers and laughter.] One of them conducts the Education Bill in the House of Commons, another defeats the head of the Department in the House of Lords, and the noble Lord opposite is always ready to assist them both. This is an extraordinary state of things. We are told that this is a Bill which is going to assist education, but it is nothing of the kind. It is a Bill, whatever may have been the intention—it is a Bill calculated and framed and worked for the purpose of religious strife. It is a subsidy, as the noble Lord opposite has properly described it, in support of the bitter struggles to which he looks forward with such hope and interest. The noble Lord rejoices in the prospect of that bitter strife, but that is not my view. One of the best things that happened in 1870 was the compromise that was then made, and which gave peace to the country in respect of education for 27 years. That peace has been broken up, that truce has been denounced, and the Archbishop and his supporters have explained that the voluntary associations have been formed for the express purpose of carrying on war, and the Vote to be passed to-night is to supply the funds for that war. I regret this policy and the spirit in which
    1496
    it has been initiated. [Cheers.] We were assured at first that the voluntary associations were not to concern themselves with religious questions at all, that they were merely to supply information as to the assistance to be given out of the taxpayers' money, that they were only to inform and aid the Department. Now we are told by those who are forming these associations and are about to work them, that they are intended for a totally different purpose, and that this money out of the taxpayers' pockets is to be used in the bitter struggle of which the noble Lord has spoken. Money thus spent is, in my opinion, mis-spent. The use of these funds for the purposes described in the passages I have read from the speeches of those who are practically the masters of these associations, will not aid the cause of education in this country, but will retard it. [Cheers.]
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: When the right hon. Gentleman asked me to provide a convenient hour to discuss the Supplementary Estimate now before the Committee, it might have been supposed by those not intimately acquainted with the Parliamentary methods of the right hon. Gentleman, that his object was to attack the administration of the Department which is responsible for this Vote. If the right hon. Gentleman had given even a small fraction of his speech to dealing with the Education Department, and with their action under the Bill passed at the beginning of the year, I should not now have intervened in the Debate.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: That was because I thought the Education Department had nothing to do with it.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not follow that point. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman knows exactly what the Education Department has got to do under the Bill, if he will only read the Bill, but he has not dealt with what the Education Department could or ought to do under the Bill. He has occupied the three-quarters of an hour in which he has been pouring forth his characteristic utterances, not in abusing the Education Department, but in attacking the Prime Minister, my noble Friend the Member for Rochester, the President of the Council, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops, the Deans,

    1497
    the Rural Deans—[laughter]— the Archdeacons—
    SIR W. HARCOURT: No, I spared the Archdeacons. [Laughter.]
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I thought the right hon. Gentleman went through item by item every one of what he was pleased to call "the panoply of ecclesiasticism." I never heard that metaphor applied in such a sense before, but at all events if the right hon. Gentleman spared any of these classes it must have been by mistake—[laughter]—for I noticed that he splashed about in the course of his fiery oratory and threw his invective indifferently upon everybody as far as I could see, except the Department and the parochial clergy. By the way, is it not a remarkable fact that the right hon. Gentleman should come forward for the first time in his life as the exponent of the virtues of the parochial clergy? [Cheers.]
    SIR W. HARCOURTI have said so over and over again.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I was not one of his fortunate auditors on those occasions. I have constantly heard him cheer the sort of attacks which were an every day occurrence while the Bill was passing through the House, and in which hon. Gentlemen opposite attacked the parochial clergy, attacked the parochial managers of schools, describing them as the great enemies of education, as petty tyrants who twisted everything in their parishes to suit their own narrow minds. And now it appears that the one hope of voluntary education in this country is the parochial clergy unhampered either by the President of the Council or by Lord Salisbury, or by my noble Friend the Member for Rochester, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops, the Deans, and the Archdeacons, unaided by any machinery which would make them acquainted with what is being done in other parishes, unhelped by any common association with others engaged in the same work. The whole hope of education is in the men who up to the present time have been uniformly denounced by those who pride themselves on being the friends of education. [Cheers.] The truth is, as is quite obvious, the right hon. Gentleman only praised the parochial clergy, only drew their virtues in bright colours, in order that he might make
    1498
    stronger the contrast between them and the wicked dignitaries who were the special object of his attack on this occasion. What is all this thunderous oratory about? I really admire the courage with which the right hon. Gentleman made what was a platform speech in structure and in character to a wearied House of Commons at the very end of July on a hot day—[laughter]—to a thin and indifferent audience who had struggled into the House. [Renewed laughter]. But, while I admire the courage and the rhetorical fire with which the right hon. Gentleman poured forth this somewhat irrelevant stream of criticism, I confess that when these criticisms are brought down to their real value they come to very little indeed. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that what has been done under the powers given to form associations is inconsistent both with the declarations of the Government in passing the Bill and with the spirit of the Bill itself. I do not agree with him. It is a curious fact that the right hon. Gentleman, who is fonder of quotations than any man know in this House, has not done me the honour of quoting from any of my speeches, although I was the Minister in charge of the Bill and delivered almost all the speeches made from this Bench while the Bill was going through the House. [Ironical cheers.] I do not know why that should move the indignation of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If there was no quotation from any of the innumerable speeches that I made which fitted the purposes of the right hon. Gentleman, I think it might be assumed that there is no very great inconsistency between what is being done now and what was promised when the Bill was passing through the House. I never held out any assurance to the. House, direct or indirect, that the areas that might be chosen for these associations would not be the existing ecclesiastical areas, nor that in forming the associations they might not very often consist of schools of only one denomination. I never suggested such a thing because I never thought it, and if there was nothing else to prevent me thinking it, there was the knowledge undoubtedly that the Roman Catholics, so far as they were concerned, would certainly not consent to admit other schools into their

    1499
    association. Therefore it would have been perfect folly for me to pretend that the associations to be formed would not in many cases, at all events, be denominational in their character. What is the fact? The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that all these associations, in so far as the majority of schools in them belong to the Church of England, exclude schools which belong to other denominations. The whole of his speech from beginning to end was an attack on what he was pleased to call the intolerance of the higher ecclesiastics of the Church, who deliberately excluded from these associations all schools which did not happen to belong to their own denomination. I think it will be admitted by any one who heard the speech that that is not an unfair account of the gist of the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I was quoting from the Archbishop's speech.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Archbishop's salary is not on the Votes of this House, and if the whole object of the right hon. Gentleman was to make an attack on one speech of the Archbishop, I think he has been wasting our time and his own. [Cheers.] But let it be noted that the Archbishop has no authority under this Bill. [Cheers.]
    SIR W. HARCOURT: He has the power.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I will come to the power. He has no authority. He has the right, as every man has the right, to give his opinions to those who will listen to them. He, more than anybody, has the right to give the members of his Church his own opinions on matters concerning his Church. [Cheers.] Is the right hon. Gentleman going to deny him that power? But while it is no part of my duty to defend the Archbishop, who is certainly capable of defending himself, let me point out what has actually been done by the Church of England under the powers given them by the Bill, and let me compare that with what has been done by other denominations to whom no reference was made by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman, so far as I know, did not quote one single association of Church of England Schools which excludes schools of other denominations. There are such, I admit, but
    1500
    he did not quote them. The only case he quoted was based apparently upon a statement of Lord Kimberley's in the other House, which statement was incorrect.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The only time I mentioned Lord Kimberley's name was in quoting the Duke of Devonshire's reply to some remarks which Lord Kimberley had made. The only case I referred to was the case of Berkshire, which was brought forward by Lord Wantage, and I understand that in consequence of that Debate what had been done has been reversed.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not want to differ with the right hon. Gentleman on that point. He did not quote Lord Kimberley directly. He quoted the reply of the Duke of Devonshire to Lord Kimberley, and therefore quoted him indirectly. But Lord Kimberley was incorrect in what he said in the House of Lords, though the matter was not taken up by the Duke of Devonshire at the time. Lord Kimberley said that the association in the diocese in which his home lies did not admit any schools but Church of England schools. He was mistaken. The diocese of Norwich does admit other schools, and so Lord Kimberley will find out if he cares to make the inquiry. I have here a list of the associations finally agreed or provisionally agreed to by the Education Department, and the great majority of these, which consist mainly of Church of England Schools, are open to schools of other denominations. There are exceptions, but they are few, and, therefore, if the object of the Archbishop was to exclude these schools, it is evident that that object has not been carried out, and that the denunciations of the right hon. Gentleman are wholly wasted upon him. But it is not merely of associations on which the Church of England schools are in a majority that I have information about. There are also Roman Catholic associations, Wesleyan associations, and Jewish associations, and I observe that not one single Roman Catholic association has admitted other schools, and not one Jewish association has admitted schools not belonging to that denomination. With regard to the Wesleyans, I am informed that the Wesleyan associations have admitted a few schools of other denominations—Primitive Methodists, Baptists, and

    1501
    British schools—but the other denominations have, as I have stated, not admitted schools of other denominations. What does all this attack mean? The right hon. Gentleman contrasts the powers given to the associations under the Bill, and appears to think that if they exercise any other, I will not say powers, because they have no other powers, but any other influence, or put these to any other use, they are breaking through the spirit of the Act. That is not the case. The associations are called into existence for a solitary purpose, but are we to say that no other parties are to interfere? I have great hopes and great expectations that these associations, be they predominantly Church of England, be they predominantly Wesleyan, or be they predominantly Roman Catholic, will exercise a most wholesome and beneficent influence in connection with the education given in their districts. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman must be very little acquainted with the difficulties which managers in remote districts have to contend with in connection with the great work of education. So far from regarding it as a misfortune I regard it as one of the great virtues of the Act that these associations should confine themselves strictly within their specified duties. I am sure the Committee will not he misled by the right hon. Gentleman or accept his views. In the name of moderation he has put forward a proposal which is one of the most immoderate proposals I have ever come across. ["Hear, hear!"] Will the Committee remember that the Bishops who were painted in lurid colours as tyrants have no authority whatever? They are not even ex officio members of the association. If they are members it is because they are elected members of the association,—["hear, hear!"]—and they are no more the tyrants of the school managers in their district which has elected them than the right hon. Gentleman is the tyrant of his own constituency, to whom he gives advice. [Cheers and laughter.] The Act, according to the information supplied to me by my right hon. Friend, the Vice President, is working so far admirably. The associations are being formed without any friction of consequence. Of course, human nature being what it is, there must be some difficulty when managers of schools are
    1502
    called upon to turn themselves into associations. There must, I say, be friction of a kind and some difficulty, but we feel greatly reassured by the zeal and the public spirit shown in the constitution of these associations. For myself I may say my hopes have been greatly raised. Why should it frighten the right hon. Gentleman if those who are bound together in working out one common undertaking, one great cause, should have the opportunity of meeting together, and if these associations should grow in influence, legitimate authority, experience, and power? I am sure that no true friend of education in this country—certainly no true friend of religious education—need feel that such a situation is other than a matter for hearty congratulation. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. GEORGE LAMBERTsaid they could not expect that Nonconformists would join in these diocesan associations of which the Bishop was the head and soul of the matter. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bishop had no power. He could only speak for his own county of Devonshire. It was thought that these associations would be representative. The other day, when a communication was received from the Department, it was followed in a day or two by a circular from the Bishop asking that no reply should be sent until they heard from him. Why had the Bishop attempted to interfere? The right hon. Gentleman had evaded the chief portion of the attack of the Leader of the Opposition. He had not mentioned a single word in excuse of the differentiation between town and country schools. If he had been able to he would have done so.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As the hon. Gentleman challenges me, he will remember that I said I would not reply to that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech that was an attack upon the Department. Three-fourths of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had nothing to do with the Department.
    MR. LAMBERT: Then it seems the right hon. Gentleman did not reply to the relevant portions of the speech.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: ["Hear, hear!"] I quite agree. [Laughter.]
    MR. LAMBERTsaid that they wanted to know differentially between town and country schools. As to the information supplied to the right hon. Gentleman by the Vice President, that right hon. Gentleman had been thrown over by everybody. If this money had been intended for the benefit of education more of it would have been spent in those districts which needed it most. Education in the country districts required levelling up altogether, so as to enable the pupils to be fit to receive technical education. This was a thing they had a right to complain of. Education in the country districts was not high enough. It did not develop the rural mind so that it might takes advantage of technical education. This Bill did not go in that direction. It did not raise education there. It was simply another prop to the Voluntary Schools in towns, and yet those in the country districts had made greater sacrifices in the cause of education than those in the towns. Take Lancashire: the voluntary subscriptions amounted to only 4s. 7¾d. per head, but in this county they amounted to 6s. 11d. per head. Yet Devonshire would get less. Take his own constituency: it contributed 11s. 10d. per scholar, but it was to have only 3s. 3d., while in the towns the amount would be 5s. 9d. It had been repeatedly urged that the rural clergyman above all others had made personal sacrifices for the Voluntary Schools. And now, after they had been promised a grant of 5s., they were to get a grant of only 3s. 3d. Income, said the Government, was to be the test of a necessitous school. Then, if there was no subscriptions, the Department would make up the deficiency, and, if the subscriptions were liberal, the Department would withdraw a portion of the grant. He could think of nothing more likely to have an ill-effect on voluntary subscriptions. It was to reward those who had been mean, and to penalise those who had been generous. Rural education was far more inefficient than that of the towns, and was more expensive to maintain. The object of the Government was to enable the Voluntary Schools in the towns to meet the competition of the Board Schools. The Vice President once complained that the heads of the Education Department were scattered all over London; but the
    1504
    right hon. Gentleman forgot to mention where the real head of the Department lived— that was, in Lambeth Palace.
    MR. ARTHUR JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)said that he hoped it was not too late for the Department to reduce the great difference between the grants for rural and urban schools. [Opposition cheers.] When the Bill was before the House, he for one had no idea that the difference was to be so great, and he was sure the country districts would be bitterly disappointed. [Opposition cheers.] Many of the poor schools had been relying on this grant to make both ends meet. The education given in some of these rural schools was excellent, but they were starved for want of funds. It really looked as if the Government were determined to reward those who did not subscribe liberally to Voluntary Schools, and punish those who did. [Opposition cheers.] He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not decide finally on the proposed rates. The disparity was so great that, if any vote of his could alter it, he should not hesitate even to vote against the Government. [Opposition cheers.]
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid that the House was to be congratulated on the return of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth to the discussion of the Education question. During most of the stages of the Education Bill, the right hon. Gentleman had withdrawn himself.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I beg pardon. I was here, and spoke very often, especially upon voluntary associations.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid that he had missed the right hon. Gentleman's familiar figure, and his absence accounted for the errors into which he had fallen. The right hon. Gentleman seemed not to have appreciated the reasons which the Government put forward for the Bill which was now an Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the Colonial Secretary, but if he had read the speech through, he would have found that the Colonial Secretary defended the grant to the Voluntary Schools on the express ground that they were put to a great disadvantage as compared with Board Schools. He had never shared the view that the disadvantages of the Voluntary Schools as compared with the Board Schools should be made up out of

    1505
    the Imperial purse. Imperial grants ought to be shared equally, and the disparity of condition should he made up out of local rates. But the Government had decided otherwise, and no one was more urgent for Imperial as opposed to rate aid than the hon. Member for Hampshire. The hon. Member could now complain, therefore, if a larger contribution was given to the districts where the Voluntary Schools were in competition with rate-aided Board Schools. The distinction was the direct consequence of the policy of State aid as opposed to rate aid. For his part, he very much regretted the decision at which the Government came, but as they did come to that decision, and were compelled to do so by the agricultural party who sat behind them, it ill became the hon. Member to throw in their teeth the direct consequences of the policy which the hon. Member and his Friends forced upon them. ["Hear, hear!"] It did not follow, however, that because the urban districts were entitled to get more money out of the Exchequer than the rural districts, that the latter would not have their share, because it was open to the association to distribute the money as they thought best, subject, of course, to the consent of the Education Department. The distribution of the money by the associations would be an extremely delicate task, and for that reason he was glad that the Government left, the localities a free hand in forming their associations. It was not the fact that the majority of the associations had refused to admit Nonconformist schools; but when the hon. Gentleman denounced diocesan associations, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite did, they seemed to believe that the diocese was a private preserve of a Bishop. That was not the view of the Church of England. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes!"] Was that a member of the Church of England who interrupted? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes!"] Then the hon. Member knew very little about it.
    Mr. F. A. CHANNING, interposing, was understood to say that the view in question was endorsed by the Guardian.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I am not responsible for what appears in the press. The diocese was not the property of the Bishop or of the clergy, but of the whole Church of England residing in the
    1506
    diocese. [Cheers.] He knew many of the associations would be managed by laymen. Probably the right hon. Gentleman opposite had not looked into the rules of the associations—it would be very unlikely that he would before speaking the subject—[cries of "Oh!" from the Opposition Benches]—he was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman did not mind his saying it—[laughter and cheers from the Opposition Benches]—but, as a matter of fact, the rules carefully provided that there could be at least an equal representation of laity as of clergy on the associations. But, while the majority of the associations were prepared to admit Nonconformists, he was quite aware that the complexion of the masses of these diocesan association would be Church of England, for the very good reason that the vast majority of the schools were Church of England schools. He warned hon. Gentlemen who were Nonconformists or Roman Catholics that the great enemy they and all their friends of religious education had to fight were the secularists. For his part, he held entirely to the words the right hon. Gentleman bad quoted. He believed the struggle which was impending would be a bitter one, and that this Act, imperfect as it was, inequitable as it was in many respects, yet afforded the means of fighting the greatest enemy they had to fight, and for that reason he supported it, and the policy of the Government.
    SIR HENRY FOWLER: I think this Debate is a very useful one, and that it is the precursor of many similar Debates which will take place upon this question before we vote this three-quarters of a million. I quite admit that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury stated very dearly his views as to what the associations might do, and the Vice President also stated his views, but there were distinguished debaters behind them, strong supporters of the Bill, who regarded these associations as a much more limited body. And then we have the Duke of Devonshire, the nominal head of the Education Department, taking a still more minimising view of the powers of the associations. But we have the real power behind all these authorities, the Archbishop of Canterbury, contradicting the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the

    1507
    Duke of Devonshire, and practically laying a hand on this large sum of money and attempting to divert the control of it, and therefore it is right that the House of Commons should be fully informed and should carefully examine step by step how this money is going to be distributed. When the Bill was passing through its last stage in this House the First Lord of the Treasury said:—
    "I will not disguise from the Committee, and at no stage have I attempted to disguise it, that there are difficulties and dangersconnected with this scheme of association."
    Before associations are formed, when they are in process of formation, we have difficulties and dangers which have already arisen; and I am quite sure Parliament would not have sanctioned this astounding disrepancy between rural and urban districts which has already arisen in the administration of this Act. The Vice President told us that these associations were to do something else besides preparing and submitting to Parliament a scheme for the distribution of the grant. He said that they were also to prescribe the purposes for which the money was to be used by the schools, the number and pay of teachers, and the improvement of apparatus. That is the reason why we take such an intense interest in the distribution of the money by the associations. The First lord of the Treasury said that no one could doubt that these associations when constituted would have an excellent effect on the general elementary education given by voluntary schools. It is because you are forming associations whose primary object is not the improvement of education, not to increase the salaries of the teachers or better the apparatus, but to promote a distinct motive apart from these, that we are so greatly interested in the subject. The Archbishop of Canterbury in the Houses of Convocation said:—
    "I look forward to these associations becomings the educational organisation of the Church, I think that the associations will do a great deal more than is assigned to them by the Act of Parliament, and there is nothing in the Act to prevent them doing more."
    [" Hear, hear!" from The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY.] But when Parliament
    1508
    granted these powers to the associations it was on the understanding, distinctly explained, that they were to do the work of promoting education. It now appears that they are not to promote education; they are to subserve the interests of the Church. The Archbishop continues:—
    "The associations may proceed to take other functions upon them. There is every hope that these associations may bescome the representatives of the Church in its educational capacity."
    Here we have another definition of the functions of the associations, and it is because these functions are now practically claimed that I contend Parliament has a right to have some voice in the area and powers of these bodies. The noble Lord said that there was perfect freedom in the mode in which these associations were being chosen, and the Leader of the House said that managers have a perfect freedom as to what to do and not to do. That does not harmonise with what Lord Wantage showed in another place. [After reading the letter quoted by Lord Wantage in his speech in the House of Lords, the right hon. Gentleman continued]—This illustration shows that in the formation of these associations an endeavour has been made, whether successful or not, to destroy the county area and to substitute for it the diocesan area. The noble Lord may say, "Why should persons outside the Church of England interfere with that?" There are 8,000 parishes in this country in which there is no other school but the Church of England school, no matter what the faith of the parent may be, to which children can be sent, and the law says that unless the parent sends his child to that school he must go to prison. The Bishops will not understand, however, that this is the crux of the Nonconformist difficulty, and I am astonished that the noble Lord does not appreciate that this is the true gist of this unfortunate controversy. You have a monopoly; the State has given you the monopoly; the State endows that monopoly in those 8,000 parishes. [Cheers.] That being so, and the State forcing the Nonconformist parents to send their children to the school, then you cannot divest these 8,000 schools of their public and national character; you cannot put them on the same level as the Roman Catholic, Jewish

    1509
    or Wesleyan schools. The Wesleyan Conference is sitting just now at Leeds. and the Wesleyans have made an investigation since the Bill was introduced to ascertained how many children whose parents are members of the Wesleyan body are obliged to attend Church schools in parishes in which there is no option. Although this return is defective, it shows that there are upwards of 240,000 children whose parents belong to the Wesleyan communion, who have no choice as to which school they shall send their children, and whose children are in Church Schools. You cannot, therefore, shut these parents out of consideration, and we who represent these parents say you must not hand over £700,000 of public money to associations formed, not to improve education, but avowedly formed for ecclesiastical purposes. That is a fair argument to justify our interference; it is a question affecting the nation as a whole, not the Church of England alone. In a public association of the kind, affecting not one class or church, the civil area ought to be the area, and it should not be linked together with an ecclesiastical organisation and a diocesan area. I do not want to delay the Committee, but I do want to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite to give us an answer to the question which has been already put. What is to become of the schools that refuse to join these associations—that would have joined the county but will not join the diocesan? We are entitled to have some information on that point. We are entitled to press on the Government that the civil area shall be the base of these associations; and they will be guilty of the grossest breach of faith with the House of Commons and the public if they flinch one hair's breadth from this point—that they shall strictly enforce what they pledged themselves to when they obtained the Bill—viz.: that this increased subvention from the Imperial Exchequer shall be applied to improving education and nothing else. [Cheers.] It was given for that purpose, and for no other purpose. Any differentiation of the grant in the way that is proposed will be a blow at rural education. I therefore press for a distinct and clear answer on that point. The noble Lord has said in the way of justification that there are schools in towns which he called "rate-aided"
    1510
    schools. Allow me to say that is not the phrase to apply to Board Schools. They are not rate-aided, they are supported by the rates. ["Hear, hear!"] They are supported out of public funds by virtue of the law of the land, which places upon the ratepayers—whether they like it or not—the duty of supplying any deficiency in school accommodation which may exist in their district. To talk of these as "rate-aided" schools is to create an impression that there is a sort of third denomination called School Boards which establishes schools that are aided out of the rates. You might as well talk of a Poor Law Board administering rate-aided relief. The ratepayers are compelled to support those schools, whether they like it or not: and I am happy to say that they do like it in the great majority of the large towns —["hear, hear!"]—and, as I have said, it is a misuse of language to talk of them as "rate-aided" schools. To do what is proposed will be absolutely inconsistent with everything that was said by the Government during the Debates of this year and last year. We had it put before us that it was necessary to improve education; that for this improvement an increased cost was to he put on the Voluntary Schools which they could not he reasonably expected to bear, and that they were entitled to come to the Imperial Exchequer for funds to enable them to properly pay their teachers and to improve their and apparatus. We have a right, therefore, to ask—first, that the money shall he applied strictly to this purpose; and, secondly, we should like to know why where the education is most costly and most effective, there the least assistance is to be given? ["Hear hear!"]
    MR. C. A. CRIPPSsaid he had always admitted that a primâ facie case for a grievance was made out by Nonconformists, in regard to parishes where there was no school to which they could send their children except the Church school. But that, he contended, had nothing to do with the recent Act or with the administration of the funds they were now discussing.
    SIR H. FOWLER: I said it justified the "interference" of Nonconformists. The noble Lord had complained of what

    1511
    he called the interference of Nonconformists in the internal organisation of the Church.
    MR. CRIPPSsaid he would deal with that part of the argument when he came to the administration of the Act; but what he would put to the right hon. Gentleman, and to Members on both sides of the House was this—that his objection as regarded the 8,000 parishes in which there were only Church of England schools was an objection based, not on the terms of the recent Education Act, but on the whole settlement as it at present existed in England as between Voluntary Schools in some districts and Board Schools in others. He would also give this illustration from his own parish where he had been a school manager for a long period. The managing body of their Church Schools included two Nonconformists and one Roman Catholic; and he believed there were many other cases in which representatives of Nonconformist parents were associated with the managers of Church Schools.
    SIR H. FOWLERasked the hon. Member how many managers there were in the case of his own school?
    MR. CRIPPSsaid there were eight altogether—two Nonconformist, one Roman Catholic, and five members of the Church of England. They did not find, he continued, that the "religious difficulty" was often raised in the administration of the Voluntary Schools throughout the country. Of course if they were to have denominational schools at all, and he agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Rochester that it was essential to religious education that they should have schools representing every denomination as far as possible; and if they were to have denominational schools at all, Church of England Schools must be managed in reference to the denomination to which they belonged. His right hon. Friend, he thought, would agree that they ought not to have a Wesleyan or a Church School that was only Wesleyan or Church in name. They must be seriously denominational schools, but at the same time in their administration due regard should be had to the desires of the parents of other denominations residing in the district or parish. ["Hear, hear!"] Coming to the far larger question of the administration of the funds, he thought the right hon.
    1512
    Gentleman had gone back to the fallacy which underlay a good many of his arguments in the discussion of the Bill itself. He talked about the money being placed in the irresponsible hands of these associations. It had been pointed out over and over again that the responsibility rested with the Education Department, which could not divest itself of that responsibility. Hon. Members on the other side had expressed different views as to what the ultimate functions of these associations might be. He had always thought that their functions should be strictly limited, but under the terms of the Bill it was not the associations but the Department who had to account to the House for the distribution of the money, and it was for the Department and the House to exercise, as they could exercise, a sufficient control. Then as to the point raised as between diocesan and county associations. He was personally in favour of the county area, and had put down a Motion to that effect for the Oxford Diocesan Conference, which he could not attend, however, in consequence of the South African Committee. What occurred at the conference was this. There were three counties concerned, and the only question was this: was it better in the first instance to take each county area, or to take the diocese and have a committee representing each county. For his part he wished them to be called county associations, and that was his Motion, and he was still of the same opinion. ["Hear, hear!"from the Opposition.] But if they looked under the surface they would see that there could be no real difference in the constitution of the managing bodies, whether the area was county or diocesan. He thought that in every case half the members of the association would be laymen, and in a very large number of cases mom than half must be laymen. On the executive councils, which would be the national governing bodies, they would find the laity equally represented with the clergy. The voluntary schools of the Church of England had been hitherto managed to a large extent by the parish clergy, because they were the men who had most knowledge of the subject and Leisure to devote to it. Wherever they Formed these associations of course there must be a large ecclesiastical element upon

    1513
    them, but the laity did not mean to be left out and would not be left out, and in all these associations, whether called Diocesan or County Associations, there would be a large lay element, and the work of the association would not be of an ecclesiastical character. Its object would be to promote in their denominational lines the efficiency of education to the greatest possible extent. He believed that the noble Lord the Member for Rochester looked upon the Act as a measure providing funds in order that there might be fair competition between School Boards on the one side and Voluntary Schools on the other. He had taken a very different view from that of the noble Lord on this point, and the only reason why he supported the was because he believed it would operate to promote the efficiency of education, particularly in those districts where education was being starved for want of sufficient funds. That was the explanation which he gave on a former occasion of the word "necessitous," and the longer the Bill was considered the more certain he felt that that explanation was accurate. He agreed with the hon. Member sitting near him that in many rural districts the educational wants were greater than in many urban districts. Many of the arrangements for educational purposes must of course be the same whether there were 40 or 50, or 80 or 100 children in a school, and in the case of small schools in country districts the efficiency of education was likely to suffer most because it was in their case that you got less funds in proportion to the desired results. He hoped therefore that this ratio of 3s. 3d. and 5s. 9d. was not a ratio fixed for all time, and that if it should be found by experience that under this bill these poor districts, which were really the most liberal in proportion to their means, received the smaller measure of support, a readjustment should be made, and that the sum of 3s. 3d. would be raised. Let them however consider a case and suppose the existence of an association for Hampshire. That association should include schools from both the rural and the urban districts, and taking the county as a whole he believed that it would be found that the association would have the distribution of some sum between 3s. 3d, and 5s. 9d., it would probably be 4s. 7d. The association would have power to
    1514
    distribute that in such a way as to give a larger proportion of money to the most needy schools. That would meet the objection raised by the hon. Member for Hampshire. In another county, taking urban and rural districts together, the association might receive 5s. a head all round, and then might if it pleased give 6s. to a poor rural school and might give 4s. to a richer urban school. It would be in the power 4 the association to recommend to the Department that that should he done.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The hon. Member says that the association may distribute the money as it likes, but our point is this, that the association being desirous of fighting the School Boards will give the money to the town and will not give it to the country.
    MR. CRIPPSobserved that many associations would contain a majority of rural representatives, and in such cases it was hardly likely that the rural districts would he neglected in order that the town districts might get more than a fair share of the money. It was not everybody who animated by a dislike of Bishops or by a dislike of School Boards, and many people, like himself, desired that this Act should be administered with the one view of making the education of this country more efficient, and he believed that that would be the motive of the associations.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I perfectly admit that that would be the case if it were a county association, but the moment it becomes a diocesan association, then the ecclesiastical element will prevail. [Ministerial cries of "No!" and cheers.]
    MR CRIPPSsaid he understood the only difference between county associations and diocesan associations would be the name. Upon a diocesan association there would be the same number of laymen as there would be upon a county association. For his part, he wished that the associations were to be called county associations in order to get rid of all prejudice on this subject. It was extremely important that the Bill should be administered in the true interests of education, and that they should discard the idea or sentiment of religious animosity. If that could be disposed of the educational improvements which the Bill could effect would be assured.
    *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid that no one had spoken grudgingly of the additional amount of public money which it was proposed to devote to national education. None of the Members on his side of the House grudged money for the purposes of education, their complaint was that the money would be spent unfairly. Nor did they grudge the time that had been devoted to this subject. The Government had brought in four Education Bills and had succeeded in passing three. But some of them believed that these three measures which had become law would do little or nothing for an increased amount of educational efficiency. He honoured the hon. and learned Member for Stroud for the declaration which he had made in regard to his single-minded desire that these measures should promote efficient education, but he recollected declarations of quite a different sort which had emanated from supporters of the Government's legislation, who had avowed that they had other objects in view than simply to increase the efficiency of our educational system, The measures of the Government would leave unsolved the problems which faced them when they began these discussions. The Government had simply thrown down a sum of money to be scrambled for by individual schools, with the results winch had been predicted by the noble Lord the Member for Rochester. Already those whose duty it was to form these associations, and to work them, were in a state of great complexity and confusion, and their difficulties would he increased when the associations approached the difficult task of allocating the money which had to be distributed. It was a striking coincidence that, although this Government would have passed three measures for the promotion of national education, no one was satisfied with any one of them. During the discussion on the Scotch Education Bill the Scotch Members, although, of course, they did not object to receive the money offered to them, expressed the greatest regret that the Government had imported into the scheme for Scotland features of the English system, to which Scotland was strongly opposed. He thought it was not too much to say that the supporters of denominational schools, though they would benefit greatly by these
    1516
    measures, were themselves thoroughly dissatisfied. They knew what was felt in the schools of the rural districts; because they had had the strongest expressions of dissatisfaction from the supporters of the Government. Were the teachers in the public elementary schools satisfied? During the progress of the Bills through the House they afforded the Government Measures very scant support, and some of them strongly opposed them. At their recent conference in Birmingham, the teachers expressed their emphatic opinion that the additional grant should be devoted to improving education, by better staffing and apparatus, and by the increased remuneration of poorly-paid teachers. They had also taken some trouble to elicit the opinions of the Bishops on the question of what were the purposes to which this additional grant should be applied. Some of the Bishops evidently differed very much in opinion from the teachers; for they said they thought it would be a legitimate application of this grant to save from extinction some of the threatened Voluntary Schools. That, he presumed, meant that it was quite legitimate to appropriate a portion of this grant in order to fill the gap which would be occasioned by the subscriptions which were expected to decline. As to Nonconformist grievances, they had been admitted on all hands, but no promise even of the faintest kind to remedy them had been given by the Government. The Nonconformists would in fact be in a worse position now than they were before the Government brought hi its Measures; because those Measures would, and were intended to, strengthen the rival system to which was due the fact that, in the 8,000 parishes referred to, the Church of England possessed a monopoly. Nothing hall happened in the matter of these associations which was not predicted, and the result was that, instead of all parties in the country co-operating for the common good in the promotion of national education, they were divided into two camps—denominational and undenominational. He agreed with a noble Lord in the other House that it would be expected that results which they all deplored would follow; but he was rather more hopeful than that noble Lord as to the ultimate result. He thought there were signs of revolt on the part of the

    1517
    laity of the Church of England against the domination of the clergy in the matter of national education, and, when their eyes had been thoroughly opened to the tendency of the existing system, he thought they would unite with the advocates of unsectarian education in their insistence that the national system of education should be national in fact as well as in name—that the people should control the people's schools, and that the promotion of education, and not the aggrandisement of any sect or party in the State, should be the one object aimed at.
    *MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid he wished at once to associate himself with the very vigorous protest which had been raised from both sides of the House against the action of the Department as shown in their Minute of June 16. He had pointed out on every Occasion in this present Parliament, when these Bills had been before the House, and had tried to convince the authorities in Whitehall that these small rural schools, if ever they were to be lifted up to the average of the towns, must receive a larger amount per head from any grant, whether it was male by the locality or by the State, than the large town schools. ["Hear, hear!"] He had pointed out that they were, of necessity, the most expensive, and if the object of the Voluntary Schools Act were, as his hon. Friend the Member for the Stroud Division of Gloucestershire stated that it was generally to improve the education throughout the country, then the small rural schools, of all others, needed the greatest help. [Opposition cheers.] And yet the differentiation which had been referred to so frequently that afternoon had been set by the Department at 3s. 3d. per scholar in country schools within the area of the association and 5s. Pd. per scholar in town schools within the area of the association. He fully admitted that this was an allocation not to the school, not to the individual scholar, but to the association. He fully admitted that there was a large amount of truth in the fact that when an association had the money in its hands there was nothing to stop it from giving 10s. per scholar in the small rural schools and nothing to half a dozen town schools, but that was only true within a limited extent, because there were certain counties in the country which contained almost
    1518
    nothing but rural schools where the total grant would not exceed 4s. throughout the whole area. Take the county of Cambridge, or Suffolk, and some of the western counties, where they had but few town schools according to the definition in the minute. Nearly the whole of the schools would be small rural schools, and the total amount allotted to the association in such areas could only exceed by some small sum the 3s. 3d. per scholar. In such districts it would be impossible to bring up the level of education to the large towns. He for one foresaw that, owing to the very inadequate allocation which would be made to these schools if the country determined to bring up the rural education to the level of the town education it would be forced to adopt the School Board system within those areas, simply from the fact that the amount of special aid grant was not sufficient for the purposes for which it was designed. ["Hear, hear!"] But he did not want to press that point any further at this juncture though one realised that this differentiation had excited a very large amount of discontent, and that had been shown on both sides of the House. He rose principally to ask the Vice President a question on administration—not of criticism of the Bishops, not of criticism, for the moment, of the areas which had -been adopted and sanctioned, but a quest ion of departmental administration, as to the way in which this money was to be expended. The subject had not been referred to so far as he had observed, during the whole of the Debate. Probably it was but little known. When the Bill was before the House they were assured by every Minister who spoke on the subject that these associations were purely voluntary associations. The clause in the Act commenced with the words, "I associations be formed," and they were assured times out of number that no compulsion would be exercised to drive the schools into an association if they wished to stand outside, and that if they could show the Department reasonable cause for remaining outside an association they might take the grant direct from the Department without the intervention of the local association at all. What did they find? They found that a number of school had already notified the Department that they dial not, propose to join

    1519
    the local association, for some reason or another. Either they were not enamoured of these associations, or they found that they had nothing to gain and all to lose by going into them, or that their local management might be interfered with by the rules the association had set up. These schools had, as he had stated, already notified the Department that they did not propose to join the association, and he wanted the Vice President, if he would, to tell the House by what authority the Department was issuing a circular practically threatening these schools with the loss of all the special aid grant unless they re-considered their decision and went into the association. A little examination would disclose the fact that a circular was going out, bearing the signature of Mr. White, of the Education Department, who, he understood, was dealing especially with this subject. The first clause of that circular ran to this effect—they enclosed further copies of the forms with regard to the membership of association, "So that if the managers of the schools wish to reconsider their decision they may fill them up and join the association." In the second clause it was pointed out to them that the abstention from the association "creates a presumption that the school is not necessitous." For the life of him he could not conceive how such a presumption was created by their abstention from an association. [Opposition cheers.] And now, so far as he could understand, there was an attempt being made to dragoon the schools into joining the associations whether they liked it or not. He thought it might be shown that there had been good reasons, apart from religious questions, for declining to join the local association. Many of them were understood to object to the fact that the schemes were cut and dried before a single person was elected to serve on the association. He held in his hand a copy of a scheme which related not only who the governing body should be, how it should be constituted, but what its sub-associations should do, even before a single representative had been elected. Somebody had elaborated the whole scheme, even to the persons who were to act as the chairmen of the various meetings, and not unnaturally the school managers were resenting this interference with their liberty very strongly indeed.
    1520
    Although it was not very evident at present, he had no doubt whatever that as time went on, even before a year had elapsed, there would be evidence, not only here, but throughout the country, of the discontent with which the managers of certain schools regarded this unwarranted interference with their full liberty. For example, in the scheme of the Ripon Diocesan Education Association under the Voluntary Schools Act of 1897, one of the duties the sub-association had been charged with, before the sub-association was formed, before even the governing body was elected, was to appoint an organising master, wherever possible, "who shall examine and assist in preparing for the inspection." He stated, when this clause was under discussion, that he feared some portion of the funds the House was now voting or else the voluntary subscriptions to the schools in the locality, would be used for expensive establishments and for unnecessary officials. Here was an evidence that this was likely to occur. He could well understand that certain managers of schools within the area of the Ripon Association might object to that regulation, for example, and decline to join the association there. He should like to know under what authority given by the Act, or under what instructions given by the House of Commons, the Department was empowered to send out the circular to which he had referred, practically calling on the schools to re-consider their decision, and to go into the local associations whether they liked it or not? He fully admitted that there was no direct threat in the circular. There was no direct command to reconsider their decision, but every one who had any experience of this work knew well what a recommendation from the Department would be regarded as by the local managers. They looked upon this circular as an indication to them that all possibility of securing help would be thrown away unless they went into an association, and therefore most reluctantly some of them were reconsidering their second decision and were going into the local association. He hoped the Vice President would be able to give some explanation of what appeared to be an altogether unwarranted piece of procedure, and which was distinctly contrary to the many assurances which were given to the House when the

    1521
    Bill was passing through its different stages. He felt that this question of areas was of more importance than many people seemed to imagine. He was one of those who hoped that these associations would be established as county areas. ["Hear, hear!"] He fully agreed with the statement made by the hon. Member for the Stroud Division, not in the Debate that afternoon but in the scheme which he himself promulgated, to the effect that the formation of associations on purely diocesan and ecclesiastical lines would stir up jealousy and increase hostility to the Act just passed. That afternoon the hon. Member asked what was the difference between a diocesan association, with three county sub-associations, and three separate county associations, and his reply was that the difference was little more than a mere name. Personally he felt that there was a deeper and stronger difference than that. He had not a very great fear of these associations because he did not think they were likely to last long. The very fact that they had become throughout the country largely the diocesan associations,and the fact that greater part of the power would not rest with the men finding the money, that the control of the taxpayer was completely excluded from these associations, and that the voluntary subscriber in many cases got a very poor look in led him to believe that they could not continue to exist for many years. But so long as they did exist he would have preferred that the idea of County Government should sink into the minds of everybody connected with education. What were these associations doing? They were simply controlling, guiding, recommending on behalf of a section of the schools of the country. They had to recollect that there was another section winch equally needed a guiding and controlling power, particularly in the rural districts. But there was something more than that. On the foundation of the primary schools that House would sooner or later have to erect the structure of secondary education, and waste and neglect could only be avoided by one authority having control over both systems. ["Hear, hear!"] There was no doubt that when the House came to set up a new authority it would be a county authority, whatever the constituent parts of the
    1522
    authority might be, and he felt that with these associations the county idea was the one which should sink deeply into the minds of the people—not the idea of exclusion, but the idea of inclusion. The hon. Member for the Stroud Division had told them that in certain parishes Nonconformists and Churchmen, sitting on the same board, worked their schools without friction. Why on earth could they not have formed county associations of schools on exactly the same lines — Nonconformists and Churchmen working side by side for the common good? That would have held out some hope in the near future of this religious animosity dying away. As it was he was afraid that by the establishment of diocesan associations they were putting back the hands of the clock, and were doing something to retard the development of both primary and secondary education which many of them were so ardently looking forward to. If they had established the county idea there would have been no prescriptive right to destroy, no vested interests to purchase out, no expensive machinery to dislocate, but they would have a nucleus already in existence, the principal lines already formulated, and it would have been possible at no distant date for the State to have taken up the threads of the Voluntary Schools associations within the county area, and the Board School system with the same county area, and have tied the two together and formed one system within the county, at the same time maintaining the distinctive religious character of the Voluntary Schools. With this principle firmly established, the overlapping, neglect, waste and expensive machinery which had prevailed, and which would be increased by the establishment of these diocesan associations, would have been avoided. He should be the last to attack the dignitaries of the Church as such, but he did feel that the Department might do more than it had done or was doing, by way of guiding and directing the establishment of these associations, and the areas which should be selected, and should, if possible, encourage the formation of county associations as against diocesan associations, and, at least, the Vice-President might make it clear to the country that the Department would not.

    1523
    only sanction, but would encourage the formation of county associations. He might make it equally clear that those schools which did not desire to join the associations would not be dragooned into joining by the Education Department, and that no pressure, either local or central, should be brought to bear upon them except such as could be substantiated and justified by the words of the Act. He strongly protested against the hand to mouth system which bad prevailed in the matter of national education. It did not appear to him that the schemes which had been submitted to them, except that of 1896, nor the administration of this grant, were statesmanlike ideas, but were rather the work of politicians working from hand to mouth from day to day. It was because he believed so firmly that far beyond all such questions as that of Merchandise Marks Acts and the protection of this or that article, it was the education of the agriculturist and the artisan which would form the future property of the country, and that this could only be secured by seeing that the money which was so lavishly voted was profitably spent that he had ventured to raise his voice against the recent intermittent, niggardly educational legislation, and against the unsatisfactory spirit in which this grant was being distributed throughout the country.
    MR. R. W. PERKS, said he quite appreciated the sincere and earnest words of his hon. Friend and instanced districts in his own county—where the vast majority of the children were of Nonconformist parents — to which the diocesan associations would be obnoxious. There were about 600 schools in that county, of which 500 were Voluntary, 450 being Church of England Schools. Of the 60,000 children who were being educated, as many as 42,000 were the children of Nonconformist parents, who had no control whatever in the management of the schools. ["Hear, hear!"] He appealed to the Education Department to see that these associations were not formed in such a way as to become agencies for extending in the elementary schools of this country the special religious tenets and dogmas of the Church of England. Various efforts had been made to form county associations, but they had ignobly failed. Surely
    1524
    it was better in the interest of education that the Department should guard against the establishment of conflicting schools. He instanced the case of Aldeborough. There was a little village in that district, and out of 98 scholars in the school 90 were Nonconformists. In this case there was a great grievance. The other day the managers of this school had to elect a representative to the Lincoln Diocesan Association. The clergyman's wife, the sexton, and the pupil met, and agreed to elect the parson. He hoped that the Department would insist—as surely they were able to do—that in these associations there should be an adequate representation of the teachers. The Wesleyan body had adopted the principle of federation for all its schools, and it had wisely decided to invite the co-operation of other religious bodies. He did not complain of the Church of England clergy for confining the diocesan associations to their own church. They knew that intelligent Nonconformists would refuse to join such bodies. But while the Wesleyan Associations had elected a large number of day-school teachers on the governing bodies of the associations, not a single teacher had been elected on some of the largest diocesan associations in the country. The Wesleyans only formed 28½ per cent. of the Nonconformists of the country, and therefore if 240,000 Wesleyan children were compelled to attend Church Schools, there must be altogether about 960,000 children of Nonconformist parents attending Church Schools not from choice, but from necessity.
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST, Cambridge University): The hon. Member has devoted a great part of his speech to complaints of the way in which these associations of Voluntary Schools have been formed; but according to the view of the Committee of Council, that is a matter with which they have nothing whatever to do. It is quite true that in a speech which I made at Girton—the village, not the college—I expressed my hope that the associations would be undenominational and would be confined to civil areas. [Opposition cheers.] But I was very careful to explain at the time that I spoke only in the capacity of a Girton villager—[laughter]—and that the duty of the Committee of Council

    1525
    was to sit quietly by and watch these associations as they sprang up of themselves. I am not ashamed of the hope which I expressed at Girton. [Opposition cheers.] We have heard a great deal lately about the union of Christendom, and it seemed to me that this Act furnished an occasion upon which Christian bodies might unite together in pursuit of a common object. ["Hear, hear!"] But I am afraid that the result has shown, not only that the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury have a preference for strictly sectarian associations, but that very few other religious bodies have been willing to associate with any one but themselves. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] The Roman Catholics have a strictly separate association, and so have the Jews. The Wesleyans have an association which is quite as separate as that of the Church of England; and even the undenominationalists have been obliged to have a separate undenominational association confined to schools professing that particular persuasion. [Laughter.] I am afraid the conclusion is that our Christianity is not yet perfect enough to enable Christian bodies to act with one another; and I do not know that there was a more striking example of that than what took place at Her Majesty's Jubilee, when 10,000 children were assembled at Constitution Hill for the purpose of demonstrating their loyalty to Her Majesty, and when it took six separate addresses to convey to Her Majesty the different shades of feeling among the children. [Cheers and laughter.] All that the Committee of Council did in reference to the formation of associations was to put forth at an early stage a statement that they were prepared to accept either a diocesan or a county association, according to the wishes of the managers of the schools in the area. I am aware, from what I have read in the Organs of public information, from the Debate in another place some weeks ago, and from the speeches tonight, that there has been in the election and formation of these associations a great deal of friction and a good deal of discussion and difference of opinion. But all that is peculiar to the Anglo-Saxon people when they form those governing bodies which, when once formed, are so useful. I am not sure that the method
    1526
    of election to this House would altogether commend itself to a disinterested philosopher. [Laughter.] Scenes take place, even in Monmouthshire or Derby, which could not be altogether justified. It is, I think, Mephistopheles who says that although the must behaves itself in the most absurd manner, yet it gives at last a wine. [Laughter.] And whatever may be the differences at the inception of these bodies when once formed, they will no doubt perform the functions expected of them. I have endeavoured to get the latest information about these associations, and I will give it to the Committee. There have been finally approved, as to constitution, area, and governing body, 15 diocesan associations of the Church of England, of which four only are exclusive. ["Hear, hear!"] There have been five county associations formed, six Wesleyan associations, one association of Jews, and an association for the Scilly Isles. [Laughter.] As to the associations which have not yet been finally approved, 12 are diocesan, of which six are at present exclusive, though perhaps after this Debate that number will be diminished—["hear, hear!"]—12 are county associations, five are associations of British and uudenominational schools, and three are Roman Catholic.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Are the county associations exclusive?
    SIR J. GORST: I think none are exclusive. [Opposition chreers.] But, as the President of the Council said in the House of Lords, no school is obliged to remain in an association which it thinks does not work satisfactorily. It is at perfect liberty to withdraw. The sole object which the Committee of Council has had in view in administering the Act, as far as the appointment of associations is concerned, has been to give the managers of the schools fair play and to let associations be formed, not in accordance with the particular view of a Girton villager—[laughter]—but in accordance with the wishes of the managers themselves. So far they have only exercised supervisory powers to see that the association when formed is fairly representative of the managers of the schools. Some one has spoken of associations presided over by the Bishop. That cannot be, unless the managers of the schools themselves choose to elect the Bishop as the president. They can elect anyone

    1527
    they please, and if they choose to elect a Bishop the House would scarcely take away from them that right. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. PERKS: Is a school entitled to the grant as a matter of right, even if it does not join an association?
    SIR J. GORST: I am corning to that. A question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham as to a circular which has been issued, and which he describes as coercing the schools to join associations. Now I have the circular before me, and I think the statement of my hon. Friend was exaggerated. All the circular does is to recommend schools to join some association, but it does not in any way prescribe the particular association which they should join; and the reason for putting a little pressure on schools to join associations is that if the majority of schools did not so join the Act could not be worked. Under those circumstances I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham should be so hard on the Committee of Council because they informed the managers of some of of the disadvantages of not forming themselves into associations.
    *MR. ERNEST GRAY: Would the right hon. Gentleman give us the second Cause of the circular?
    SIR J. GORST: The second clause gives reasons. No. I says that:
    "by failing to join the managers create a certain presumption that their school is not necessitous, and is therefore not entitled to have the aid grant."
    [Cheers.] There are other reasons, and I do not know that I need read them. The only power which the Department will exercise is that given by the Act of Parliament. It is scarcely fair to ask how this power will be exercised in a particular case. There is no experience to enable me to state beforehand cases which might arise in which it would be unreasonable to join an association. I can assure hon. Members this power will be exercised with great discretion. The reasons which are alleged by any school for not joining will be carefully considered, and unless that they are so unreasonable that the Department can defend its action, in refusing to let the school be considered for the grant to the House, I do not think the Department is likely to use the
    1528
    power, and certainly not to use it in a harsh manner.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain this? Supposing it does not suit a school to be in a particular association, and it leaves, will it forfeit its grant?
    SIR J. GORST: It will not be so foolish as to leave the association except at the end of the financial year, I suppose. Of course, if a school went out even in the middle of the financial year on any reasonable ground, I should think its action would be favourably considered by the Department. It is a strong power for the House of Commons to have given to the Department, and, being a strong power, it will be cautiously exercised. Now, with reference to another question asked by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I have to say that I did state in the House that the town rate was intended to be considerably higher than the country rate, and my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury made a statement to the same effect. In answer to the hon. Member for East Mayo it was pointed out that although the grants to the different associations would be the same, yet, inasmuch as the Roman Catholic Schools had a large proportion of their children in towns, they would thereby get a higher grant per head than the Church of England, which has a large proportion of its children in country schools. With regard to the expectations raised last year, I am informed that there are only two places in England where the rate will be less than 4s. These are Hereford and Bucks. But Bucks is in the diocese of Oxford, and has joined the Diocesan association, and therefore will get more than 4s.; while as regards Hereford, an association is going to be formed for that diocese which includes the populous parts of South Salop, and it also will get more than 4s. As to the definition of urban and rural I should say that a school is urban if in an urban district and rural if in a rural distrist. [Laughter.] No doubt that is rather a rough-and-ready definition, but it is the best Parliamentary definition that can he devised. I must remind the Committee that this is not an allocation to the schools, but to the association. The ground of the allocation is that it was the opinion of the Council, on the whole, that associations which had

    1529
    a large proportion of town schools would require more money—such as the Roman Catholic schools—than those which consist for the most part of rural schools. What are the reasons why that opinion was arrived at? One reason is that the standard of education is higher, and therefore more expensive, in urban than in rural districts, and this is owing to the teaching of specific subjects. The teaching of specific subjects does not seem to be a present need in rural districts. I quite agree that there ought to be specific subjects taught in the country schools—such as cookery and laundry teaching ["Hear, hear!"] Yes, but you cannot get that unless you get some education authority other than the School Board. You must have some county authority—[hear, hear!]—because you cannot have a separate science teacher or separate cookery or laundry teacher for every little village school. [Cheers.] Therefore, although I quite agree that the teaching in rural districts should be raised, I am also convinced that the creation of some county authority is a condition precedent to the possibility of raising the teaching. The second reason is that the cost of living is higher, and therefore the amount requiring to be paid in salaries is larger. The third reason is that the local interest of the well-to-do classes in the maintenance of the Voluntary Schools is greater in the rural than the urban districts, and brings with it greater power to raise voluntary contributions. And the fourth reason is that special provision is already made for the most necessitous schools in rural districts under articles 104 and 105 of the day-school code. The amount paid under those articles in the last school year was £66,720, which represents a rate of 1s. 81/4d. per head on the average attendance. But in other rural counties it was much higher. In Dorset it was 2s. 5d. a head, Hereford 3s. 3d., Hunts 3s. 4d., Westmoreland 2s. 6½d., and in Wiltshire 2s. 4d. In Brecon it was 5s., in Radnor 5s. 7d. On the other hand, the rate for the total average attendance is in Cheshire 2¼d., Durham 1¼d., Kent 2½d., Lancashire ¼d., Middlesex ¼d., Surrey 1d. and Stafford 2d. It should be remembered that the difference of average rates is never so much as 2s. 6d. The average rate for Hereford is about 4s.; in Lancashire
    1530
    5s. 7d.; and taking Hereford and Lancashire, Hereford gets as much as 3s. 3d. per head under the special conditions as to small schools.
    MR. THOMAS ELLIS: What is the total amount of public money voted under that head?
    SIR J. GORST: £66,720. The fifth reason is that rural districts have generally gained and the urban districts lost through the operation of the fee grant. I do not know that I can give the Committee any very satisfactory details beyond the general statement. No separate statistics as to the effect of the fee grant on town schools as contrasted with country schools are available, but from the inquiries made in the Department it is shown that such loss as there has been is due to the fee grant. The gain per head by the abolition of the fee grant was upwards of 3s. per head in Bucks, Devon, Dorset, Rutland, Norfolk, Suffolk, Hunts, and Wilts. Another reason why the Committee of Council thought it desirable to give a smaller grant in the case of country schools is because it is notorious that the country schools chiefly profit by endowment. I make that general statement on the authority of those best qualified to speak on the subject. But there has never been kept in the Education Department a distinction between the town and country schools; it is a difficult distinction to draw. The only way to do it is to go through the 20,000 schools individually and to try to classify them. The task, however, would be an enormous one, and a very expensive one. No one but the inspectors can tell you even then, it may be merely a matter of opinion. These are the reasons which induced the Department to make that allocation of the grant, but it is only temporary and for the present year. If it proves in practice that the effect of the allocation is to give more to urban districts where there are a large number of town and not enough to rural districts, the system can be altered by the Education Department. There were no figures and no information which would enable the Committee of Council to do more than make a tentative guess as to the proper rate to fix. This particular rate was fixed by the advice of those most qualified to judge. I admit that it is rather in the nature of an experiment,

    1531
    and the result of the experiment will be carefully watched. The amount available for each association will be looked into, and if it is proved that the rate has been a mistaken one, and that one association gets more than it should receive and another association less, an opportunity will be taken to redress the inequality. These associations are only formed to prepare and submit schemes. They will not have the spending of money, or the giving of it to different schools. It is supposed that these associations, from their local knowledge and power to make sub-committees, can discover how the provision made by Parliament can most usefully be distributed among the various schools. It is intended that these associations shall recommend specific grants—grants of so much to increase the salaries of the teachers in school A, and so much in school B, giving another school the advantage of an extra teacher or extra pupil-teacher, or a grant to buy apparatus, and so on. The money which the associations are to recommend is a specific appropriation of money, and on being satisfied that it is a fair recommendation and one really intended to serve the interests of education and to relieve the most necessitous schools, it will then, and not until then, be approved by the Department.
    MR. THOMAS ELLISpointed out that among the great mass of Nonconformists and a very large number of Churchmen there was a growing feeling that it was better for the State and for the children, as well as for religion, that our system of education should not be sectarian, but broadly national and popular. But, at the same time, it was felt that this Act, and especially the formation of sectarian associations, would make it much more difficult for the mass of the people to construct a truly national system of education. The right hon. Gentleman had not dealt with the main grievance which arose out of this Vote. Apparently he had been unable to realise that the grievance felt by the vast majority of Nonconformists was not minimised but accentuated by this vote of public money. It was asked, "What greater injustice is there under this Act to Nonconformists than there was before?" Before the Act was passed it is true that Nonconformists in
    1532
    the 8,000 parish schools had no voice in their control; their sons and teachers had no chance to enter the teaching profession. The local clergymen and others had the full control of education, but the new power not only handicapped Nonconformists through the control of these clergymen and local managers, but there was growing up a huge organisation in which Nonconformists would have no power or lot and no representative share. And what were those organisations? The right hon. Gentleman, the Vice President of the Council, set up and maintained the theory that they were mere educational advisory bodies. But the noble Lord the Member for Rochester, and the Leader of the House, had both to-night candidly admitted that they were not to be merely advisory bodies, but were to be the instruments, the machinery, the engines needed to carry on the long and bitter controversy, which the noble Lord foresaw, against what he said was "secularism," though, as far as the towns were concerned, it was plainly to be a campaign against Board Schools, and in the villages it was to be a campaign against Nonconformists. [No!"] It was ridiculous to say that in the villages of England and Wales, their campaign was to be one against secularism—that this money was voted by the House of Commons in order to enable the voluntary managers to wage war against secularism and infidelity. It was perfectly ridiculous. The money was to be voted to enable Church School managers, acting under the control of an ecclesiastical hierarchy, to make it still more impossible than it was at present for Nonconformists in any village and in many large towns to obtain their educational rights as citizens, and a fair control over the money granted by that House. They might say that these organisations could not be too strong, and that it was impossible the Bishop, as such, could obtain such great power. The Committee could not accept that theory. Take the position of the Bishop in a large number of dioceses, especially in the Welsh dioceses. They had, in the first place, their rightful influence as the chief religious officers in the diocese. Over and above that, they had in Welsh dioceses the patronage, he believed, of an actual majority of the livings—in some one or two dioceses—certainly the

    1533
    majority. That was to say, every curate and every clergyman in a small parish knew that he was at the mercy of his Bishop.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: At the mercy of his Bishop? What do you mean?
    MR. THOMAS ELLIS: Yes, at the mercy of his Bishop. He certainly was in a large number of English parishes. And this, he thought, told to some extent in favour of the system of lay patronage. He did not defend the system of patronage at all; he thought it was an outrage upon religious freedom. But he ventured to say that a great deal of the freedom, independence, and usefulness of hundreds of parochial clergymen in this country—especially of those who had conspicuously added to the piety, scholarship, and dignity of the clerical profession, was due to the fact that they had not to rely on the favour of the Bishop, but that they relied on the views of enlightened layman, and upon the patronage of colleges and other public institutions of the country. What did the noble Lord mean by asking him how the curates and clergy of many small villages were at the mercy of their Bishops? Why, if any of them dared to go against his views in deference to the vast majority of their parishioners, if a clergyman were to hand over to a School Board a school which it was difficult to maintain, he would be marked at once as an enemy to the Church. ["Hear, hear!"] He ventured to say that not only in Wales, where the patronage was largely in the hands of the Bishop, but over a large part of England, it was only the clergyman' s fear of his bishop that prevented his allowing a school board to be formed. This power was real and active, and it was and would be actively exercised by many Bishops in this country; and the more bitter and prolonged this controversy, to which the noble Lord looked forward, the more certain it was that the Bishops in whose hands they were placing this enormous additional power would use it more strongly and outspokenly than ever before. Then, over and above their power over the clergy and in these associations, they had another enormous power. It was the power of their membership and presence in another place, and their presence in London during many months of the year. Individual clergymen and managers of
    1534
    village schools found access to the public departments a very difficult thing. To the Bishops it was easy enough to get access to Government officials at all times, and they could exercise an enormous influence. There could be no doubt, then, that these new fighting organisations with the Bishops at their head, would use their influence and direct it against the Nonconformists in the villages and against the Board Schools in the large towns. He ventured to think, therefore, that the setting up of sectarian organisations which were going to receive their campaign funds out of the public purse, was altogether wrong; for these innocent "advisers" of the Department were to be great organisations for fighting the Nonconformists of the country villages and to fight against the strength of the Board Schools and against the construction of a truly broad and democratic national system of education in our great towns. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman himself, in a very strong argument—with rather departmental than individual enthusiasm—endeavoured to defend the differentiation which would be made between the country and the town schools. Now he lad listened in that House to many criticisms upon the education of this country. He had heard the right hon. Gentleman direct a severe criticism against the education of this country. He had heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself deplore that the education of the country, which cost eight to ten millions a-year, was still inefficient and incomplete. He had read articles by eminent men to the same effect. And what was the universal testimony of public men, educationalists, and Cabinet Ministers alike? It was that the weakest link in the whole chain was the country schools. ["Hear, hear!"] They knew very well what most country schools were. They knew that in many of these schools the life of the teacher and his assistants—perhaps a pupil teacher and an inefficient female assistant —was a life of the merest slavery and drudgery. What was the result? Talk of agricultural depression, how could they expect an agricultural community to be anything but depressed when its children were trained up in this way. How could they expect boys and girls to remain on the land and in

    1535
    the villages if they were thus treated? And these people came to the towns so badly instructed that they found after twenty-seven years of public elementary education hundreds and thousands of men and women were still growing up who could hardly read and who could do little more than write their names. ["Hear, hear!"] They knew that in many country schools there had been and still was being made a great effort to obtain better teachers. But why was it difficult to obtain better teachers? Very largely because they had got a system in many country districts by which nobody but the clergymen was invited to take a real interest in the schools. He knew there were many rural School Boards in England that neglected their duty; but he ventured to say that in most Welsh districts where the School Boards were the result and the growth of the wishes of the people, the rural schools were making a great effort to come somewhere near the towns. And what did this Bill do with this sum of £620,000? How was the money sent to the country? It was sent to the country with this stamp upon it. The Education Department said to the associations and to the inspectors, and had proclaimed it before the world, that so far as the town schools were concerned, where the Board Schools had already gone to their utmost limit in setting up a high standard, where specific subjects were taught and where the education given was something approaching that given in the public schools of other enlightened countries, that to these towns they were to give 5s. 9d. per child; but that to the schools in the country, where education was the most backward and the teachers the worst paid, they were to give only 3s. 3d. ["Hear, hear!"] They might say it was just possible a country school might get more than a town. But they knew very well that managers, associations and inspectors would look not to a chance statement made in that House, but would look to the limit which the Department had deliberately laid down, and which for this year was the law of the land; and not only the instructions of the Department but the instincts of these associations would operate to stereotype this distribution of the grant in, practically, 2s. to the town school for 1s. given to the
    1536
    country school. The right hon. Member for Monmouthshire had pointed out that it was the natural instinct of these associations to frankly accept the view of the Department. They knew very well that the real stress of the competition as between the sectarian schools and the National or Board Schools was in the great towns.; and the noble Lord opposite accepted that, and said that it was where the money ought to go—while in other towns the money would be used mainly and largely to keep out the School Board. The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the House, had given an example already. The noble Lord had said—and thousands who respected his judgment would be influenced by the declaration—that it was very much like a stigma on a town when a School Board was established in it. [Mr. TOMLINSON: "Hear, hear!"] He was not surprised to hear that cheer from the hon. Member for Preston where the Voluntary Schools were the worst in the country. He did not doubt that the hon. Member would object to a school in Preston, for the Board Schools set up would soon put the Voluntary Schools to shame as they had done at Birkenhead. A School Board would probably soon induce the people of Preston to recognise that after all it was good economy to have splendid schools in their midst instead of schools which were little better than miserable hovels, with teachers who were starved and ill-paid. [Mr. TOMLINSON protested against the description given by the hon. Member.] It was indisputable, and anyone who read the reports on the subjects would see that the schools of Preston had been a scandal to the town. [Mr. CRILLY: "Have the Catholic schools in Preston been condemned?"] He was not sure about that, but he knew that the Preston schools generally had been condemned over and over again by the Education Department, as had also a large number of schools in Lancashire and Cheshire. A large portion of the money to be voted that night would be used in maintaining these inefficient schools. It was to that he objected. He admitted that much of this money would be used in promoting educational efficiency, but in respect of the allocation of a very large portion of it there would be inequality as between town and

    1537
    country, inequality as between Board Schools and Sectarian Schools, and inequality as between Churchmen and Nonconformists. In as far as this was a grant which would be used for accentuating religious differences and buttressing sectarian organisations, it was, in his opinion, a matter for regret that it should have been proposed.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTassured right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Archbishops and Bishops were not the piratical and domineering persons they had been represented to be. Their chief desire was to live in peace and amity with all men, and they had no such militant views as had been ascribed to them. He rose for the purpose of answering the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to the way in which the associations would use their powers. He was a member of two associations, and he could testify that their objects were to find out how schools were being conducted now, how much voluntary assistance was given for their maintenance, and what results were achieved. According to the results of such inquiries the grant would be allotted. The association for the Diocese of London, of which he was vice president, had 330 Church schools to consider, and had tried to apportion the grant in the last way. The number of laymen upon this association was equal to, if not larger than, the number of clergymen upon it. Care had been taken that poor schools in overcrowded parishes should have a grant as high as 8s. Other schools which were better able to support themselves had a grant of 3s., and some even had been put into a class which would have no grant at all. These facts would seem to show that these associations, against which such violent attacks had been made that evening, really set about their work in the business-like manner usual with Englishmen.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYappealed to the Committee to pass the Vote without further Debate, in order that there might be time for the discussion of other topics in which hon. Members took great interest.
    *MR. J. H. YOXALLsaid he rose for the purpose of emphasising what had already been said about the issuing of the circular by the Department, a circular which was
    1538
    totally at variance with all the speeches made during the passing of the Bill by the First Lord of the Treasury himself. He asked those Members of the Committee who took part in those Debates to recollect whether in their own minds they were not quite convinced, from the general tenour of those Debates as well as from the statements of the First Lord, that the association of schools was to be entirely voluntary and not compulsory at all. ["Hear, hear!"] Even that night they had had from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Education Department the following statement,—that it was the duty of the Committee of Council to sit quietly by and watch the formation of associations as they sprang up by themselves. The First Lord of the Treasury, speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, said: "I admit that these associations are voluntary." In Committee he said:—
    "He would not even criticise the phrase, so often inaccurately used, that these associations were to be compulsory."
    Again in Committee he said:—
    "The Committee decided, by a very large majority that the Education Department must be assisted in its work by the associations voluntarily formed."
    And, finally, in Committee he said:—
    I would say that these associations are voluntary associations in the fullest sense of the word. Those associations are unquestionably voluntary, and there is no power given to the Department by the Bill to compel Voluntary Schools who are unwilling to join the association to carry out that policy."
    He wanted to draw the attention of the First Lord—and he was quite sure he was not aware of the circumstances —to what had happened to Church of England Schools within the diocese of London—excellent schools, schools managed by large committees containing a large proportion of laymen. To these schools had come the question "Shall we associate, or shall we not?" and the managers of these schools had decided not to associate. They had, therefore, returned to the Education Department Voluntary School Form I., intimating upon that form that they did not propose to associate their schools with others in the diocese. He had in his mind, at the

    1539
    present moment, a particular school, the managers of which thereupon received a letter, from whom? From the Rural Dean, urging the managers to associate. They declined that appeal. They then received an appeal—a strong appeal—from whom? From the Bishop of the Diocese. They declined that appeal. And finally they received a letter—a strong letter—of appeal, from whom? Not from the Archbishop, as one would have expected, but from the Education Department. The circular to which his hon. Friend the Member for West Ham had referred was not the circular which went out at the beginning of the operation of this Act. It was a circular sent out by the hundred in this country to all schools that had refused to join, bringing to bear on the managers pressure from the Education Department, which the First Lord of the Treasury most distinctly said on the 10th of March in the present year the Bill gave no power to the Department to enforce. Some reference had been made by his hon. Friend to the terms of the circular. He admitted that the terms of the circular were in places dubious, but he wished to point out that the Education Department, acting without power given by that House, or by the Bill, acting in total contravention of the pledges repeated again and again in the Debates on this Bill by the First Lord of the Treasury, to say nothing of other Members of the Ministry—the Education Department, or rather a section of the Education Department, was sending to schools which had again and again refused to join, a circular intimidating, courteously intimidating, the managers of these schools into joining these associations, which they were entirely loth to do. He called that a breach of the understanding, he called it giving in effect the lie to the promises made by the First Lord of the Treasury. He called it an assumption of power on the part of the Education Department never given to it in this matter by the House and not inherent in the Department. The explanation which had been given by the Vice President was most unsatisfactory, and he took the opportunity of directing the attention of the First Lord—he did not suppose the right hon. Gentleman was aware of it, probably this was the first he had heard of it—to what was
    1540
    being done in contravention of his own word and pledges. So far as he could make out it was not being done by the Education Department as such; it was not being done by the Lord President; it was not being done by the Vice President; and it was not being done by the Committee of Council as such. It was being done by a new section—the Voluntary Schools section—which had been set up in the Department, officered by a new man—not the Secretary of the Department, not the Assistant Secretary of the Department not an examiner of the Department, but a new man specially appointed for this work, whose name was practically unknown in the educational world. All the correspondence with regard to this thumbscrew work passed through the hands of this official alone—not signed by the Secretary of the Education Department or by a responsible official, but in the name of this one man.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not think it is fair for the hon. Member to attack an individual officer of the Department. The persons responsible are the Government —primarily, of course, the Lord President and the Vice President, and after them the whole Government. It is not fair to attack an individual.
    *MR. YOXALLsaid he hoped he should not bethought to have attacked this Gentleman, whose name he had not even mentioned. He merely cited the facts he knew with regard to this section of the Department, to show that they were now by setting up in that Department a section separately officered and separately controlled, doing a work throughout the country with regard to Voluntary Schools which the Department as a whole would not do and had not done, and for which the officers of the Department could not be held responsible. He held responsible the ecclesiastical authorities and the ecclesiastical schools associations in the country, which he believed were really masters of the situation. He must point out to the First Lord that his pledge had not been carried out. Schools in the country, relying on his pledge, again and again repeated, had declined to join the associations, and yet this very strong pressure, this enormous pressure, was being applied by the Department in contravention of the pledges that this

    1541
    pressure should not be exercised. There were only one or two words he desired to say upon the differentiation of grant. He had been surprised, astounded and grieved beyond measure to hear the Vice-President adopt as one of a series of reasons for this differentiation of grant against the rural schools and in favour of the town schools—reasons with which he was obviously unfamiliar, and of which he did not think the right hon. Gentleman approved—that the cost of teaching was greater in the Voluntary Schools in the town, and he gave the example, the extraordinary example, in proof of that, that the town schools taught specific subjects. That had a suspicious resemblance to what he had heard before from the noble Lord the Member for Rochester and other Members who were anxious to prove that elementary schools in this country were spending money on secondary education, and for wholly different matters than those for which they received that money. What were the figures given by the Vice President? They had got five million children in the elementary schools of the country, and upon the right hon. Gentleman's own showing only 139,000 were being taught specific subjects. Of those 139,000 out of five millions, 101,000 were in Board Schools and 38,000 in Voluntary Schools, and it was because there were 101,000 children in the Board Schools of the town learning specific subjects, and only one-third of that learning specific subjects in Voluntary Schools, and in order to teach as many children in the town Voluntary Schools specific subjects, so as to make 202,000 children altogether—it was for that that this differentiation of 5s. 9d. and 3s. 3d. was to be made. It was a bad differentiation. It was unjustified by the inspectors' reports or by statistics. It was a purely political and ecclesiastical differentiation. And here he would like to draw the attention of the Commit tee to the fact that only two weeks ago over 600 Voluntary School teachers in this country, coming mostly from the towns and having their private interests quite in the other direction—that is to say in favour of the differentiation—unanimously protested against this differentiation, and said the distinction ought not to be made as between town and country schools—an act of self-abnegation, an
    1542
    act of educational enthusiasm against their own selfish interests which he could not too highly praise. These were the two points to which he desired to refer, and in conclusion he would like to ask the First Lord whether the Department would continue, by means of this circular, to bring to bear on the managers of schools who declined again and again to associate their schools the pressure which that circular did exercise, and which was against the promises of the First Lord, and against the whole policy of the Department hitherto.
    [After the usual interval Mr. STUART WORTLEY took the Chair.]
    MR. J. CALDWELLsaid that in the Education Bill discussion last year they had heard a great deal about "the intolerable strain" of the competition of the Board Schools with the Voluntary Schools. They had no longer an intolerable strain, but they had to ask themselves whether the schools in the towns were more necessitous than the schools in the country. The blotof the Bill was that the least relief was given to schools in the country where it was most needed, and the best trained teachers were drained into the towns. These towns were gaining, therefore, the best trained teachers in the country, and it was to these schools that the largest amount of assistance was being given. The result in regard to country schools was that they had had to take inferior, untrained teachers. He would like to see a return showing the number of untrained teachers in town and country schools respectively. It would be found that the small country schools were the more difficult to maintain. A school with 40 or 50 scholars required all the apparatus that was required in a school for the concentrated population of a town, and where the cost of teaching per head was much cheaper. The untrained element was increasing in the teaching in country schools. Pupil-teachers came up from these schools to the Queen's College examinations and were unable to pass; they could not become trained teachers, and had to be admitted by the back door, swelling the number of untrained teachers, adding to this great difficulty in English rural drools. The effect of this grant was to

    1543
    give more money to towns, and towns had the larger supply of trained teachers and the country schools would be the more depleted. If he, an unprejudiced person, had the allocation of the money he would give a larger portion to the country schools than to the town schools. In large centres of population pupil teachers had the advantage of training classes, and were able to qualify themselves for the examinations, having thus an advantage over the country pupil teachers who, lacking such opportunities, not lacking ability, were unable to pass into the training colleges. Provision should be made to give them assistance in meeting the competition of pupil teachers from towns. Look at the reasons given by the Vice President for the larger grants to towns. He spoke of there being more specific subjects taught, but why should these not be taught in country schools? In the country schools of Scotland as many specific subjects were taught as in town schools, and in every parish in Scotland there were teachers qualified to bring up pupils to the standard required for admission into the Scotch Universities. In the most remote parts of Scotland this means could be found, and had been availed of by men now occupying high official and other positions in the upper walks of life. Not long since, in a remote Highland district some distance from Ullapool, he found 20 or 30 boys far advanced in the study of Latin. Give the people the opportunity and they will rise to the occasion, and avail themselves of it. English rural schools were defective, and they should have more money for more efficient teaching. Another reason alleged was the higher cost of living in towns, but what had that to do with the matter? That had long existed, and would continue to exist, and if the cost of living were higher so were wages higher. What was the grant of £66,000 for the rural schools of England? A mere bagatelle to meet the needs. With the grant they were not so well off as the average school in England and Scotland, and it was unfair to say there was this sum for the absolutely necessitous schools when it did not bring them up to the average of the country. Again, it was said that some of these schools were endowed, and by this was meant that
    1544
    when some pious founder endowed a school in a district in which he was interested, then the Imperial Exchequer took advantage of this, and by giving the school less, distributed the pious founder's gift over the whole country. This should not enter into the question of whether a school ought or ought not to share in the Parliamentary grant; a district should have the benefit of the founder's generosity for the improvement of its education. The policy of the Department in giving the grant in greater proportion to town schools was with the view to aiding Voluntary Schools in their competition with Board Schools; but after all it would have no result, for if the town Voluntary Schools gave higher salaries the Board School would give higher still, and Voluntary Schools would have no better position in the competition; there would be simply larger expenditure from the rates. The weak part of the English educational system that required strengthening was the rural schools. Without taking account of whether they were Board or Voluntary Schools it was in the country the additional Parliamentary grant was most needed.
    MR. W. JONESsaid he merely wanted to make a suggestion in connection with the administration of British schools. He had heard rumours of an intention to make North Wales as a whole a unit of administration, but that he thought would be much too wide an area for the administration of the grant. In his constituency there were six British schools, of which three were in the quarry districts, and the managers were mostly quarrymen who could not afford the time or the money to go a distance of 20, 30, or 40 miles to the town where the Central Association' would meet if North Wales were made the unit for the whole of the schools. He would suggest to the Vice President that there should not merely be a Central Association for the whole of North Wales, but also district associations as units of administration, so that the managers would be able to attend the meetings and see that the money was properly allocated for making education more efficient.
    *COLONEL VICTOR MILWARDexpressed

    1545
    disappointment at the Vice President's statement in reference to the differentiation of the grant. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he had not been able to proceed on any system, and that it was more or less guess work and an experiment, but among managers of country schools there would be considerable disappointment. While recognising there was reason for differentiation, the difference between 3s. 3d. and 5s. 9d. per scholar was very great indeed. There were very many more schools in urban districts, and for every 1d. added in those districts 2½d. was taken from the rural districts. He ventured to hope that, when the question came up for consideration, 3d. might be taken off the urban and 6d. added to the country schools, reducing the difference to that between 5s. 6d. and 3s. 9d. In many country districts there were towns which were really not urban but rural in character. In his own constituency there were two towns with 2,000 inhabitants with schools having 300 or 400 scholars, and the difference in amount of grant, because they were rural not urban, was striking, a difference of £45 as between £58 10s. and £103 10s. The Vice President said the money would go to an association in a lump sum, and be divided as the association might think right. He did not believe the auditors of the Department would pass an arrangement of that kind. Before sitting down he desired to say a few words as to the attack upon the Church of England made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in reference to the formation of associations. None of them were fond of ecclesiasticism, but in this matter he did not think the Church of England was at all to blame. In the Debate upon the Voluntary Schools Bill he spoke in favour of County Associations, but directly he sat down the hon. Member for East Mayo stated that the Roman Catholics, at all events, would have nothing to do with associations of
    1546
    that kind, that they would under all circumstances have associations of their own. The Wesleyans immediately set to work to form associations for themselves. In the Diocese of Worcester they created an association which should embrace all schools. As soon as they met they found the Roman Catholics had formed their own association, the Wesleyan s had formed theirs, and the Baptists were about to form theirs. There were 250 Church Schools and there only remained 12 Nonconformist Schools to be invited to join the association, and these 12 were consequently in a hopeless minority.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who had just spoken could hardly expect the smaller denominations to merge themselves in associations which must naturally be controlled by another denomination. He did not seek to defend their action, but he thought that was a very reasonable explanation of their conduct. He agreed entirely with what the hon. and gallant Member said about the unfortunate distinction drawn between rural and urban schools. He represented an urban district, and although his constituency would benefit by the discrimination he thought it was an exceedingly unfair one, and a very unfortunate one under the circumstances. He could not see on what principle the Education Department had proceeded in making the discriminations. Indeed, he was fully persuaded that, if in Committee on the Voluntary Schools Bill the First Lord of the Treasury had said that the Department would discriminate against rural schools the Bill would not have passed through that House without amendment. But the discrimination was not merely against rural schools, but it was against Nonconformist Voluntary schools, inasmuch as most of such schools were found in urban districts. As to associations, they were certainly led to believe when the question was under discussion in Committee, that the Education Department would exercise a much

    1547
    greater control over the managers than they had done. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that they had not exercised any control whatever. What had happened in a good many districts was very serious. Associations had been formed which were absolutely in the hands of the clerical element. ["Oh!"] He was not attacking the Church of England, because, after all, the clergy were not the Church of England. He would rather trust the lay element than the priests of any sect. Associations had been formed, representing the sacerdotal element. The lay element had been ignored, and he had no doubt that in the majority of instances the will of the Bishop of the Diocese would be supreme. It was very deplorable in the interests of education that the voice of any priest should be dominant. In a good many of the dioceses the clergy who were the managers of the schools were not independent of the bishop. Their promotion depended upon him, and he could interfere with them in a thousand divers ways. He believed the sectarian system had been tolerated so far because the managers of schools had exercised their functions in a more tolerant spirit than the priests wished them to do. But what would happen in the future? At the present moment the clergy were dependent upon the lay element to the extent that the subsidies which came from the Imperial Parliament were not sufficient to enable them to carry on their schools without subscriptions given them by the laity of their own church; but one result of this Vote would, in a large number of instances, be that the schools would be made practically independent of voluntary subscriptions. He contended that the discussion that had taken place indicated a change of policy on the part of the clergy. They had realised for the first time their independence of the laity of their church. They knew that for the future they would not be dependent on their contributions. Where there was tolerance
    1548
    formerly, there was a much greater intolerance than ever before. The Education Department ought to refuse to sanction the formation of diocesan associations, and they ought to have insisted that the lay element should be predominant; but the right hon. Gentleman did not exercise the powers that had been conferred upon him with regard to the formation of associations. In the majority of cases the Department would depend for counsel and advice on the associations, and in cases in which masters shewed a special proficiency in teaching sectarian dogma and came up to the standard desired by the bishops and the clerical element, the associations would invariably discriminate in their favour. That was a very unfortunate state of things and would lead to a great deal of intolerance, to a great deal of friction, and in the long run to a great deal of bitterness which would put an end to sectarian education altogether. Sectarian education would be strengthened with the result that the parents of Nonconformist children would interfere; they would avail themselves of the Conscience Clause more freely, and the clergy would be left in possession of their schools. He earnestly hoped the Nonconformists throughout the country would adopt that course, now that the associations had gone into the hands of the clergy. This was simply a great bid on the part of the clergy for power. It was an attempt on the part of the priesthood to arrogate to themselves those powers they formerly possessed, and of which the people of this country deprived them. The pretensions of the priesthood were growing from year to year, and would not be checked unless there were a strong Education Department, capable of coping with their claims. He moved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £100,000, ["Hear, hear!"]
    *MR. THOMPSON SHARPEhoped the right hon. Gentleman would not give way to the criticisms passed upon his proposals from various parts of the House for the purpose

    1549
    of endeavouring to drive him from a position which was perfectly fair, equitable, and logical. They had heard that there were 8,000 parishes in which the Nonconformists had no schools. What was the meaning of that? It meant that in the majority of parishes the Church was a dominant element, and he trusted it would remain so, and would continue to exercise its influence and do its duty with a due regard to the liberty of the Nonconformists. ["Hear, hear!"] He was not a supporter of the priesthood, but he denied that the Church of England had been tyrannical or sacerdotal. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last admitted that it had not been so in the past. It was monstrous that the Church of England should he attacked as if it were the most illiberal, most priest-ridden body that had ever existed. It had been nothing of the kind, and it would be nothing of the kind in the future. ["Hear, hear!"] As regarded the amount to be granted to rural schools, he thought it was perfectly fair and just, and he trusted the Department would keep to it. As regarded the increase of expenditure, he trusted that something would be done in the future to keep down elementary education within its proper limits. In his opinion elementary education, and the grants for elementary education, should be strictly confined to those subjects which were elementary. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would hold to the arrangement he had made, and would not he led away by the various criticisms that had been passed upon him. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. YOXALLappealed to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury for an answer to the point he had raised as to what would happen to schools that did not join an association.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had appealed to him individually. He had no desire to shirk any responsibility, and he thought he would he able to convince the right hon. Gentleman
    1550
    that there was no breach of faith whatever in the matter. Sub-section 5 of the first clause of the Act expressly provided that any school which unreasonably refused to join an association should be liable to be deprived of its share of the grant. No circular issued by the Department had gone beyond the terms of that sub-section. He wished to remind the Committee that there were several Votes still to be taken, on which discussion was desired, and there could be no chance of those Votes coming on unless the present Vote were disposed of speedily.
    Question put: "That Item S (Aid Grant for Voluntary Elementary Schools), he reduced by £100,000."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 34; Noes, 139.—(Division List, No. 344.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    2. Motion made, and Question proposed:—
    That a sum, not exceeding £549,992, 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 1898, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Science and Art, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants in Aid."
    DR. CLARKsaid that under this Vote provision was made for a series of colleges—the Royal College of Science, London, and the Royal College of Art, London—bnt no provision at all for Scotland. During the last ten or a dozen years they had been rightly increasing the grants for secondary and higher education, and the next Vote would be doubling the amount to be paid in future to various University colleges throughout the United Kingdom, and he thought the time had arrived when something should be done for technical and scientific education in Scotland. The Government had refused to give a

    1551
    penny for equivalent purposes in Scotland. The Glasgow and West of Scotland College was one of the oldest institutions of the kind in Great Britain. It had applied to the Treasury for a share of the money that was being spent in England and Ireland, but the Treasury had up till now refused to vote a penny. Yet this was one of the grants in which Scotland was earning a great deal, but the Scottish boy, owing to lack of support from the State, was unfairly handicapped. They wanted the same facilities in Scotland as science students were now receiving in England and Ireland. He moved to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
    SIR J. GORSTdid not admit that any injustice had been done in times past to Scotland. Though the Royal College of Science and the Royal College of Art were situated in London, both of these institutions were just as much for Scotland as for England. A large number of the most distinguished students were Scottish; and owing to their greater industry and ability they got even more than their fair share of scholarships in proportion to their numbers than the English students. Only that day he had been at a distribution of prizes for works of art, and he was astonished at the great number of students from Glasgow and Edinburgh who appeared in the successful list. ["Hear, hear!"] Another year he expected that an entirely separate Vote would appear for science and art in Scotland; and in that Vote the amount which was allocated to the teaching of science and art in Scotland would be considerable.
    Mr. JAMES STUARTcomplained that the Science and Art Department had not progressed with the advance in the methods and requirements of scientific teaching. Drawing in the public elementary schools was under the control of the Science and Art Department, and as that Department's method of examination differed from the Education Department's method of examination in other subjects two systems of
    1552
    teaching and two systems of classification had to be adopted in those schools. He thought the remedy for that confusing state of things was to be found in the bringing of drawing as well as all other subjects under the control of the Education Department. He also complained of the difficulty experienced by localities in different parts of the country in obtaining specimens of art and examples of work on loan from the Science and Art Department.
    SIR J. GORSTsaid that drawing in elementary schools was now being transferred from the Science and Art Department to the Education Department. ["Hear, hear!"] It would be inspected by the inspectors of the Department, and paid for by attendance and not by results. ["Hear, hear!"] In regard to the other point he thought the hon. Member must be misinformed. Every possible effort was made by the Science and Art Department to give localities those specimens they particularly wanted; and he bad seen numbers of cases in which the Department was thanked for the way in which they complied with those requests.
    *MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid there were two or three matters of importance to which he should like to refer. The Committee might not be aware that earlier in the year a Departmental Committee sat to consider the conditions under which this Vote should be distributed, and that Committee made a report which was practically incorporated in the revised Directory of the Science and Art Department. This proposed Directory, which he admitted was not yet in force as a whole, was placed upon the Table of the House, but during the whole period it lay on the Table copies could not be obtained of the printer, the Report not being yet set up. It could then be secured for a few days, and afterwards it was out of print, and copies were only procurable just as the whole of the Science and Art teachers were going off for their midsummer holidays,

    1553
    so that the teachers on their return would have to open their winter classes under what was practically a new Directory, with new regulations and a new form of payment, without having had any opportunity of making themselves acquainted with these proposals, to say nothing of criticising them. The Vice President might contend that the new Directory was not yet to be put into force. That could be only a partial statement of the case, because he held in his hand a circular of the Science and Art Department, practically taken from the Directory, and what he wanted to draw attention to in connection with this circular was this—that it came out without the name of the Vice President or the Lord President upon it, but in the name of the Permanent Secretary of the Department. The circular so issued gave legislative effect to proposals in this Directory, and they would come into force next Session, while theoretically the Directory from which it had been taken had not yet been adopted by the Council of Education. He protested against this slipshod way of doing things. He thought the Department ought now to be in a position of sufficient dignity and importance to present its Reports and Directory to the House in the same way as the Code of the Education Department was placed before the House. He quite agreed that it was almost useless to protest against it annually until the Science and Art Department was reformed and brought up to Whitehall, and put under the direct supervision of the right hon. Gentleman. There were a few details on which he should like to have the advice and explanations of the Vice-President. He did not know whether many Members of the Committee had yet realised that one of the chief recommendations of the Departmental Committee incorporated in this draft Report was to the effect that any authority in counties or county boroughs in England possessing an organisation for the promotion of Secondary Education might notify its willingness to be responsible for the Science and Art instruction within its area. It then went on to say that the Department would not, except under special circumstances, recognise any other authority in the area unless the proposed
    1554
    new authority were responsible to this county authority. Now, the idea was a good one, but the phrases were excessively vague, they might mean a good deal, and they might mean absolutely nothing. "Responsible to the county authority" What was the effect of the word "responsible? "Were they to receive grants through the county authority? What was the meaning of "the county authority shall have notified its willingness to be responsible for the science and art instruction within its area? "Was that the first step towards destroying the Science and Art Department altogether and giving the county authority full charge of the science and art teaching within the county? If that were the idea, there might be very much said in favour of the proposal, but at present the regulation was so exceedingly vague that one would be glad to have some information as to its meaning. ["Hear, hear!"] But the point to which he desired chiefly to draw attention was the new scheme of payment. The new scheme under which this grant was being paid would not do much for the encouragement of science and art throughout the country, indeed, the practical result would be to shut up the whole of the small science and art classes throughout the country. It would not be worth the while of any managers, certainly in a village or a small town or in a sparsely populated rural district, to take over the science and art teaching during the coming winter under this miserable and trumpery scale. Yet these were the very places where light was required to be shed on the darkness prevailing in the rural districts. The scheme of payment in the past had been on the results of the annual examinations. A class had presented ten or a dozen pupils, and it was paid so many pounds per head. It was now proposed to make these payments very largely depend upon the average attendance in the classes and upon the report which the inspector might make as to the way in which the class was being conducted on the occasion of his visits. It would be readily seen that it might pay the committee of a class of a hundred pupils in a town where access to the class was easy and where the average attendance might be high and regular—it might pay the committee of such a class to take the

    1555
    grants on average attendance. But the same amount of work had to be done, and the same apparatus provided as a rule for science and art teaching with a class only a dozen strong; and reports had reached him from all parts of England and Wales pointing out that in view of the miserably small subvention that would come on the basis of average attendance instead of results, teachers were sending in their resignations and committees were being disbanded at that moment because they were not prepared to carry on the work under the new conditions. He had three or four examples —one came into his hands only that morning as he came down to the House, in a letter from the Chairman of one of these small science and art classes. Last year this Committee presented 21 pupils in the elementary class and 13 in the advanced stage. Their total grant on the old scheme was £48. They had taken the average attendance last winter and had applied both the minimum and maximum grants under the new scheme, with the result, that with the minimum they would lose £37, and with the maximum they would lose £9. Now £9 out of £48 was a heavy loss, and it would certainly be seen that the risk of losing £37 out of £48 would finally induce the managers to shut up the class altogether. It would be utterly impossible to carry on the class; and he wished to press on the Vice President with all possible urgency, that if he wished to continue the encouragement of science and art teaching throughout the country he must drop this rate of payment immediately so far as it affected the small classes. ["Hear, hear!"] However the scheme was worked out, in the small classes the grant would be so ridiculously trifling that it would not be worth the while of managers to carry on this work. He was sure it was not the desire of the Committee to limit the teaching of science and art to large towns, but that they were desirous to brighten up the life in agricultural villages, and to give the young men and women the opportunity of getting to better things. There was another feature in connection with these new grants, namely, that the estimate on which the grant was to be paid would be formed by an Inspector of the Science and Art Department who would visit the
    1556
    class. This inspector would have to take into consideration the ability of the teacher, the equipment of the class, and the way in which the work was carried on there. He wondered what would be said in an ordinary factory if the inspectors who were sent there never had the least training or idea of factory work. The utmost fear was being expressed that the gentlemen who would be sent down to the classes would not be trained men. To have knowledge and to be able to teach were two different things. The predecessors of the Vice President realised this difficulty in the ordinary work of the Education Department years ago, and in order to obtain something like an average standard throughout the country the inspectors would have to receive minute instructions as to the way in which they were to carry out their work. Moreover, the organisers of the classes should know what were the instructions which the inspectors had received, so as to secure the results, or rather some of the results, for which they laboured, for he was loath to admit that the managers laboured merely for pecuniary results. He urged that having regard to the conditions under which this directory had been published, to the fact that many of their science teachers and managers of science classes had not yet been able to get hold of a copy, this new scheme should be made optional for another year. He should much regret the withdrawal of the directory, or the withdrawal of the change from result payments to attendance payments; but he ventured to urge upon the right hon. Gentlemen—who he understood however was not the sole authority in this matter—that if they persisted in applying tins scheme it would close many small schools during the winter. He thought they ought to allow any of the classes who wished to take up the new rules to try the experiment for 12 months and see what the result would be. He was certain that everybody who had had experience of the two Departments would hail with unmitigated satisfaction the transference of Drawing from the Science and Art Department to the Education Department, for the Education Department had the confidence of the country, while the Science and Art Department had not.

    1557
    These small schools were of vital importance to the science and art work throughout the country. About half a million of money was going to be spent for the encouragement of this work in the coming whiter, and science and art classes should be great attractions to lads and lasses in the winter evenings. He hoped, therefore, that no regulations would be put into force which would in any way interfere with this work.
    *MR. YOXALLsupported the appeal of his hon. Friend. He trusted that the Vice President would allow a year of grace before making the new scheme compulsory. The actuarial computation on which the change was based was wholly wrong. There had been changes of this kind before and they had not been pecuniarily satisfactory. Last year when a similar change was made it was predicted that on the actuarial basis then adopted schools would lose, and as a matter of fact schools that had proceeded on the old basis had not lost, while schools that had gone on the new basis had lost. There had been considerable loss, for example, in the case of a higher grade Board School at Leeds. He trusted that schools would be given an option, and that they would not be forced to proceed on the new basis in the next 12 months. If no option were given it would mean financial disaster to hundreds of science classes. He rejoiced at the proposed transfer of drawing from the Science and Art Department to the Education Department. When the work was transferred to Whitehall it would be necessary to reform the syllabus, as the South Kensington syllabus was defective. He would say a few words with regard to the proposed transfer of officials from one department to the other. In Whitehall there was a large staff of sub-inspectors, all of whom had been teachers in elementary schools, some being of the first grade and some of the second. It was now proposed to transfer from South Kensington, as sub-inspectors, some of the gentlemen employed there. He hoped that would not be done in an unfair way. The men whom it was proposed to transfer had never been practical teachers and had no practical qualifications for sub-inspection. To put them over the heads of the thoroughly trained sub-inspectors now employed al the Education Department would be most
    1558
    unfair. He hoped that in any case the Vice President would take care that injustice was not done to the sub-inspectors in Whitehall.
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSONbelieved the changes designed were intended to prevent a great deal of the waste of money that used to go on when the Science and Art Department were competing with the Education Department in separate organisations.
    MR. VESEY KNOXsaid he wished to support the appeal of the hon. Member for West Ham. Payment on average attendance instead of on results was bound to stop the teaching of science and art in the rural districts. In the greater part of Ireland it was impossible to get a large average attendance for science and art teaching. If a fixed grant were applied it would no longer be worth the while of a teacher in rural districts to carry on a science and art class. It would not be easy for an Irish authority to re-establish science and art teaching when it had once been destroyed. Much organisation was necessary. He hoped that if the Education Department were going to hand over the administration of science and art grants in Ireland to an Irish authority they would do so as soon as possible. He understood that schools like the Christian Brothers were eligible for grants under the Science and Art Department, but not from the National Board of Education, and it would be essential in making any transfer of any branch of teaching to see that the grants should be available in the schools which for conscientious reasons did not now obtain them.
    SIR J. CORSTsaid that science and art grants in Ireland would rest with the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It was hardly to be expected that the Committee of Council should take the initiative. His own opinion was that when they once separated the elementary education of Ireland, Scotland, and England, as they had done completely, it was impossible but that the science and art education and the secondary education must follow. Therefore he regarded it as inevitable that the whole of the education of Ireland, and not the elementary education merely, must be undertaken by the Education Department of Ireland. The debate which

    1559
    had taken place within the last few minutes was a good illustration of the hopelessness of satisfying anybody in any education reform which might be proposed. The hon. Member for Shoreditch began the discussion by speaking of the Science and Art Department as an extremely backward department which actually was so antiquated as to pay by results instead of by attendance. They had made an attempt in the present year to clear themselves of the obsolete custom of paying by results and began the more modern and enlightened system of payment by attendance. Then up got his hon. Friend for West Ham and his hon. Friend for Nottingham, and they denounced the Department for the injustice they were committing on the small schools by abandoning the practice of paying by results in order to pay by attendance.
    *MR. ERNESTGRAYsaid he supported strongly the proposal to abandon payment by results, but represented what he considered the utter inadequacy of the payments by attendance.
    SIR J. GORSTsaid his hon. Friend was not satisfied with the scale under which they proposed to pay. He could only say that that scale was not settled by the Science and Art Department alone, but by that department in negotiation with the Treasury, and the principle laid down was that the new attandance grant should be an exact equivalent of the old results grant, neither more nor less. Upon that principle the present scale was made up. It was not a scale of this year. It was a scale which was promulgated last year, but last year it was allowed to be an optional change. It was a remarkable thing that before the Departmental Committee which sat at the beginning of this year none of the losses which it was said would be incurred by the adoption of the new grant were made out. When the scale of last year was made out, so enlightened a body as the School Board for London objected to it on the ground that some of their art schools would lose by adoption, and they went so far as to specify one particular large art school. They took the trouble of reckoning up the earnings of this particular school on the two systems, and they found that under the attendance grant they would have actually got a greater sum than
    1560
    they did under the results grant. He was afraid that in this case the fears of the art and science masters were interpreted by them as if they were actual facts. They took the most gloomy view of their prospects, but he could assure the Committee that the very last thing the Department desired to do was to crush any schools which were doing good work, and, above all, to crush any rural schools. If the operation of this new scale were really to have the effect which hon. Members anticipated, they might depend upon it that it would very soon be put a stop to, and a fresh scale would very soon be introduced. He really could not undertake to give an option for another year. There had already been an option given for one year, and he thought the time had come when the new scale of attendance grants ought to be put in force. As regarded the lateness of the period at which the directory would come into force, he might say that he had always refused finally to settle it until the discussion which had now taken place had taken place. The moment the Vote was granted the directory would be settled and all the representations and suggestions which had been made that night would be placed before the Committee and before the Department as soon as the Committee had reported, and would be most carefully taken into consideration. With regard to instructions they would be given to the inspectors in the same way as they were given under the code relating to elementary education. He could promise that the inspectors who visited the schools for the purpose of assessing the grant should be properly instructed. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. DALYdesired to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the position of Keeper of Irish Antiquities in the Science and Art Museum in Dublin, had now been vacant for almost twelve months.
    SIR JOHN GORSTstated that the position had been filled up by the appointment of Mr. Coffey some weeks ago.
    MR. DALYwas not aware of this. He should like to refer to one other point in connection with the Dublin Science and Art Museum, which was that while there were twelve smart capable business men in the City of Dublin, who were the visitors attached

    1561
    to the Museum, they were not allowed to make a report to the right hon. Gentleman without asking the permission of the Director. It was a great slight on these gentlemen to say that they were not capable of making any representation to the Department except through the Director. To show the high-handedness with which they were treated, he might mention that when the visitors some short time ago wished to make a report to the Department, they were rapped over the knuckles and told if they attempted to do anything of the kind without consulting the Director they would be dismissed from their position. They might not care about such a threat, except perhaps, for the honour of the position, which was one to which no salary attached. He thought the present state of affairs should not be allowed to continue any longer, but that these visitors should be allowed the opportunity of making a report direct to the Department without consulting any official.
    SIR J. GORSTremarked that this was a matter which had already been brought under the notice of the Committee by the hon. Member himself, and it would no doubt receive careful consideration.
    MR. WEIRcomplained that Scotland was treated in a niggardly spirit under this Vote.
    MR. T. LOUGHasked for information as to the attendance and cost of the Sunday opening of museums?
    SIR J. GORSTsaid he had not the figures at hand, but he believed the attendance was very good and the cost very small. If the hon. Member would ask a question he should be glad to answer him.
    MR. WEIRsaid the House was approaching the end of the Session, and he had no desire to occupy time, but the Vice President had not noticed certain matters he had mentioned earlier.
    SIR. J. GORSTsaid the questions raised by the hon. Member in regard to the Edinburgh Museum would come before the Department in connection with the Report of the Departmental Committee already referred to.
    DR. CLARKsaid the reply of the right hon. Gentleman on the points he had raised was most unsatisfactory. He was quite aware of the fact that a large
    1562
    number of bursaries both in England and Ireland were secured in competition by Scottish' students; he knew that thus Scotland got the lion's share of the grant, but that did not affect the question that the Government were bound to spend public money in science and art grants for Scotland in proportion to the amount spent in England and Ireland, that was the policy enunciated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If they thought the Vice President was expressing the views of the Government, Scotch Members would adopt a different attitude, but they did not think he expressed the view of the Treasury. They in Scotland wanted money, and the same class of teaching there as here. Upon a subsequent Vote, however, they would be able to raise the question, and therefore he would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing now.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed.
    "That a sum not exceeding £108,439 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 1898, for the salaries and other expenses of the British Museum, and of the Natural History Museum, including certain grants in aid."
    MR. J. DILLONsaid that the officials of the British Museum were now, and had been for some time, engaged in publishing very elaborate subject indices to literature. The indices, which were most valuable to students and librarians, were sold at a very high figure, although not a high figure when compared with the labour and cost of producing them. But the British Museum was an institution which was kept up for the benefit of the general public, and therefore he hoped the indices would be brought within the reach of any man of moderate means.
    *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY, Preston)said that the hon. Member must be aware that the Treasury had nothing to do with these matters. They were entirely under the control of the trustees of the museum, but he thought the point raised was one which ought to receive attention, and he would take care to bring it before the trustees.
    DR. TANNERsaid that when the Committee were passing a large item like this there were some points that ought to be explained. One of those points was in connection with the purchase and acquisition of objects of interest. Under that head it was a matter for criticism that there had been a large falling off. Then complaints had been made as to the heating and fire extinguishing apparatus, and it was said that the heating of the museum in winter was unsatisfactory; yet in the face of all there was a falling off under that head. There was also a falling off under the head of heating and firing apparatus in connection with the Natural History Museum.
    *MR. HANBURYsaid that what the hon. Member last referred to appeared to be a capital expenditure in new apparatus, which must vary from year to year. If there was a large expenditure last year, that was no reason why it should be repeated this year. The other point raised by the hon. Member was explained by the fact that last year there was a supplementary Estimate of £6,000 because the Montagu and another collection of coins came into the market, and the Museum applied for a special grant in order to buy a portion of those collections, and the Treasury granted it as something quite exceptional. The Treasury had now promised that a grant of £22,000 a year should be given for five years, and that was more than had ever been promised before. In addition to that a rule had been made that instead of expecting the museum to pay back anything not expended in the year, as under the old system, the money might be retained for expenditure in other years.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported.
    Motion made and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £66,059, 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, 1898, for Grants in aid of the expenses of certain Universities and Colleges in Great Britain, and of the expenses under The Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889."
    MR. WEIRcalled attention to the disgraceful condition of the gilt cornice and the ceiling of the University Library in Edinburgh.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The Treasury have no control in the matter.
    MR. WEIRsaid that he would move a reduction of £10 to find out who was responsible.
    *THE CHAIRMAN or WAYS AND MEANS: The governing body of the College are responsible.
    *Mr. HANBURY: The Vote for Edinburgh University is part of a sum which is now paid under statute to the Scottish Universities Commission for distribution among the Scottish Universities. The people responsible for its expenditure are the authorities of the Universities.
    DR. CLARKsaid that until the Act of 1881 was passed by the late Unionist Government, all the items of the Vote were voted directly by Parliament. But under that Act a fixed sum was allotted to the Universities, but, in order that the House might retain control over the expenditure for Scotch University Education, the sum was not put on the Consolidated Fund, but was kept on the Estimates. All these payments, which used to be included in the Estimates of the Scottish Parliament, were transferred to the Imperial Estimates under the Treaty of Union. A foot-note to the Vote declared that in addition to the £42,000 given to Scotch Universities under Statute, there was £30,000 payable under the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account. That sum was really Scotland's share of the Probate Duty. By this grant it was first proposed to give £15,000 to various colleges in Great Britain. Some of the Scotch colleges made an application, but the Committee so drafted the conditions as to rule out those colleges giving purely science education. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer appointed a Committee to advise as to the colleges that were getting the grant; and one of the colleges exactly in the same position as the Anderson College in Glasgow, was the Durham College of Science. Thus the West of Scotland Association had been kept out of its money. Now it was found that Dundee was to get £1,000

    1565
    for a year or two; but by its amalgamation with St. Andrew's University, Dundee would lose the money, because it had to share in the sum of £30,000. It was also very unfair that a Committee should be appointed for Great Britain, on which not a single Scottish representative had been nominated. They were voting money for the College of Science in London and in Dublin, but the College of Science in Scotland got no share of the grant. The result was that Scotch boys were unfairly handicapped. They came down from the north and carried off the English and the Irish prizes; but they should have the opportunity of competing for those prizes at home.
    MR. CALDWELLcalled attention to Item A, under "University," with the note in full discharge of all claims on public moneys. These words were in the Estimates some years ago, and he took exception to them on the ground that there was no warrant whatever for them. The result was that the words were taken out of the Estimates, and now they appeared on the Estimates again. In Section 25 of the Universities Act, mention was made of those sums being in full discharge of all claims on public money. From the beginning of the Act to the end there was nothing whatever to say that this £42,000 given to the Scotch University, was in full discharge of all claims on public money. He strongly objected to them putting on the Estimates a misleading statement of that kind without authority. The Secretary to the Treasury would of course be prepared with his authority to show that it was in full discharge of all claims, but he would tell him' distinctly that there was no warrant whatever for it, and he defied him to produce anything to show that these sums were a discharge of the claims of the Scotch Universities. By the Treaty of Union the Scotch Universities were handed over to the Imperial Parliament, and it was the duty of that Imperial Parliament, as succeeding to the old Scotch Estates, to make full and fair provision for them out of imperial money. With regard to the £42,000, that was partly under the cognisance of the Committee, but when the Bill was passing through the House, this £42,000 was on the Annual Estimates, and they (the Scotch Members) objected to
    1566
    putting it on the Consolidated Fund, because they wished to preserve their right to discuss any application of the money. He contended that the Auditor General was entitled to see that the money was properly applied to University purposes. He pressed the right hon. Gentleman to give his warrant for putting in these words, or else to give a promise that they should be taken out.
    *MR. HANBURYsaid the mere fact that the hon. Member had made his speech showed that this was a Vote which came under the cognisance of the House. The matter was beyond argument. As to the sub-head of which he complained, if the hon. Member would look into this Act, it would be found that these sums is were in frill discharge of all past and present claims on public moneys. He thought the hon. Member must be entirely mistaken in what he had said on that point. The Act described that this suit of £42,000 should be paid over to certain Commissioners with whom would rest entirely the discretion as to how it should be distributed between the Universities. There could be no doubt that the Act did provide that it should be, as far as the Universities were concerned, a full discharge of any claim on public funds. He hoped that they would now be able to take this Vote, if not, he should be obliged to report progress.
    MR. WEIRasked whether anyone on the Treasury Bench was responsible for the spending of the money.
    *MR. HANBURYsaid if the University authorities did not spend this money properly in the opinion of the Commissioners, a check could be exercised.
    DR. CLARKasked the right hon. Gentleman to state his reasons for not putting any Scotchmen on the Committee. The claims of Scotland had been entirely ignored.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that as he understood the matter, the Committee had no power to allocate a new grant except to the English colleges, except a small sum in the case of Dundee. That was the reason for not appointing anybody specially from Scotland.
    DR. CLARKsaid the grant was to colleges in Great Britain.
    MR. WEIRhoped the Government would promise to take steps to remedy the grievance to which he had called attention in connection with the Edinburgh University Library.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that he would look into the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Caithness. He rather thought that the terms of the reference relating to the grant were limited to English colleges—that was to colleges which had already had grants allocated to them. [Dr. CLARK said that this limitation was what he complained of.] It followed from the terms of reference, which may have been too narrow. He had not risen, however, to discuss that matter further, but to say that, after the labour winch the House had gone through in the course of the week, he recognised that it was impossible for them to deal with any more subjects usefully, and therefore he moved "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMSSION BILL [H.L.]
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
    SUPPLY [27TH JULY.]
    Report deferred till Monday next.
    SUPPLY [19TH JULY]
    Report deferred till Monday next.
    SUPPLY [23RD JULY.]
    Report deferred till Monday next.
    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Third Reading deferred till To-morrow
    BURIAL GROUNDS LOANS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.
    STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES' JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.

    NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1895–6.
    1. Resolved, That it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1896, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:—

    (a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £59,302 15s. 9d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £216,845 6s. 11d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule, so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Navy Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £157,542 11s. 2d.;

    (b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £28,570 10s.11d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £34,789 17s. 5d., as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Navy Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £6,219 6s. 6d.;

    (c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    Total Surpluses

    242,540

    18

    6

    Total Deficits

    78,779

    0

    10

    Net Surplus

    £163,761

    17

    8

    2. That the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Navy Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated Appropriations in Aid, in respect of the same Services; and have also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
    3. That the application of such stuns be sanctioned.
    SCHEDULE

    Number of Vote.

    Navy Services, 1895–6. Votes.

    Gross Expenditure.

    Appropriations in Aid.

    Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

    Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

    Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

    Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

    1.

    2.

    3.

    4.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    1

    …

    Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coast Guard and Royal Marines

    …

    …

    …

    …

    73,060

    13

    8

    …

    1420

    16

    4

    2

    …

    Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

    …

    …

    …

    489

    6

    2

    …

    28,514

    7

    9

    3

    …

    Medical Establishments and services

    …

    9,975

    11

    9

    …

    657

    6

    6

    4

    …

    Martial Law

    …

    …

    …

    85

    2

    6

    …

    …

    31

    3

    9

    5

    …

    Educational Services

    …

    …

    …

    …

    875

    13

    6

    …

    684

    9

    6

    6

    …

    Scientific Services

    …

    …

    …

    1,231

    12

    11

    …

    …

    45

    3

    8

    7

    …

    Royal Navy Reserves

    …

    …

    …

    …

    11685

    9

    1

    …

    153

    11

    5

    8

    …

    Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:

    Sec, 1

    …

    Personnel

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,893

    15

    5

    …

    145

    16

    7

    Sec. 2

    …

    Material

    …

    …

    …

    …

    4,111

    8

    9

    …

    20,243

    6

    6

    Sec. 3

    …

    Contract Work

    …

    …

    …

    2,347

    8

    11

    …

    …

    18

    11

    0

    9

    …

    Naval Armaments

    …

    …

    …

    24,869

    14

    0

    …

    …

    8,154

    5

    0

    10

    …

    Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad

    …

    …

    …

    …

    99,097

    11

    7

    …

    2,301

    4

    1

    11

    …

    Miscellaneous Effective Services

    …

    12,848

    14

    2

    …

    …

    689

    8

    0

    12

    …

    Admiralty Office

    …

    …

    …

    …

    4,032

    14

    9

    …

    1

    3

    2

    13

    …

    Half-Pay, Reserved and Retired Pay

    …

    12,132

    8

    5

    46

    6

    6

    14

    …

    Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

    …

    …

    …

    8,885

    10

    3

    …

    …

    66

    11

    11

    15

    …

    Civil Pensions and Gratuities

    …

    6,829

    1

    9

    …

    9

    16

    8

    16

    …

    Additional Naval Force for Service in Australasian Waters

    …

    …

    42

    16

    0

    …

    …

    177

    0

    0

    Amount written off as irrecoverable

    1,673

    9

    1

    59,302

    15

    9

    216,845

    6

    11

    28,570

    10

    11

    34,789

    17

    5

    Net Surplus, £157,542 11 2

    Net Surplus, £6,219 6 6

    Surplus surrendered to the Exchequer … £163,761 17 8

    4. That it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1896, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:—

    (a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Army Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £76,2911 6s. 5d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Army Services fell short of the Estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £242,675 10s. 6d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule, so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Army Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £166,385 4s. ld.;

    (b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Army Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £51,338 16s. 5d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Army Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £69,518 17s. 3d., as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule, so that the total
    1570
    actual receipts in Aid of the Grants for Army Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £18,180 0s. 10d.;

    (c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    Total Surpluses

    253,273

    10

    3

    Total Deficits

    68,708

    5

    4

    Net Surplus

    £184,565

    4

    11

    5 That the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Army Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated appropriations in aid, in respect of the same Services, and leave also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain grants for Army Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
    6. That the application of such sums be sanctioned.
    SCHEDULE

    Number of Vote.

    Army Services, 1895–6. Votes.

    Gross Expenditure.

    Appropriations in Aid.

    Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

    Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

    Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

    Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

    1.

    2.

    3.

    4.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    1

    Pay, etc., of Army (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments)

    …

    …

    …

    38,853

    2

    1

    47,922

    14

    10

    2

    medical Establishment: Pay, etc.

    …

    1,599

    16

    4

    …

    47

    8

    1

    3

    Militia: Pay and Allowances

    …

    …

    26,921

    0

    11

    …

    860

    13

    5

    4

    Yeomanry Cavalry: Pay and Allowances

    …

    …

    4,987

    16

    3

    …

    9

    13

    6

    …

    5

    Volunteer Corps: Pay and Allowances

    …

    …

    7,997

    7

    7

    …

    …

    95

    11

    4

    6

    Transport and Remounts

    …

    …

    2,282

    5

    9

    …

    381

    10

    7

    …

    7

    Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

    …

    …

    …

    89,591

    0

    8

    …

    1,658

    16

    6

    8

    Clothing Establishments, and Services

    …

    …

    43,685

    11

    11

    …

    …

    14,475

    11

    9

    9

    Warlike and other Stores: Supply and Repair

    …

    …

    …

    40,020

    8

    7

    …

    43,029

    8

    5

    10

    Works, Buildings, and Repairs: Cost, including Superintending Establishment

    …

    …

    …

    39,899

    16

    11

    2,942

    10

    6

    …

    11

    Military Educational Establishments: Pay and Miscellaneous Charges

    …

    …

    1,892

    12

    5

    …

    …

    8,631

    7

    9

    12

    Miscellaneous Effective Services

    …

    …

    2,079

    0

    2

    …

    51

    3

    4

    13

    War Office: Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges

    …

    …

    921

    5

    0

    72

    16

    8

    14

    Non-effective Charges for Officers, etc.

    …

    …

    13,560

    8

    3

    …

    …

    596

    0

    0

    15

    15 Non-effective Charges for Men, etc.

    …

    2,789

    19

    10

    65

    9

    5

    16

    Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances

    1,522

    9

    9

    …

    16

    17

    7

    …

    Balances irrecoverable

    …

    …

    361

    14

    6

    76,290

    6

    5

    242,675

    10

    6

    51,338

    16

    5

    69,518

    17

    3

    Net Surplus, £166,385 4 1

    Net Surplus, £18,180 0 10

    Surplus surrendered to the Exchequer … £184,565 4 11

    Resolutions agreed to.

    WICKLOW HARBOUR (ADVANCES) BILL.
    Consideration, as amended, deferred till Saturday.

    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [ADVANCES AND REMISSION OF DEBT].
    Resolution reported,—
    "That it is expedient to authorise,—

    (a) the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of advances which may be required to meet any insufficiency of the Local Loans Fund to pay the principal and interest of bonds which may be issued in lieu of Local Loans Stock, and the repayment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of such advances.

    (b) the remission of certain debts due from the Aberbrothwick Harbour Trustees to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, of the Clara and Banagher Railway Company, the Ballycastle Railway Company, and the Giant's Causeway, Portrush, and Bush Valley Railway and Tramway Company to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, in
    1572
    pursuance of any Act of the present Session to grant money for Local Loans and for other purposes relating to Local Loans."

    Resolution agreed to.

    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.
    YORKSHIRE CORONERS BILL.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.
    DISTRICT COUNCILS (WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES) BILL.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.

    MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.
    Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 15th day of this instant July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
    House adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Five Minutes before One o'Clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  SOUTHWARK AND VAUXHALL WATER BILL.
  Read the Third time, with the Amendments.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid he had some Amendments to propose to the Bill, but they were not animated by any hostility to the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company, nor by any desire to restrict their facilities for obtaining, water with which to supply their customers. But there were points in the Bill which were against what he might call public polity. The Government hail decided that the whole subject of the London Water Supply should be referred to a Royal Commission; and it seemed to him to be desirable that, pending the Report of that Commission, nothing should be done by Parliament which might prejudice or prejudge t he subject referred to the Commission or encourage a long and costly fight during the next Session of Parliament while the Commission was holding its sittings. He was afraid that by passing the Bill as it stood there was a danger of both these undesirable things arising. The history of the Bill was a somewhat unusual one. The Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company had for some years been taking from the Thames water largely in excess of the amount allowed them by Parliament. They were allowed 24½ million gallons per day, and they had been taking upwards of 40 million gallons per day: and it was said that a large portion of that water had gone, not to better the supply of the consumers, but to make up the deficiency caused by leakages in the mains of the company, which leakages had greatly damaged or destroyed the roads under which they occurred. The Queen's Bench Division had, on the application of the Thames Conservancy, granted an injunction against the company forbidding them to continue taking
  1390
  this excessive water from the Thames, but at the same time giving them a year of grace in which they might make arrangements to get out of the difficulty under which they would be placed by the injunction. It was too late to give the usual notices to both Houses, and Parliament came to the conclusion that the matter pressed, and therefore suspended the Standing Orders and allowed this Bill to be introduced without the usual notices. The Bill canto before the other House at a somewhat unfortunate time, and it was evident to the Committee that unless they hurried their proceedings, it would be impossible for the Bill to pass; consequently, without hearing the opponents, they granted the prayer of the promoters. On the Report to the House of Commons, a Motion was made to re-commit the Bill, and there appeared to be a desire on all sides of the House that the status quo should be maintained. It seemed, however, that the status quo had not been maintained. In Clause 4 of the Bill, a power was given to the company to raise and apply such capital as might be necessary to make proper provision for
  "the obtaining, drawing, impounding, and taking of water from the river Thames (including water from Platt's Eyot) in such quantities as may, after the expiration of this Act, be required by them."
  It seemed to him that that was one of the very subjects which would come before the Commission, and that it was not right that Parliament should now step in and direct this company to apply for an Act, which gave them power to take more water from the Thames, until they had a decision from the Commission as to whether it was good policy that such additional water should in future be drawn from the Thames. Under the same clause, a duty was imposed on the company of next year introducing a Bill to obtain these additional powers, and he did not think it desirable that an expensive contest should go on on the very subject with which the Commission would be dealing at the same time. He Would therefore propose to strike these provisions out of the Bill, and in order that the company should not be placed at a disadvantage with regard to its consumers, he would ask them to extend the time in which the company might take

  1391
  additional water from the Thames in spite of the injunction to four years instead of two years as in the Bill. He would suggest that the whole question of when the company should apply to Parliament for a Bill, what the terms of that Bill should be, and whence the water should be taken, should remain perfectly open. He begged to move the first Amendment standing in his name, which was to leave out the second paragraph in the preamble,—
  "And whereas the hereinbefore recited Acts were repealed by the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Act 1852, but the Company notwithstanding such repeal were by such Act continued and placed under obligations to supply water within limits thereby prescribed and being the same as had been theretofore prescribed as aforesaid and authorised to obtain, draw, and impound for the purpose of such supply water from the river Thames above Teddington Lock."
  and to insert,—
  "And whereas the Conservators of the River Thames (hereinafter called "the Conservators") lately commenced an action (1896, T. No. 436) in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court against the Company claiming an injunction restraining the Company their agents or servants from taking, diverting, or impounding from the River Thames a greater quantity of water than 24,500,000 gallons in every twenty-fours hours from midnight to midnight.
  And whereas on the 18th day of January 1897 judgment was given in the said action for the Conservators granting them the injunction claimed in the terms in which they asked for it.
  And whereas the Company now take water from the River Thames in excess of the quantity to which they are restricted under the said injunction, and it is expedient that notwithstanding the said injunction and without prejudice to any other questions the Company be temporarily authorised to take water from the said river in excess of such quantity subject to the provisions of this Act.
  And whereas a Royal Commission has been recently appointed to inquire and report upon the question of the acquisition and future management of the undertakings of the Metropolitan water companies and is about to commence its sittings.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2,—
  INCREASE OF COMPANY'S POWER TO TAKE WATER FROM RIVER TITAMES.
  Subject to the provisions of this Act and to the provisions of Section 297 of the Thames Conservancy Act 1894, the Company may from and after the passing of this Act by means of
  1392
  their works whereby they are now authorised to obtain, draw, awl impound water from the River Thames (including water from Platt's Eyot) above Teddington hock, obtain, draw, impound, and take such quantity of water from the said river (including water from Platt's Eyot) in any day of twenty-four hours calculated from midnight to midnight and whether or not in excess of 24,500,000 gallons as may be required by them for the purpose of fulfilling obligations imposed upon them by statute with respect to the supply of water within their limits:
  Provided that unless and until otherwise authorised so to do by Parliament the Company shall not in any half-year ending on the twenty-third day of June or the twenty-fourth day of December as the case may be, obtain, draw, impound, or take from the River Thames (including water from Platt's Eyot) any quantity of water in excess of a quantity equal to the aggregate amount of 45,000,000 gallons in respect of the several days of twenty-four hours calculated from midnight to midnight during such half-year.
  And provided that the Company shall not obtain, draw, impound, or take from the River Thames (including water from Platt's Eyot) in any day of twenty-four hours calculated from midnight to midnight any quantity of water in excess of 24,500,000 gallons when the flow of water over the weir about to be constructed by the Conservators of the River Thames (in this Act referred to as "the Conservators") across the said river at Penton Hook is in such day less than 300,000,000 gallons, or pending the construction of such weir when the flow of water over Bell Weir is in such day less than 265,000,000 gallons:
  Provided further that when in any such day as aforesaid the flow of water over the said weir at Penton Hook is more than 300,000,000 gallons or pending the construct-ion thereof the flow of water over Bell Weir is more than 265,000,000 gallons the quantity of water in excess of 24,500,000 gallons which the Company will in such day be entitled to obtain, draw, impound, or take shall not exceed the quantity flowing on that day over the said Penton Hook Weir or Bell Weir, as the case may be, in excess of 300,000,000 gallons or 255,000,000 gallons, as the case may be:
  Provided also that the Company shall not obtain, draw, impound, or take the water of the river Thames at such times, in such manner, or to such extent as to prejudice or affect the rights respectively of the Lambeth Waterworks Company, of the Grand Junction Waterworks Company, of the West Middlesex Waterworks Company, or any of those companies respectively under their respective Acts or agreements with the Corporation of the City of London or the Conservators, or to prejudice the right of the East London. Waterworks Company under the East London Waterworks (Thames Supply) Act 1867, to take or so as to prevent the East London Waterworks Company from taking water from the Thames as in that Act provided.
  Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to confer upon the Company any priority of right to take water from the river Thames or any tributary thereof as against any company,

  1393
  body, or person already, or who may hereafter be, empowered by statute to take water therefrom, or any of the following companies already empowered, by who may hereafter be empowered by statute, to take water therefrom, that is to say, the East London Waterworks Company, the Lambeth Waterworks Company, the Grand Junction Waterworks Company, and the West Middlesex Waterworks Company, or to affect in any way the stipulations and provisions, either expressly or in fact, contained in the Staines Reservoirs, etc., Act 1896 for the protection or benefit of the said companies or any of them.
  Amendment made: Paragraph (3), after the words "conservators," omit the words, "of the River Thames (in this Act referred to as 'the Conservators')."—(Earl of Morley.)
  Clause 3,—
  PAYMENT TO CONSERVATORS.

  (1.) In this section the expression "average daily excess quantity" means the average of the quantities of water in excess of 24,500,000 gallons respectively obtained, drawn, impounded, or taken for the purpose of supply by the Company from the river Thames (including water from Platt's Eyot) in the several days of twenty-four boars, calculated from midnight to midnight, during the half-year ending in the twenty-third day of June or the twenty-fourth day of December, as the case may be.

  (2.) So long, hut so long only, as the Company take any water from the River Thames in excess of 24,500,000 gallons in any day of twenty-four hours calculated as aforesaid, the Company shall pay to the Conservators on the twenty-fourth day of June and the twenty-fifth day of December in each year the Sums hereinafter prescribed, and the provisions of Sections 293 (Contributions of Companies to be first charge on their receipts) and 294 (Payments of Companies to be without deduction and free front taxes, etc.) of the Thames Conservancy Act 1894 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to such half-yearly payments. and the money payable to the Conservators under this Act shall be, in addition to and irrespective of any payments to be made to them under any other Act or under the hereinbefore recited indenture, made the first day of July, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-two, or agreement made the twenty-third day of December, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six.

  (3.) The sums payable half-yearly as aforesaid shall be—

  (a) From and after the passing of this Act until the average daily excess quantity shall have first exceeded 5,500,000 gallons, the sum of five hundred and twenty-five pounds and five shillings;

  (b) From and after such time as the average daily excess quantity shall have first exceeded 5.500,000 gallows until such quantity shall have first exceeded 10,500,000 gallons the sum if one thousand and two pounds and fifteen shillings;

  1394

  (c) From and after such time as the average daily excess quantity shall have first exceeded 10,500,000 gallons until such quantity shall have first exceeded 10,500,000 gallons, the sum of one thousand two pounds and fifteen shillings, and a sum calculated at tile annual rate of one hundred and ninety-one rounds per million gallons by which such quantity shall in the then last Mast half-year have exceeded 10,500,000 gallons;

  (d) From and after such time as the average daily excess quantity shall have first exceeded 13,500,000 gallons until such quantity shall have first exceeded 16,500,000 gallons, the sum of one t thousand four hundred and eighty pounds and five shillings;

  (e) Front and after such time as the average daily excess quantity shall have first exceeded 15,500,000 gallons until such quantity shall have first exceeded 18,500,000 gallons, the sum of one thousand four hundred and eighty pounds and five shillings, and a sum calculated at the annual rate of one hundred and ninety-one mounds per million gallons by which such quantity shall in the then last past half-year have exceeded 15,500,000 gallons;

  (f) From and after such' time as the average daily excess quantity shall have first exceeded 18,500,000 gallons, the slim of one thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven pounds and fifteen shillings.

  (4.) The Conservators shall carry to the Upper Navigation Fund, constituted by the Thames Conservancy Act 1894, all sums paid to them under this Act.

  Amendments made: Sub-section (2), after the words "any other Act or under," to omit the words, "the herein-before recited," to insert the word "an."—(Earl of Morley.)
  Sub-section (2), after the words, "fifty-two," omit the word "or" and insert the words,—
  "between the Company, and the Mayor and commonalty and citizens of the City of London or under an."—(Earl of Morley.)
  Sub-section (2), after the words "eighty-six," insert the words "between the company and the conservators."—(Earl of Morley.)
  Clause 4,—
  DURATION OF ACT.
  The Company shall, in the Session of Parliament to he held in the year one thousand eight hundred. and ninety-eight, introduce a local Pill for the purpose of obtaining such statutory powers of acquiring lands, constructing within eight years from the passing of this Act storage reservoirs told other works,

  1395
  and of raising and applying capital as may be necessary to make proper provision for the obtaining, drawing, impounding, and taking of water from the River Thames (including water from Platt's Eyot) in such quantities as may, after the expiration of this Act, be required by them for the purpose of fulfilling obligations imposed upon them by statute with respect to the supply of water within their limits.
  Nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect any question which any body or person other than the Conservators and the Company may at any stage of such Bill desire to raise with respect to the said Bill or any of the provisions thereof, or may desire to raise before the Royal Commission on Water Supply in the districts within the limits of supply of the Metropolitan Water Companies, or may desire to raise elsewhere; and
  Nothing in this Act contained shall be held to prejudice or affect as against the Conservators or the Company the terms provisions to be inserted in the said Bill as to the obtaining, drawing, impounding, and taking water from the River Thames or the minimum flow of water to be left in the said river or the point of gauging such minimum flow.
  This Act shall, from and after the passing of the said Bill, be, ipso facto, repealed, and shall in no case be in force after the first day of September, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHrose to move his first Amendment to Clause 4, namely, to leave out the first paragraph of the clause from "The company" to "their limits."
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid that, without going into the merits of the question, he would point out that the Bill had a curious course through Parliament in some ways. This clause was carefully considered by one of their Lordships' Select Committees, it was opposed in that Committee, and the last three paragraphs of the clause were inserted in order to provide the safeguards that his noble Friend desired, namely, to prevent questions in dispute being prejudiced by anything contained in the Bill. He ventured to think it was somewhat late to alter on the Third Reading the drafting of the clause which had been deliberately arrived at. He was informed that the Conservators very strongly objected to the proposed prolongation of time, and pointed out that large sums of money had been spent in rendering the Thames navigable for a long distance, and that to take a large quantity of water from the river at certain times rendered it un-navigable. He thought it was of importance that the company should be
  1396
  bound to come to Parliament as soon as possible, and that the shortest possible limit of time should be given to them to prepare the works which would obviously be necessary in the future. If the noble Lord would consent not to move the omission of the whole of the first paragraph of Clause 4, he would be prepared not to insist on the words to which he specially called attention, and would move to omit the words,—
  "for the obtaining, drawing, impounding, and taking of water from the River Thames (including water from Platt's Eyot) in such quantities as may after the expiration of this Act be required by them."
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid he was, of course, in the palm of his noble Friend's hand in that House, and his best course was to accept whatever was offered him and to be as thankful as possible. He admitted that the suggested Amendment would meet one of the points which he had raised, but he was very sorry that the noble Lord had not met him also on the other point. The result would be that next Session they would be practically face to face with a prolonged contest between this company and the various local authorities and the other water companies with regard to their proposal to take more water from the Thames at the very time that the Royal Commission was inquiring into the same subject. If his proposition had been accepted there would have been no further difficulty about this Bill in the House of Commons. He could say nothing now, but there was pretty sure to be some discussion on the point on which his noble Friend had not been able to meet him.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYmoved to omit from the first paragraph of Clause 4 the words "for the obtaining, drawing, impounding, and taking of water from the River Thames (including water from Platt's Eyot) in such quantities as may after the expiration of this Act be required by them."
  Amendment agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16) BILL.
  Read the Third time.

  SUPERANNUATION OF CORPORATION OFFICIALS.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper with regard to this Bill, but after conversation he had had with the authorities of the Local Government Board, he did nut intend to move it. The Bill enabled superannuation allowances to be paid by the Corporation of Birmingham to its employés. The Bill, as first introduced, provided that the employés should pay it certain sum, to be deducted front their pay, this to be supplemented by a further sum to be given by the Corporation providing out of the rates superannuation for employés who had reached a certain age, or had broken down bodily or mentally. It seemed to him and others that it was not fair to employés if they retired voluntarily before the period at which they would be entitled to their pensions, that they should lose the whole of their contributions to the superannuation fund, or the corporation rates as the case might be. But this had been remedied, and it was provided by the Bill that, if an employé voluntarily retired before he was entitled to his pension, he would receive back his payments to the superannuation fund. If this were not done it would make employés far too dependent upon their employers, because if this power were given to municipalities generally it would be difficult to refuse it to large employers of labour such as railway companies and others. In addition to the actual sums he had paid to the fund—which, after all, were deductions from a to man's pay—which he received when he voluntarily retired, he should be entitled to some percentage on the sums accruing from year to year. But, finding the Local Government Board were opposed to his Amendment, on the ground that it would create a precedent, which it would be difficult for them to deal with hereafter, he would withdraw his Amendment, which he should be sorry to move in opposition to the view of a Government Department.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill passed.

  WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  Clause 1,—
  LIABILITY OF CERTAIN EMPLOYERS TO WORKMEN FOR INJURIES.

  (1.) If in any employment to which this Act applies personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a workman, his employer shall, subject as hereinafter mentioned, be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the first schedule to this Act.

  (2.) Provided that—

  (a) The employer shall not be liable under this Act in respect of any injury which does not disable the workman for a period of at least two weeks front earning full wages at the work at which he was employed;

  (b) a hen the injury was caused by the personal negligence or wilful act of the employer or of some person for whose act or default the employer is responsible, nothing in this Act shall affect any civil liability of the employer, but in that case the workman may, at his option, either claim compensation under this Act, or take the same proceedings as were open to him before the commencement of this Act; but the employer shall not be liable to pay compensation for injury to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment both independently of and also under this Act, and shall not be liable to pay such compensation independently of this Act, except in case of such personal negligence or wilful act as aforesaid:

  (c) If it is proved that the injury to a workman is attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of that workman, any compensation claimed in respect of that injury shall be disallowed.

  (3.) If any question arises in any proceedings tinder this Act as to the liability to pay compensation under this Act (including any question as to whether the employment is one to which this Act applies), or as to the amount or duration of compensation under this Act, the question, if not settled by agreement, shall, subject to the provisions of the first schedule to this Act be settled by arbitration, in accordance with the second schedule to this Act.

  (4.) if an action is brought to recover damages independently of this Act for injury caused by any accident., and it is determined in such action that the injury is one for which compensation ought to have been claimed under this Act, the action shall not be dismissed, but the damages recoverable from the employer shall not exceed the compensation payable under this Act; and the costs incurred ill defending such action, or any part of those costs, may be ordered by the court to be deducted froth the amount of compensation so payable.

  1399

  (5.) Nothing in this Act shall affect any proceeding for a fine under the enactments relating to mines or factories, or the application of any such fine, but if any such line, or any part thereof, has been applied for the benefit of the person injured, the amount so applied shall be taken into account in estimating the compensation under this Act.

  LORD BELPERmoved in Sub-section (1) paragraph (b) to leave out "pay such compensation" and insert "any proceedings"
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid he did not see any necessity for the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BELPERmoved to leave out Sub-section (4), and to insert the following sub-section,—
  (4.) "If within six months an action is brought to recover damages independently of this Act for injury caused by any accident, and it is determined in such action that the injury is one for which the employer is not liable in such action, but that he would have been liable to pay compensation under the provisions of this Act, the action shall be dismissed; but the Judge, if he shall think fit, may himself proceed to assess such compensation and shall be at liberty to deduct from such compensation all the costs which, in his judgment, have been caused by the plaintiff bringing the action instead of proceeding under tins Act. In any proceeding under this sub-section, when the Judge assesses the compensation he shall give a certificate of the compensation he has awarded and the directions he has given as to the deduction for costs, and such certificate shall have the force and effect of an award under this Act."
  LORD RATHMOREsaid before the clause was passed he should like to refer to the notice of an Amendment he had on the Paper to leave out the clause as it originally stood in the Bill. The reason he gave that notice was that it appeared to him, and others who had great experience, that as the clause stood in the Bill it would be likely to hold out invitations to litigation in certain cases, and interfere with the policy of settlements on the line of friendly agreements and inexpensive arbitrations in a number of cases which it was the policy of the Bill to promote. He was bound to say that the alteration which had been made in the first clause, and the substitution of the Dew Sub-section (4) for the sub-section, as
  1400
  it originally stood, had entirely removed his apprehensions on the subject.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2,—
  TIME FOR TAKING PROCEEDINGS.

  (1.) Proceedings for the recovery under this Act of compensation for an injury shall not be maintainable sinless notice of the accident has been given as soon as practicable after the happening thereof, and before the workman has voluntarily left the employment in which he was injured, and the claim for compensation with respect to such accident has been made within six months from the occurrence of the accident causing the injury, or, in case of death, within six months from the time of death. Provided always that the want of or any defect or inaccuracy in such notice shall Ind. be a bar to the maintenance of such proceedings if it is found in flue proceedings for settling the claim that the employer is not prejudiced in his defence by the want, defect, or inaccuracy, or that such want, defect. or inaccuracy was occasioned by mistake or other reasonable cause.

  (2.) Notice in respect of an injury under this Act shall give the name and address of the person injured, and shall state in ordinary language the cause of the injury and the date at which it was sustained, and shall be served on the employer, or, if there is more than one employer, upon one of such employers.

  (3.) The notice may be served by delivering the same to or at the residence or place of business of the person on whom it is to be served.

  (4.) The notice may also be served by post by a registered letter addressed to the person on whom it is to be served at his last known place of residence or place of business, and if served by post shall be deemed to have been served at the time when the letter containing the same would have been delivered in the ordinary course of post, and in proving the service of such notice it shall be sufficient to prove that the notice was properly addressed and registered.

  (5.) Where the employer is a body of persons corporate or unincorporate, the notice may also lie served by delivering the ramie at, or by sending it by post in a registered letter addressed to the employer at the office, or. if there be more than one office, any one of the offices of such body.

  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved after "and" [''and the claim"] to insert "unless."
  LORD BELPERsaid he had no objection to the Amendment, which was agreed to.
  Clause 3,—
  CONTRACTING OUT.

  (1.) If the Registrar of Friendly Societies, after taking steps to ascertain the views of the employer and workmen, certifies that any scheme of compensation or insurance for the workmen in any employment is on the whole under all the circumstances of the case not less favourable to the general body of workmen and their dependants than the provisions of this Act, the employer may, until the certificate is revoked, contract with any of those workmen that the provisions of the scheme shall be substituted for the provisions of this Act, and thereupon the employer shall be liable only in accordance with the scheme, but, save as aforesaid, this Act shall apply, notwithstanding any contract to the contrary made after the commencement of this Act.

  (2.) The registrar may give a certificate to expire at the end of a limited period not less than five years.

  (3.) No scheme shall be so certified which contains an obligation upon the workmen to join the scheme as a condition of their hiring.

  (4.) If complaint is made to the Registrar of Friendly Societies by or on behalf of the workmen of any employer that the provisions of any scheme are no longer on the whole so favourable to the general body of workmen of such employer and their dependants as the provisions of this Act, or that the provisions of such scheme are being violated, or that the scheme is not being fairly administered by the employer, or that satisfactory reasons exist for revoking the certificate, the registrar shall examine into the complaint, and, if satisfied that good cause exists for such complaint, shall, unless the cause of complaint is removed, revoke the certificate. When a certificate is revoked or expires any moneys or securities held for the purpose of the scheme shall be distributed as may be arranged between the employer and workmen, or as may be determined the Registrar of Friendly Societies in the event of a difference of opinion.

  (5.) Whenever a scheme has been certified as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the employer to answer all such inquiries and to furnish all such accounts in regard to the scheme as may be male or required by the Registrar of Friendly Societies.

  (6.) The Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies shall include in his annual report the particulars of the proceedings of the Registrar Under this Act.

  LORD BELPERmoved in Sub-section (1), after "compensation," to insert "benefit." On the Committee stage of the Bill, he said, Lord Herschell made a criticism as to whether "compensation" or "insurance" covered all the matters which might be included in the purview of the Registrar under this clause. It had, therefore, been suggested that they
  1402
  should insert the word "benefit," which would no doubt make the matter clear.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved in Sub-section (4) to leave out "by the employer." He had, he said two reasons for proposing this Amendment. In the first place, he thought the words were calculated to convey a rather false impression of what the clause was really intended to mean, and, in the second place, he thought the clause would be better without them. In the Debate on Monday night, Lord Herschell pointed to these words as indicating that the schemes were to be administered by the employer. He believed that that was not the intention of the clause, and it was easy to conceive a case where the funds were being administered by some body which was composed largely, or perhaps mainly, of employés, in which some portion of those employés might obtain a majority in the governing body and might administer the funds in a manner to which a considerable number of the bénéficiaires might object. He thought that would be a very fair case for them to put before the Registrar and ask that the scheme should cease any longer to be certified on the ground that it was not being administered fairly.
  LORD BELPERsaid the Government were quite willing to accept the Amendment, leaving out the words "by the employer," on the ground that many of these schemes were administered by joint committees generally of workmen and employers. Very few were administered by employers alone, and it was just as important, whoever the funds were administered by, that they should be fairly administered, and that objection should be taken if they were not.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he had given notice of an Amendment to Clause 4, but if their Lordships would permit him, he would postpone it until their Lordships had discussed the Amendment which stood in the name of Lord Ellesmere, because it was possible, he understood, that it might not lie necessary for him to postpone his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid it was merely a question of wording, but their Lordships would see that the clause did not read. Sub-section (4) ran thus,—
  "If complaint is made to the Registrar of Friendly Societies by or on behalf of the workmen of any employer that the provisions of any scheme are no longer on the whole so favourable to the general body of workmen,"
  and so on. Then, further on, the Subsection read,—
  "or that satisfactory reasons exist for revoking the certificate, the Registrar shall examine into the complaint."
  Some verbal Amendment seethed to be required; perhaps the noble Lord would look into it before the next stage.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid this should be done.
  THE EARL OF ELLESMEREasked their Lordships' kind indulgence for one who was not in the habit of addressing the House. Lord Camperdown had given notice to move to reintroduce words which stood in the clause as it was put before the House originally, and their Lordships would remember that Clause 4 was then in a form which by mutual agreement was considered unintelligible, and therefore a new clause, the present clause, was inserted on the Motion of Lord Belper. In the clause as it came up to the House there were certain words which Lord Camperdown wished to reintroduce—"within the scope of the trade or business of such undertakers." He had been pressed by persons connected with the cotton manufactures to bring this Amendment under notice, and it was proposed for the purpose of carrying out what appeared to have been the intention of the framers of the clause. The words, though the clause may have been badly drawn, must have meant something—must have been meant to convey some intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government, or of whoever caused them to be inserted. He did not know if they were introduced on the Motion of a private Member in the other House, and the object of his Amendment was to carry out what appeared to have been the original intention of the clause to deal with sub-contractors. A sub-contractor was generally understood to mean a person who contracted to do part of
  1404
  the work within the usual business of the Person employing him—he did not pretend to give a legal definition—and it was not generally understood to apply to a contractor who did some work which was in the words of the Amendment, ancillary or incidental to and not part of or process in the trade or business carried on. The Amendment would not prevent the undertaker being liable for compensation to a workman employed under any sub-contractor who did part-of the process of the trade or business of such undertaker, but it would release him from liability to pay compensation to a workman employed by a contractor to do work which was not incidental to his own trade. To give an illustration which had been mentioned in the course of Debate in Committee, suppose a contractor undertook to paint a mill or factory, if he rightly understood the Bill, if an accident occurred to the painter or his man, by his falling off a ladder, the owner of the mill or factory would be liable to the payment of compensation. But if the undertaker or mill owner engaged the same contractor to paint his residence, and in carrying out the work a similar accident occurred, then under this Bill the owner would not be under liability to pay compensation. This appeared to be rather a curious state of things, and he could not help thinking that when the Bill came up from the other House, and the words he had quoted showed it, this was not intended. He did not know if the Government intended it now; he hoped they did not. It seemed absurdly unfair to make a man liable for compensation to a workman over whom he had no control, and whose competence for the work he had no means of judging. The clause as it stood provided that the undertakers should be entitled to be indemnified by the person who, independently of this section, would be liable, and he had been told, he had not sufficient legal knowledge on which to form an opinion, that this proviso would not work properly. A sub-contractor's workman might claim against an undertaker and get his award, and then when the undertaker went to be indemnified as under the Act he would be entitled to do, the sub-contractor might say, "No, I shall plead contributory negligence," or some other excuse, and he might decline

  1405
  to pay except as the result of long litigation. In a case of this kind, where the sub-contractor was a man of substance, say, for instance, a large engineering firm under contract to set up machinery, there would probably be no difficulty—and if one of their workmen were injured they, upon compensation being awarded, would pay without hesitation. Why then should not the claim be paid directly, why should there be two claims, one to indemnify for the other? On the other hand, if the sub-contractor were a small man, why should not he be equally liable? Of course, he knew the answer would be the undertaker should only deal with solvent contractors. That was all very well, and possibly that would be one result of the passing of the clause in its present state; but did the House really wish to snuff out all small and struggling employers, who, though only employing a few hands, yet would rise in scale of importance? Why should that be? The words of the Amendment supplied to him—they were not exactly his own—would, he believed, carry out the intention with which he had spoken. Apologising for hiving detained the House, and thanking their Lordships for listening to his explanation, he moved in Clause 4 "section 1," to add—
  "and that undertakers who have contracted with any other person to execute on, in, or about any works or premises, as defined by Section seven of this Act, any work which is merely ancillary or incidental to, and is no part, of, or process in, the trade or business carried on by such undertakers, shall not be liable to pay compensation under this Act in respect of any accident to the workmen of such contractor whilst engaged in executing such work."
  LORD HERSCHELLrecognised the object of the Amendment as being to restore to the clause the meaning originally intended when it came up front the other House, but he suggested that without any alteration in substance the Amendment should take a different form. As now proposed, it would form part of the proviso, but in that form it would not be so clear as it might be if the words down to "any work," in the fourth line, were omitted, and then the words added at the end of the proviso.
  THE EARL OF ELLESMEREsaid he was quite willing to adopt the Amendment in the form suggested.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid a few words from himself in support of the Amendment would obviate the necessity for his troubling the House again. The reason for an Amendment of this sort was that Clause 4, as it now stood in the Bill, was quite different from the clause as it came up to their Lordships. He quite admitted that the original clause was not in good grammar and unintelligible, and it had been said that the present clause substantially carried out what was the intention, but in reality, this substituted clause now in the Bill was very much more extensive than the clause sent up from the Commons, inasmuch as it now applied to any work of any kind or sort, while originally the clause referred to any work within the scope of the trade or business of the undertakers. It was a substantial difference, and it came to this, that if the owners of a factory or a railway were to enter into a contract with any contractor for any purpose whatsoever, they would become liable for compensation in the event of an accident to the contractor's man, simply because, besides having entered into the contract, they also had a railway, or were possessed of a factory. If it was the intention of the Government, as he believed it was, that the clause should be substantially the same as that which came up to the House, they would accept the Amendment either in its original form or as amended by Lord Herschell.
  THE PRIME MINISTER (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said that Lord Camperdown had stated rightly the object which the Government had in the Bill, and he and Lord Ellesmere were evidently speaking with the sympathy of the House when they said it was perfectly impossible to understand the clause as it came up to the House. He believed the words which had been proposed by Lord Ellesmere, amended by the noble and learned Lord opposite, would attain as nearly as it was possible to attain what they desired to get in this clause, but he did not think they would he justified in imagining that any words which they could draw up would provide a perfectly safe and reliable line in matters which were so closely connected and interwoven as these two kinds of employment. They had done their best, and they must consign their little babe to fortune. There

  1407
  was nothing more interesting to those who had often watched Committees in the House than to compare the prophecies which were made as to the meaning of a particular clause with the actuality which afterwards was revealed in the decision of the Judges. [A laugh.] They had done their best, and this was the most whole-smile form in which they could possibly place this legislation.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid the three Amendments which stood in his name were really consequential on a change which was made in the Bill in Committee. On Monday night he moved an Amendment which had for its object to bring within the continuous operation of the Bill workmen in shipbuilding yards and other cognate trades who did part of their work in the yards and part of it outside the yards. Lord Belper could not accept the Amendment as a whole, but so far as shipbuilding yards came under the definition of a factory he was willing to accept the proposition. The noble Lord rested his case on the necessity of confining the Bill strictly to workshops which came under the definition of factory in the Factory Acts. In these Amendments he had endeavoured to meet the noble Lord's objection. In the first place, for instance, he proposed to insert after "yard" in line 40, Clause 7, "or factory where iron or steel plates, bars or girders are fixed or riveted."
  LORD BEETLE, regretted that he could not give any more favourable reply to the noble Lord than he gave on Monday. In the other House there was a promise to consider whether it was possible to meet the case of men working outside shipbuilding yards, and it was in pursuance of that promise that an Amendment was put down in his name. He was informed that if the Amendment were accepted it would lead to the admission of other cases besides those contemplated by the noble Lord. On this stage it was impossible to make any further extensions.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHreminded the noble Lord that the promise given in the other House was not confined to men working in shipbuilding yards.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 8,—
  APPLICATION TO WORKMEN IN EMPLOYMENT OF CROWN.

  (1.) This Act shall not apply to persons in the naval or military service of the Crown, but otherwise shall apply to any employment by or under the Crown to which Lids Act would apply if the employer were a private person.

  (2.) The Treasury may, by warrant laid before Parliament, modify for the purposes of this Act their warrant made under Section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1887, and notwithstanding anything in that Act, or any such warrant, may approve any scheme imposed to be certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies under this Act.

  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) leave out "may" to "certified," and insert "frame a scheme with a view to its being."—(Lord Belper.)
  Clause 10,—
  COMMENCEMENT OF ACT AND SHORT TITLE.

  (1.) This Act shall come into operation on the thirty-first day of March one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight.

  (2.) This Act may be cited as the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897.

  LORD WINDSORmoved to leave out "thirty-first day of March" and to insert "first day of July." On Monday night he withdrew an Amendment to this effect, because he understood the noble Lord in charge of the Bill was prepared to consider the point. He sincerely hoped his noble Friend had been able to give the question favourable consideration.
  LORD BELPERsaid there was considerable force in the arguments the noble Lord advanced on Monday night, and the Government were willing to accept the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]

  FIRST SCHEDULE.
  SCALE AND CONDITIONS OF COMPENSATION. — SCALE.

  (1.) The amount of compensation under this Act shall be—

  (a) where death results from the injury—

  (i.) if the workman leaves any dependants wholly dependent upon his earnings at the time of his death, a sum equal to his earnings in the same employment during the three years next preceding the injury, but if the period of his engagement in such employment has been less than three years, then 156 times the average weekly earnings during the

  1409
  period of his actual engagement or. the sum of ono hundred and fifty pounds, whichever of those sums is the larger, but not exceeding in any case three hundred pounds, provided that the amount of any weekly payments made under this Act shall lie deducted from such sum.

  (ii.) if the workman does not leave any such dependants, but leaves any dependants in part dependent upon his earnings at the time of his death, such sum, not exceeding in any case the amount payable under the foregoing provisions, as may be agreed upon, or, in default of agreement, may be determined on arbitration under this Act to be reasonable and proportionate to the injury to the said dependants; and

  (iii.) if he leaves no dependants, the reasonable expenses of his medical attendance and burial, not exceeding ten pounds;

  (b) where total or partial incapacity for work results from the injury, a weekly payment (luring the incapacity after the second week trot exceeding fifty per cent. of his average weekly earnings during the previous twelve months, if he has been so long employed, but if not, then for any less period during which he has been in the employment of the same employer, such weekly payment not to exceed one pound.

  (2.) In fixing the amount of the weekly payment. regard shall be haul to the difference between the amount of the average, weekly earnings of the workman before the accident and the average amount which he is able to earn after the accident.

  (3.) The payment shall, in case of death, be made to the legal personal representative of the workman, or, if he has no legal personal representative, to or for the benefit of his dependants, or, if he leaves no dependants, to the person to whom the expenses are due; and if made to the legal personal representative, shall be paid by hint to or for the benefit of the dependants or other person entitled thereto under this Act.

  (4.) Any question as to who is a dependant, or as to the amount payable to each dependant, shall, in default of agreement, be settled by arbitration under this Act.

  (5.) The sum allotted as compensation to a dependant may be invested or otherwise applied for the benefit of the person entitled thereto, as agreed, or as ordered by the committee or other arbitrator.

  (6.) Any sum which is agreed or is ordered by the committee or arbitrator to be invested nay be invested in whole or in part in the Post Office Savings Rank by the Registrar of the County Court in his name as Registrar.

  (7.) Any sum to be so invested may be invested in the purchase of an annuity from the National Debt Commissioners through the Post Office Savings Bank, on be accepted by the Postmaster General as a deposit in the name of the Registrar as such, and the provisions of any statute or regulations respecting the limits of deposits in savings bank, and the declaration to be made by a depositor, shall not apply to such sums.

  1410

  (8.) No part of any money invested in the name of the Registrar of any County Court in the Post Office Savings Bank under this Act shall be paid out, except, upon authority addressed to the, Postmaster General by the Treasury or by the Judge of the County Court.

  (9.) Any person deriving any benefit from any moneys invested in a post office savings bank under the provisions of this Act may, nevertheless, open an account in a post office savings bank or in any other savings bank in his own name without being liable to any penalties imposed by any statute or regulations in respect of the opening of accounts in two savings banks, or of two accounts in the same savings bank.

  (10.) Any workman receiving weekly payments under this Act shall, if so required by the employer, from time to time submit himself for examination by a duly qualified medical practitioner provided and paid by the employer. If the workman refuses to subunit himself to such examination, or otherwise obstructs the same, his right to such weekly payments shall be suspended until such examination has taken place:
  Provided that if the workman objects to such examination he may appeal to the arbitrator, whose decision shall be final.

  (11.) Any weekly payment /nay be reviewed at the request either of the employer or of the workman. and on such review may be ended, diminished, or increased, subject to the mum above provided, and the amount, of payment shall, in default of agreement, be settled by arbitration under this Act.

  (12.) Where any weekly payment has been continued for not less than twelve months, the liability therefor may, on the application by or on behalf of either the workman or the employer, be redeemed by the payment of a !man sum, to be settled, in default of agreement, by arbitration under this Act, but not exceeding three hundred and twelve times the weekly payment payable at the date of the application, and such lump sum may be ordered by the committee or arbitrator to be invested or otherwise applied as above mentioned.

  (13.) A weekly payment shall not be capable of being assigned, charged, or attached, and shall not pass to any other person by operation of law.

  (14.) Where a scheme certified under this Act provides for payment of compensation by a friendly society, the provisions of the proviso to the first, sub-section of Section eight, Section sixteen, and Section forty-one of the 'Friendly Societies Act 1896 shall not apply to such society in respect of such scheme.

  (15.) In the application of this schedule to Scotland the expression "registrar of the, County Court" means "Sheriff Clerk of the county," and "Judge of the County Court" means "Sheriff."

  (16.) In the application of this Act to Ireland, the provisions of Ireland County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act 1877, with respect to money deposited in the. Post Office Savings Bank under that Act shall apply to money-invested in the Post Office Savings Dank under this Act.

  Amendments made: In paragraph (i) leave out "same employment" and insert "employment of the same employer"; leave out
  "but if the period of his engagement in such employment has been less than three years, then 156 times the average weekly earnings during the period of his actual engagement";
  at end of same paragraph insert:—
  "and if the period of the workman's employment by the said employer has been less than the said three years, then the amount of his earnings during the said three years shall be deemed to be one hundred and fifty-six times his average weekly earnings during the period of his actual employment by the said employer."—(Lord Belper.)
  LORD BELPERmoved at the end of Sub-section (3), after "accident," to insert:—
  "and to any payment not being wages which he may receive from the employer in respect of his injury during the period of his incapacity."
  The object of the proposal was that in fixing the amount of the weekly payment regard should be had not only to the difference between the amount of the average weekly earnings of the workman before the accident and the average amount which he was able to earn after the accident, but also as to whether any payment in wages had been received for the injury already. In other words, it was intended that what was called smart money should be deducted from the compensation which was paid.
  LORD HERSCHELLasked if the words "not being wages" should appear in the Amendment. The arbitrator was told to take into account the man's wages, but he was rather puzzled by the words "payment not being wages."
  THE PRIME MINISTERsaid that the words were introduced in view of a certain ambiguity of phrase which prevailed in some districts. It was not uncommon for employers to give what was called succour, and that they gave to men who were off in consequence of ill-health and injury. To that succour was given the name "ill-wages." The words "not being wages" could not possibly do any harm.
  THE EARL OF DURHAMsaid he was glad the Amendment had been moved. When he moved the Amendment last
  1412
  week he did so because he thought it very fair to both employers and employed. He did not quite understand when the period of incapacity began—whether at the beginning of the third week after the accident, or whether the arbitrator would have to take the first two weeks into consideration. The employers in Durham had no wish to have smart money pail during the first fortnight deducted.
  THE PRIME MINISTERsaid the employer could, of course, give what he liked to the injured man. No words could prevent him from giving money to the injured man if he so pleased. Incapacity had nothing to do with the amount of money the man was receiving, and the definition was not controlled by the act that no claim arose in respect of the first fortnight.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he was glad to endorse what had fallen from the Earl of Durham, and also to know from the Prime Minister that he realised that the employers of Northumberland and Durham had been giving smart money to their employés. It was of great advantage that the arbitrator should know that the smart money had been a free gift by the employers for many years past, and the employers did not in any way consider it part of the wages. He agreed that the smart money should be continued. It would certainly benefit the men to a greater extent than would the Bill, for the simple reason that a man received money to go on with from the employer during the first fortnight. It had been of enormous benefit to the men in the past.
  LORD HERSCHELLthought the Amendment would enable the arbitrator to take into account the suns received during the first fortnight. He suggested the words "during the period of his incapacity after the commencement of the time for weekly payments as herein mentioned."
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDthought his noble and learned Friend had misunderstood the intention of the Government. It had intended to take into account moneys paid by the employer during the first fortnight.
  LORD SHANDsaid that if the employer said he did not -wish the money to be taken into account the arbitrator would not do it.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: Certainly not.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid that in the fourth clause there was a provision that "the undertakers shall be entitled to be indemnified by any other person who would have been liable independently of this section." The only person entitled to require medical inspection was the employer. Therefore in some cases the real person interested had no power to employ a medical man. He moved an Amendment providing that any person by whom the employer was entitled to be indemnified should have the power to employ a medical man as well as the employer.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: We have no objection to that.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BELPERmoved a new subsection providing that where a workman has given notice of an accident he shall, if required by the employer, submit himself for medical examination, and that if he refuses to do so his right of proceeding under the Act shall be suspended until he submits. He said the sub-section was introduced to meet the case mentioned by Lord Windsor. In the case of an accident it might be desirable in the opinion of the employer to find out the state of the workman immediately after notice of the accident had been given, because it might happen that the actual inquiry into the matter might not take place for several months.
  LORD WINDSORsaid he would like to explain the course he was about to take. He was very grateful to the noble Lord for moving the Amendment which practically covered the ground he endeavoured to cover on the Committee stage; but at the same time the alteration in Sub-section 10 was of such a nature that if it were not pressed, he would be content to see this sub-section left out. Subsection 10 was now so much altered that on the whole he and those with whom he acted would prefer to see the Bill remain as it was, wit bout this new sub-section.
  LORD BELPERthought the House had better confine itself to this Amendment, which seemed reasonable and necessary.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BELPERmoved a further Amendment to Sub-section (10), to the effect that if a workman objects to the employer's medical man or to his report, he may submit himself for examination to one of the, medical men appointed for the purposes of the Act, whose certificate shall be conclusive evidence of his condition.
  THE PRIME MINISTERsaid the clause was so essentially just that the observations of his noble Friend Lord Windsor puzzled him a little, and he would be glad to know why he objected to it.
  LORD WINDSORsaid that the objection he took was to the latter words, namely, that the opinion of the Government medical man should be conclusive evidence of the man's condition. They seemed to imply that the employer could not after that go before the arbitrator.
  THE PRIME MINISTERsaid that the only thing settled was the condition of the man when examined by the medical man. That was only one of the facts of which the arbitrator would have to judge.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid that under the clause the injured man might repudiate the employer's medical man, and insist on taking the opinion of the Government medical man, and that opinion would be absolutely conclusive.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (10), leave out "otherwise" and insert "in any way"; leave out from the same sub-section the words,—
  "provided that if the workman objects to such examination he may appeal to the arbitrator whose decision shall be final."—(Lord Belper.)
  LORD WINDSORmoved the omission of Sub-section (10) in order to substitute for it the following words,—
  "Where any weekly payment has been continued for not less than six months the liability therefor may, on the application by or on behalf of the employer, be redeemed by the

  1415
  payment of a lump sum, to be settled, in default of agreement, by arbitration under this Act, and such lump sum may be ordered by the committee or arbitrator to be invested or otherwise applied as above mentioned.
  The effect of the Amendment was that the maximum sum of 312 times the weekly payment was abolished, the fixing of the maximum being left entirely to the arbitrator; and only the employer was given the right to apply for commutation of the amount. He preferred the subsection as it stood unamended; but, as some Amendment was deemed necessary, he understood the Government were willing to accept his words.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I should like to know why the workman is not to apply for commutation.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: The noble Lord is so accustomed to negotiations that he will understand that where something is given on one side something must be given on the other. I understand the words moved by the noble Lord are assented to by the representatives of the men. The sub-section as it stands is impossible. It has created great discontent in the minds of the employers; but the Amendment is accepted by both sides.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: Insert after "payment," in Sub-section (13), "or a sum paid by way of redemption thereof"; after "law," at the end of the sub-section insert, "nor shall any claim be set off against the same."—(Lord Belper.)

  SECOND SCHEDULE.
  ARBITRATION.
  The following provisions shall apply for settling any matter which under this Act is to be settled by arbitration:—

  (1.) If any committee, representative of an employer and his workmen, exists with power to settle matters under this Act in the case of the employer and workmen, the matter shall, unless either party objects, by notice in writing sent to the other party before the committee meet to consider the matter, be settled by the arbitration of such committee, or be referred by them in their discretion to arbitration as hereinafter provided.

  (2.) If either party so objects, or there is no such committee, or the committee so refers
  1416
  the matter or fails to settle the matter within three months from the date of the claim, the matter shall be settled by a single arbitrator agreed on by the parties, or in the absence of agreement, by the county court judge according to the procedure prescribed by rules of court, or if in England the Lord Chancellor so authorises, according to the like procedure, by a single arbitrator appointed by such county court judge.

  (3.) Any arbitrator appointed by the county court judge shall, for the purposes of this Act, have all the powers of a county court judge, and shall lie paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament in accordance with regulations to be made by the Treasury.

  (4.) The Arbitration Act 1889, shall not apply to any arbitration under this Act; but an arbitrator may, if he thinks fit, submit any question of law for the decision of the county court judge, and the decision of the judge on any question of law, either on such submission, or in any case where lie himself settles the matter under this Act, shall be final; unless within the time and in accordance with the conditions prescribed by rules of the Supreme Court either party appeals to the Court of Appeal; and the county court judge, or the arbitrator appointed by him, shall, fur the purpose of an arbitration under this Act, have the same powers of procuring the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents as if the claim for compensation had been made by plaint in the county court.

  (5.) In any arbitration under this Act any party may, subject to rules of court, appear by any person duly appointed on his behalf.

  (6.) The costs of and incident to the arbitration and proceedings connected therewith shall be in the discretion of the arbitrator. The costs, whether before an arbitrator or in the county court, shall not exceed the limit prescribed by rules of court, and shall be taxed in manner prescribed by those rules.

  (7.) Where the amount of compensation under this Act shall have been ascertained, or any weekly payment varied, or any other matter decided, under this Act, either by a committee or by an arbitrator or by agreement, a memorandum thereof shall be sent by the said committee or arbitrator, or by any party interested, to the registrar of the county court for the district in which any person entitled to such compensation resides, who shall, on being satisfied as to its genuineness, record such memorandum in a special register without charge, and thereupon the said memorandum shall for all purposes be enforceable as a county court judgment. Provided that the county court judge may at any time rectify such register.

  (8.) Where any matter under this Act is to be done in a county court, or by to or before the judge or registrar of a county court, then, unless the contrary intention appear, the same shall, subject to rides of court, be done in, or by, to, or before the judge or registrar of the county court of the district in which all the parties concerned reside, or if they reside in different districts, the district in which the accident out of which the said matter arose occurred, without prejudice to any transfer in manner provided by rules of court.

  1417

  (9.) The duty of a county court judge under this Act, or of an arbitrator appointed by him, shall, subject to rules of court, be part of the duties of the county court, and the officers of the court shall act accordingly, and rules of court may be made both for any purpose for which this Act authorises rules of court to be made, and also generally for carrying into effect this Act so far as it affects the county court, or an arbitrator appointed by the judge of the county court, and proceedings in the county court or before any such arbitrator.

  (10.) No court fee shall be payable by any party in respect of any proceeding under this Act in the county court prior to the award.

  (11.) Any sum awarded as compensation shall he paid on the receipt of the person to whom it is payable under any agreement or award, and his solicitor or agent shall not be entitled to recover from him or to claim a lien on the said sum awarded for any costs except such as have been awarded in the arbitration.

  (12.) The Secretary of State may appoint legally qualified medical practitioners for the purpose of this and any committee, arbitrator, or judge may, subject to regulations made by the Secretary of State and the Treasury, appoint any such practitioner to report on any matter which seems material to any question arising in the arbitration; and the expense of any such medical practitioner shall, subject to Treasury regulations, be paid out of moneys to he provided by Parliament.

  (13.) In the application of this schedule to Scotland—

  (a.) "Sheriff" shall be substituted for "county court judge," "sheriff court" for "county court," "action," for "plaint," "sheriff clerk" for "registrar of the county court," and "act of sederunt" for "rules of court."

  (b.) Any memorandum referred to in paragraph eight of this schedule may be competently recorded for execution in the books of council and session or sheriff court books, and shall lie enforceable in like manner as a recorded decree arbitral.

  (c.) Any application to the sheriff as arbitrator shall be heard, tried, and determined summarily in the manner provided by the fifty-second Section of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1876, save only that parties may be represented by any person authorised in writing to appear for them, and subject to the declaration that it shall be competent to either party within the time and in accordance with the conditions prescribed by act of sederunt to require the sheriff to state a case on any question of law determined by him, and his decision thereon in such case may be submitted to either division of the Court of Session, who may hear and determine the same finally, and remit to the sheriff with instruction as to the judgment to be pronounced. Paragraph four of this schedule shall not apply to Scotland.

  (14.) In the application of this schedule to Ireland the expression "county court judge" shall include the recorder of any city or town.

  Amendments made:—Leave out, "the said sum awarded for any costs except such as have been awarded in the arbitration," and insert,—
  "or deduct any amount for costs from the said sum awarded, except such sum as may be awarded in the arbitration on an application made by either party to determine the amount of costs to be paid to the said solicitor or agent, such sum to be awarded subject to taxation and to the scale of costs prescribed by rules of court."
  In Sub-section (12), paragraph (b), leave out, "memorandum referred to in paragraph eight of this schedule," and insert, "award or agreement as to compensation under this Act"; leave out the words "paragraph four" in the sentence "Paragraph four of this schedule shall not apply to Scotland," and insert as a new sub-section "Paragraph four and seven."—(Lord Belper.)
  On the Motion of Lord BELPER, Standing Order XXXIX was dispensed with.
  LORD BELPERmoved, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."
  Motion agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid that his noble Friend Lord Salisbury, on the Second Reading Debate, did him the honour of referring to the little circular he had sent round to the Peers inviting them to help him in the resistance which he purposed to offer to the Bill as his "sermon." He accepted the term. Sermons varied greatly; some were eloquent and enthralling and others—pace the right reverend Bench—were prosy and soporific, but all sermons were expositions of truth, and he hoped the truths contained in his sermon had gone home to his noble Friend. At any rate, his noble Friend ought to be pleased with a sermon the text of which was the noble Marquess's own dictum, that "Liberty is the noblest idol before which any man could bow." He would have gladly moved this Motion on the Second Beading of the Bill, but he postponed it at the solicitation of the Marquess of Londonderry, who had said that, if there was not a good Division upon it, it would be injurious to the Amendments they had in view. He therefore yielded under the impression

  1419
  that his noble Friend meant business, that he would have brought into action some great one-hundred-ton gun charged to the muzzle with destructive projectiles; but it turned out that the weapon of his noble Friend had nothing in it but blank cartridge. [Laughter.] The Amendments moved by his noble Friend dealt only with mere matters of detail. There was only one Amendment which to his mind meant business. That was the Amendment proposed by Lord Rathmore to strike out, of the Bill the infamous and unjust provision that a man was to be responsible for the acts of another man whom he did not know and over whom he had no control or authority. He thought it was a strange thing that that House, which in the matter of justice was the last Court of Appeal, should have allowed such a gross injustice to be perpetrated. He looked upon this Bill as the embodiment of the evil and mistaken legislation which had been going on in this country for the last 27 years, ever since Mr. Gladstone introduced the system of State interference with contracts in what was generally known as the Compensation Clause for Disturbance in the Irish Land Bill of 1870. The original intention and object of Governments was to act as police, and to make men safe in the possession of their property and of their individual liberty. But the character of recent legislation had been the reverse of that. It had interfered with the individual; it had interfered between employer and employed, owner and tenant; had made, forbidden, and modified contracts; and to do this it had taken the property of the few, as in Ireland, and transferred it to the many without compensation. The fact was, Governments had taken to playing the part of Providence, and had dismissed the economical doctrines of supply and demand to the four winds of heaven. In their political legislation, however they adhered to those doctrines, and if a demand were backed by sufficient votes the supply of legislation was not wanting. He had received many letters on this question, two of which he would read extracts from. The first gave the view taken of the Bill by the manager of a great private coal estate. This gentleman had sent him some figures, with which he would not trouble their
  1420
  Lordships, and said these figures showed the definite minimum effect of the Bill en that estate. He continued,—
  "I say minimum effect, because the amount which may ultimately be traced to malingering is not possible to estimate. In reading through our figures it must be remembered that ours is not a dangerous district. I mean we have never had disasters from explosions of gas. To raise the price of coal is the only advice and consolation given to us, but no such advance is possible except after a long period, and as a direct consequence of the closing of the weaker collieries through the operation of the Bill. That many such collieries will ultimately close if the Bill passes is certain. The Bill is grossly unjust in principle. Admitted, if you like, that accidents should be compensated for (they are already done so by increased wages being paid to risky employment): why should employers only bear the brunt; and why should not the workmen also subscribe? For, apart from the money value of their subscription, we should then, as we do now, have their moral support in defeating the impositions of the idle and the shammers. Or, take another view; assuming that the average selling price of coal throughout England is 6s. a ton, of which 5s. 6d. is wages, and 6d., or less, profit; why should all accidents come out of the 6d. and nothing out of the 5s. 6d.?"
  He had another letter from a gentleman who was a printer, and who said that if this Bill passed, and any accident happened in his printing office, he would be ruined. But he would read them some extracts from the great Liberal organ of the north of England, The Newcastle Chronicle, the proprietor of which was Mr. Joseph Cowen, who used to be one of the most able and eloquent Members in the House of Commons, and one of the most thoroughly honest and true Liberals. He said,
  "The so-called Workmen's Compensation Bill, described by Sir James Joicey as the most important and the most socialistic Measure submitted to Parliament for half-a-century, and by Mr. Fenwick as the boldest stride in the direction of collectivism that any Government has yet ventured to take, has passed its Second Reading in the House of Commons without discussion." "The Measure is a Wages Reduction Bill; and, because it is a Wages Reduction Bill, it is also a Strike Fomentation Bill. It is likewise, as the majority of those who took part in the Debate admitted, an Accident Promotion Bill, and a Malingerers' Encouragement Bill. But it is more than that, it is a Compensation Out of Employment Bill. The Bill, should it become an Act, will lead to the discharge of old workmen, or men who have impaired sight or hearing, of men who are below the average in dexterity, and of men who are addicted to intemperance."
  He further said:—
  "We find that Mr. Asquith in his speech said, the larger share of the burden will fall upon wages, and that the other portion will be imposed upon an industry in which the margin of profit has reached almost the vanishing point."
  That was what a competent authority on these questions said, mid he believed that that paper was taken in by the workmen in the mining industry. It had been pointed out that the Bill did not include the agricultural labourer. Its authors admitted it to be incomplete, and a right hon. Gentleman had boasted that the Bill was not logical. But he (Lord Wemyss) would tell them what was logical—germs—germs are always logical, and it was certain that the Bill would be extended further, and before long they might find its principle in their kitchens and domestic households. Indeed he had happened to dine at Mr. Asquith's the day they had discussed in the House of Commons the admission or exclusion of different industries, and he had said to Mr. Asquith how childish it was to attempt to draw vain distinctions, as the day would certainly come when, if his cook scalded her hand or his housemaid broke her nose through falling downstairs, he would have to pay them compensation, and rightly, as they were of the weaker sex and more needed protection. Let him now say a word with reference to the position of the Government to the Conservative Party in regard to this matter. A General Election took place two years ago which placed the Conservative Government in an enormous majority. What did that election turn on? He had stated in that House when he undertook a review of the situation in the autumn of 1595, that he knew for a fact—at least it Was told to him as a fact—that Captain Middleton, the chief agent of the Conservative Party, told his noble Friend (Lord Salisbury) and the Conservatives that that election meant that the middle classes and the best of the working classes repudiated and were tired of this perpetual interference with their affairs by Parliament; that this Parliament had been returned not to bring on Measures of that kind—but practically to do nothing—and remember this Bill was due not to pressure from without but from within. He had spoken of the pressure from
  1422
  within, and his noble Friend (the Prime Minister) had accepted the soft impeachment that he was more or less carrying out speeches and proposals made during the last election.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: I said our action represents the speeches we ourselves have made.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid he was not sure whether his noble Friend would go the whole hog, or was prepared to go the whole length of the proposals then made—he trusted not, for he remembered that in the House in 1895 he described certain proposals put before the country as a saccharine policy; these were seven in number and he had called them legislative lollypops. Here was what they were:—Old Age Pensions, Workmen's Dwellings' Bill, Poor Law Reform, Compensation to Injured Workmen, Increased Power to Local Authorities for the better Housing of the Poor, the Prevention of Pauper Immigration, and Shorter Hours for Shop Assistants. That was the programme of a very distinguished Member of Her Majesty's present Cabinet, the right hon. Mr. Chamberlain. He (Lord Wemyss) did not know—he only hoped it could not be so—whether the noble Lord who was at the head of the Government had swallowed all these lollypops. [Laughter.] At any rate, two of them had been disposed of. The first was the awkward question of Old Age Pensions. There was nothing so convenient as shunting a question by a Commission, and that difficult question had been got rid of by being sent to a Commission. Now they had got this Compensation to Injured Workmen Bill, which made two they could account for. How about the other five? Time and history would tell. At present he did not know; but the result of this Bill was that liberty and property had been more or less raided, and, although the Bill might not annex Johannesburg, at any rate he knew one thing that had been annexed, and that was the Conservative Party. Let them see for a moment what the result was of this policy upon the Conservative Party, so far as he knew and heard it outside at the present time. The licensed victuallers, when the Government came into power, had full hope that justice would be done to them, because his noble Friend at the head of the Government had advised them to wait

  1423
  until a Conservative Government was in power, and then, probably, they might hope for justice. But no sooner was he in power than that question also was tied up indefinitely by being sent to a Royal Commission. Now as to the Irish landlords? When they rejoiced over the return of a Conservative Government did they expect Mr. Gerald Balfour's Bill? He rather thought not, and as the licensed victuallers were now hostile to the Government he could hardly believe that the Irish landlords could be very friendly. As regarded the employers, he did not think there was much in this Bill to attract their affection and love to the Government. He had got with him a letter, which he should not trouble them to read, from Lord Grimthorpe—and he knew others who were quite as disgusted as he was with what was going on—stating that he (Lord Grimthorpe) intended to withdraw all subscriptions from the Conservative Party. And then all who worshipped the idol of the Prime Minister felt more or less disappointed and betrayed. And after all what had the Bill done for the Government? Nothing delighted or amused him more on the Second Reading of this Bill than to see that no sooner had it been brought in—of course on purely philanthropic grounds, and for the purpose, more or less, of pleasing the workmen—their noble Friends (Lord Ripon and Lord Kimberley), trumped the whole thing at once by saying: "it is a very good Bill so far as it goes; and an excellent thing, no doubt, to do justice to the working men, but you must not draw these distinctions; it is a Bill which must apply to all, and the cost must not come out of the employers' pockets only, but be made a common public charge." He supposed they meant to include cooks and housemaids. Here they had squared the employers. Was it right that the money should only come out of the pockets of the employers? No. If the State chose to go in for that kind of legislation, let right rev Prelates pay and every one else—right rev. Prelates who trooped into the Lobby led by their Archbishop—a very Canterbury Pilgrimage—to cast burdens on the employers which they should also share. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] He said let every one pay. If that was to be done—and he thought when the time came the country
  1424
  would say—unless it said "a plague on both your Houses"—"let us get rid of this grandmotherly legislation"—that justice and right lay on the side of the Opposition in dealing with this subject, and not with the supporters of the Government. He did not know that he need trouble them with any further remarks. He thought their Lordships had lost a great opportunity of raising the character of the House, such as would possibly never return, and that was by showing their independence, and that they were not simply blind followers of their Leader, because no reasonable man could doubt—he was speaking of what the belief outside was—that if this Bill had been brought in by the present Opposition, the Government of his noble Friend and the whole Conservative Party would have kicked it out as an uncalled-for and unclean thing. ["Hear, hear!"] Be that as it might, he regretted that their Lordships, who were the body supposed to check and override all rash and unprincipled legislation, had not, on this vital occasion—to the great disappointment and loss of prestige of the House—struck a stalwart blow in defence of liberty and against the retrograde legislation to which the earlier portion of his remarks referred. He should like to read to their Lordships from a grand speech made by Mr. Joseph Cowen at Newcastle on the occasion of the celebration of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, when he reviewed the whole reign, and the great and the good work that had been done during the time of Her Majesty's wondrous and blessed reign, and ended with this:—
  "Invidious privileges, unmerited disabilities, and mortifying distinctions, political, civil, and ecclesiastical, which appeared necessary only through the mists of error, or which were magnified into importance only through the medium of prejudice, have been swept away. We have striven to inspire the humble with dignity, the desponding with faith, the oppressed with hope; and the British Empire has become a model of popular liberty and personal prosperity as firm as the earth and as wide as the sea. But, by an unaccountable infatuation, we are reforging the very restraints the removal of which brought us such social happiness and civic success. National character is the outcome of personal character. The strength thereof can be no more than the sum of the strength of the persons who compose it. But this obvious fact is strangely overlooked. Man, too, it should be remembered, is not clay to be moulded, or marble

  1425
  to be cut. He grows under the hand. The outline of to-day becomes the fetter of tomorrow. A statute which this year embodies a fact, next year may prescribe a bondage. Wherever there is life there is movement. As Mr. Spencer has shown, we can no more elude the laws of human development than we can elude the law of gravitation. Society is a living organisation, and if walled in by rigid mechanical apparatus it cannot fail to be dwarfed and impeded in its growth. Yet under some well-meant but purblind perversity we ate doing this. We are suppressing emulation, legislating all the initiative out of the people, and enervating them by perpetual State aid. Government is being substituted for the individual, and everything is being reduced to its inception. All we want is to, be let alone. Let us have fewer laws and less officialism, but let us strengthen the principle of law and the spirit of justice by education, and aim at making men, not machines. Then all will be well."
  These Were noble words, and as wise and true as they were eloquent, and he himself had ever worshipped at that idol which his noble Friend held up to them for worship, and as to which, while speaking of it in that way, his noble Friend brought to the altar of liberty such a Bill as this. Now, he was a humble Member of their Lordships' House; he had not long to be in it; but throughout his later years he had ever done his best to tight on the side of true individual liberty, to resist State and official interference with men in their ordinary concerns of daily life, between employer and employed, or between anyone who has to do with the trade and commerce of this great manufacturing country. Such had been his endeavour—to resist this State officialism, rightly or wrongly, but, be thought, the one thing above all others they should endeavour to avoid was that free-born people should become, through evil legislation, enfeebled, infantine, nurslings of the State. In the view he had taken and in the words he had spoken he had simply given expression to the deep and strong faith that was in him. He believed that liberty was the one thing, above all others that made life endurable. In the view he took of this kind of legislation he might be wrong; they, the majority, might be right. This time alone could show. But if he were wrong, he would rather be wrong with Joseph Cowen than right with Joseph Chamberlain. [Cheers and laughter.] He begged to move the Bill be read that day three months.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must call the noble Earl's attention to the
  1426
  fact that the Bill has been read a Third time. He could move that it should be passed this clay three months if he likes.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that we all heard my noble Friend put the Third Reading.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I put the Third Reading and declared the contents had it.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: Lord Wemyss's Motion for the Bill to be Read this day three months was on the Paper.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I think he was preparing to speak, and in these circumstances I should think it is by misunderstanding that he has been prevented moving that which it was his intention to move. It must be remembered that my noble Friend on the Cross Benches did not probably hear distinctly. I hope it may be in accordance with the Rules of the House that he should be allowed to move his Motion.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid there was at least one instance where a mistake having been made the House had been allowed to rectify it, and he thought this course might be adopted here.
  Question put "That the Bill be read the Third time."
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSSmoved to leave out "now" and add at the end of the Motion "this day three months."
  *THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid he would be sorry that the Bill should pass through the last stage of its journey towards the Royal Assent without a few words of cordial sympathy and sanguine support front the Episcopal Bench. He thanked the noble Earl for his taunt in remindimg the House that last Monday 20 Bishops went into the Lobby in favour of what they believed to be the cause of practical justice, of genuine liberty, and of wise and reasonable progress and reform, in a matter so closely affecting the wellbeing of the largest class in the community. That vote of theirs was an act which spoke better than many words. There were several points of view from which their Lordships had approached the consideration of this great question. Some had approached it from the point of view of those interested in great industrial undertakings, be they mines, or railways,

  1427
  or factories; others, like the noble Earl, from the point of view of those interested generally in economic science and public policy. There was, however, another and a quite different point of view from which those who sat on the Bench behind him were bound to approach a question of this sort. Most of those on the Episcopal Bench had spent, perhaps, the best years of their lives as parish clergymen. They had been day by day in intimate contact with those for whom Parliament was now endeavouring to legislate. They had been in touch with, the artisan class at close quarters, not as their employers or political leaders, but as personal friends in their homes. They had seen, as other Members of their Lordships' House did not see, the homes of the working men at times of sickness, suffering, and accident, when the irony of the words just used by the noble Earl would be apparent indeed, namely, that all the working man wanted was to be let alone! They had in this Debate. heard, possibly too exclusively, the question of collieries and the like alluded to. There was undoubtedly in a pit village, in a factory town, or among the working men connected with some great railway company, a natural and necessary esprit de corps or fellowship asserting itself in a manner which made voluntary associations for meeting special needs not only possible but easy to manage and to multiply. But in not a few trades to which this Bill would apply the conditions were very different. It had been his privilege, before he became Bishop of Winchester, to preside for some years over a diocese which contained such industrial centres as Woolwich, Chatham, Battersea., Deptford, and others. There, for the most part, there was no such esprit de corps among the working men, even among those engaged in the same occupation or working in the same factories. They came from distances, their homes were scattered, and they had comparatively little common life such as belonged to other centres like those he had spoken of. In such regions more than elsewhere it was difficult to give the spirit and vitality which every one would desire to see, to the voluntary associations about which so much had been said. But in those crowded regions, at least as much as elsewhere, were men suffering from the kinds of accidents—
  1428
  often incapacitating them for only a short period—for which this Bill was meant to find a remedy, and for which he believed it would provide a remedy that would be thoroughly efficient. Where a voluntary association would be cumbrous or unworkable, this Bill would step in and meet the need. He spoke from close practical experience in welcoming it. It was not for him to speak for Bishops who were not there, but he confessed his withers were unwrung by the taunt of the noble Earl that the Bishops went into the Lobby against the rights of property. He was one of those who did believe in the principle of throwing the cost of all accidents primarily on the trades concerned, and then, ultimately and indirectly, upon the public at large. ["Hear, hear!"] He found it difficult to believe that the prognostications of evil they had heard on this subject were likely to have any such dire fulfilment, or that the existing voluntary associations, where wisely managed by masters and men, would greatly suffer. He ventured to believe that those associations had at their root a principle of vitality which depended upon something else than purely economic considerations. If he thought this Bill was the putting of the torch to the funeral pyre of contracting-out, and the bringing to an end all voluntary associations and schemes, he for one should not have voted for the Bill. But it was not so. These schemes had something different both in their principle and in their operation to the mere working out of economic laws. They had been, and they would continue to be, far more elastic in their character than any merely legal and obligatory scheme could be. They were meant to deal, and would continue to deal, with further-reaching modes of beneficent help to those in trouble; with provision for sickness, for superannuation, and for many other things which legislation could not reasonably touch. Above all there were employers all over the land who contributed to societies like these, not because they believed in the long run they would save their own pockets, but because they were co-operating on a standard of friendly relationship with the men who were working in their employment. [Cheers.] He therefore disagreed altogether with the prophecies that these voluntary schemes would come

  1429
  to an end because of this Bill. He believed better things of our great employers of labour. Prophecies of ill were always rife at times like these when reform was in the air. Look at the factory legislation of 30 years ago, and recall the prophecies which were given utterance to then! It had been said that history was amusingly careless of the reputation of prophets, and he believed that, given a little time, they would find the forebodings of evil they had heard about this Bill vanish like their predecessors into empty air. [Cheers.]
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYacknowledged the ability of the speech in which the noble Lord had moved the rejection of the Bill, and regretted that he would be unable to follow him into the Lobby should the noble Lord carry his protest to a Division, a course which he hoped would not be adopted, and for this reason. He thought he could express the opinion of many who were connected with trade, that however just and right it might be to criticise the details of the Bill, they would not like to be considered for a moment as objecting to the principle of any Bill calculated to safeguard the lives and limbs of men engaged in dangerous occupations, or as denying the claim to compensation of men who were injured while so employed. On this ground he would be unable to vote with the noble Lord. The reason why he had ventured to trespass on the indulgence of their Lordships for a short time was because, owing to the rules of Debate he was unable to reply—he knew it would have been a feeble reply—to the very able speech, as his speeches invariably were, with which the Prime Minister wound up the Debate on Tuesday week. So able were the criticisms of the noble Marquess upon the comments put forward by noble Lords who did not agree with the details of the Bill, that if he did not try to prove that some of his arguments were open to objection, it might be considered, after the great ability with which the noble Marquess advocated the Measure, that the speech was unanswerable, and the line taken in opposition absolutely indefensible. In the first place a word or two on a somewhat personal matter. The noble Marquess in the kindest possible manner informed him that he had been guilty of a want of
  1430
  political prudence in not having recognised the fact that Mr. Chamberlain was the spokesman of the Conservative Party. He acknowledged himself guilty of that want of political prudence, but it was due to the fact that he had not been blessed with the gift of extraordinary foresight in regard to political matters. For years past he had read the speeches of the noble Marquess with the admiration and respect they deserved, and there were portions of those speeches indelibly impressed on his memory. He confessed it was with profound astonishment he heard spoken of as the spokesman of the Conservative Party a right hon. Gentleman who some years ago was described in totally different language by the noble Marquess. His mind reverted to a speech made by the noble Marquess at Watford in 1883, in which he commented at considerable length on the advocacy of manhood suffrage, the Dis-establishment of the English Church, and the views held by Mr. Chamberlain. He went on to express his surprise that with Mr. Chamberlain expressing such views Lord Granville and Lord Hartington should sit in the same Cabinet with him, and he epitomised his remarks—not to weary the House by quoting at length—by saying—
  "the exhibition was seen of Mr. Chamberlain uttering the wildest and most extreme opinions, and yet remaining the colleague of men whose horror of these opinions is well known. If no measure he taken in regard to it, if they continue to sit quietly by his side in the Cabinet, you may depend upon it being the beginning of the sure decay in Parliamentary Government of the system under winch you have flourished so well."
  A month later, alluding to Mr. Chamberlain, in a speech made at Dorchester, the noble Marquess said:—
  "But it is in domestic politics very many of us must feel with respect to the legislation which has gone on for some time past, that it is moving silently, perhaps, but steadily in a direction that is little to our minds. We are upon an inclined plane. An inclined plane leads us from the position of Lord Harlington to the position of Mr. Chamberlain, and from the position of Mr. Chamberlain to the depths over which Mr. Henry George reigns supreme."
  Though, therefore, he pleaded guilty to want of political prudence, he did not think the offence was absolutely unpardonable if he failed to recognise after

  1431
  these remarks that Mr. Chamberlain was the spokesman of the Conservative Party. ["Hear, hear!"] There was another remark the noble Marquess made, and he put it forward in all fairness, and it appeared at first sight a very plausible point. The noble Marquess—he would not say jeered—but considered it somewhat ridiculous for the coal-owning interest to look with dismay on an increase of 2d. a ton in the cost of production if the Bill became law. The remark was a perfectly fair one, the question of 2d. a ton must seem infinitesimally small, and noble Lords having no practical experience of the coal trade might naturally say, "What an outcry of coalowners about a paltry 2d. a ton." Upon this he desired to say a few words. He ventured during Debate on the Second Reading to point out that on an average production of 500 tons a day it meant an increase of expenditure of £1,125 per annum, a large sum for a colliery struggling for existence, and with hardly any margin, and his noble Friend, who was the largest colliery owner in Durham, would contradict him if he was wrong in saying that with an increase of 2d. a ton in the cost of production his collieries would cost him £17,000 more. To add this 2d. a ton, though it might seem ridiculously small, meant a very large sum to an owner struggling to maintain his colliery in working. There were three or four collieries now out of working in the county of Durham, where the difference of 2d. a ton less in cost of production would mean they would still be at work, giving employment to a large number of men. The amount did seem infinitesimal, but the House should understand what it meant. The noble Marquess went on very justly to say he had referred to Consular Reports, and that they showed how exaggerated the notion was of a burden of 2d. a ton. Genoa, he said, afforded a fair representation of what was going on in the Mediterranean, and coal prices there varied from 8s. 3d. in December to 5s. 11d. in September.
  THE PRIME MINISTERsaid "prices" was a misprint for "freights."
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he supposed that was so. The noble Marquess remarked that with such a wide difference 2d. a ton would have little effect. But the variations in the price
  1432
  of coal were very considerable as between summer and winter. Prices were very different when the days were long to what they were when days were short, when weather was warm and when weather was cold, but he reminded their Lordships that considerable differences in price were taken into calculation in considering the cost of production, and the cost of production went on over the whole year. The same result occurred with other productions, and he might bring the fact home to their Lordships by reference to agricultural produce. He had been looking through the statistics showing the average prices of British corn per quarter of eight Imperial bushels in England and Wales as ascertained under the "Corn Returns Act 1882." The prices of wheat in 1896 were, in the, week ending August 29, 22s. 4d. per quarter; in the week ending September 26, 24s. 4d.; in the week ending October 31, 30s. 9d.; and in the week ending November 28, 33s. 4d. per quarter. So that in four months there was a difference of 11s. per quarter. This was a larger difference in regard to wheat than was shown in the figures quoted in regard to coal, yet he had no doubt that any British farmer would declare that it would be ruinous to his interest to put a burden of an extra shilling upon him. for growing wheat, though the figures were proportionally much higher. The noble Marquess went on to say:—
  "To my mind, the great attraction of this Bill is that I believe it will turn out a great machinery for the saving of life."
  If that were to be the result he would be the last to say a word against it, for he fully agreed that the saving of life, the prevention of accidents, was the one question to which all owners and employers should devote themselves, and to which he maintained they had devoted themselves. He was glad to think there was an Act to provide for the greatest possible precautions in, and the closest inspection of mines, and the establishment of rules and regulations, to break which was absolutely criminal, and in addition it was to the interest of owners themselves, apart from their philanthropic feelings, to watch and carefully guard the safety of the men in their employ. But would this Measure prevent accidents, would it lead to greater precautions

  1433
  being taken? He did not think that greater precautions could be taken. He thought he had shown their Lordships that it would not be the means of preventing accidents. There was the experience of other countries to show that the higher the compensation the greater the number of accidents, the greater the number of applications. The noble Marquess, replying to a deputation of members of Provident Societies in 1893, in reference to Mr. Asquith's Bill, used these words:—
  "When it is said that the existence of the Act will be a great inducement to employers to prevent accidents, I think those who say so have forgotten how easy it is for employers to protect themselves from the pecuniary result of those accidents by insurance."
  It was not a question of insurance against pecuniary loss; these pecuniary losses would not prevent accidents, and owners felt that, while they felt that their interests were unjustly treated. Their Lordships would remember that in Debate on the Second Beading he asked his noble Friend who so ably introduced the Bill to say what deputation had waited upon the Home Secretary, what request had been made by any body of men for the introduction of this Measure. His noble Friend could not then give an answer, and said he would make inquiry, but the question was coming to ass end, and he had yet to learn whence came the demand for the Bill, and that the working men of the country had given any decided opinion in its favour. He had already stated that Mr. Wilson, the Secretary of the Durham Miners' Association, and Mr. Pickard, of the North Riding, had declared, as representing the miners' interests, that they did not want the Bill. Additional proof was given by Mr. Wilson, the Secretary of the Durham Miners' Association, and largely connected with the mining population of Northumberland, in an address to the Miners' Association, on Saturday, in the course of which he said:—Here was a Bill now in the hands of the House of Lords, which had never been demanded, never asked for by any single body of workmen in the country. There had never been a conference or a congress, there was not an association of workmen which had asked for that Bill. All that they had asked for was a Bill to make
  1434
  the employer liable for every accident for which he was responsible, either by employing defective machinery, or employing careless workmen. With that they would have been satisfied. Mr. Wilson went on to say,
  "This Bill said that for every accident that happened in the mine, whether caused by the act of God, or by carelessness, or by defective machinery, the employers should pay for it. This was unjust to the employers, and what was unjust to the employers could not be just to the workmen."
  Those were the words, not of a Conservative employer of labour, but of an advanced Radical. ["Hear, hear!"] The rev. Prelate who had just addressed them seemed to think that employers were taking a very pessimistic view with regard to the future of this Bill. He sincerely trusted they were. Nothing would give him and the noble Lords with whom he was acting greater pleasure than to find after the lapse of years that they were wrong in their calculations, that they had overestimated the dangers of the Measure, and that their apprehensions were groundless. He feared, however, that that pleasure was not in store for them.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: I suppose that as a matter of courtesy I ought to make some observations in answer to the speech of my noble Friend Lord Wemyss, but I feel that I am hampered by the difficulty that I can say nothing which has not been said before. I can scarcely say anything in my own defence which I have not said already. I will only deal with a very small portion of my noble Friend's speech. In those portions of his speech where he counts up the gains or the losses in the electioneering contest, where he decides which interest is pleased with us and which interest is angry with us, I decline to follow him; he is asking me to a servitude which I decline to accept. lint with many of his views I sympathise to a certain extent and under limitations, but I demur to the idea which appears to haunt him, that by classifying the Measure whose merits are under discussion with other Measures of whose demerits he is convinced, he thereby condemns the Measure he is attacking. It is perfectly true he objected, and I objected, to the disturbance clauses of the Act of 1870, but what has that to do with the merits of

  1435
  the Bill before the House? ["Hear, hear!"] My Lords, he has quoted many distinguished persons, Mr. Cowen and Mr. Middleton, whose name I was somewhat surprised to hear in this discussion. I doubt whether the information which has been carried to the noble Lord of Mr. Middleton's observations was stamped with the accuracy which he would desire. The objection to this Bill, as far as I can analyse it, is twofold—the objection I mean, not on account of the interests which rightly or wrongly, imagine themselves to be menaced, but the objection on the ground of economic principle. One of the objections is that the Bill will transfer a burden from one set of people to another and is thereby interfering with their rights of property. The other objection is that it fetters that liberty which we ought above all things to cherish in the lives and in the fortunes of our working classes. With respect to the transfer of property, I have already pointed out to my noble Friend that it is not the proposed Bill that is Socialistic, but the existing state of things which it will replace. My noble Friend always imagines that the Poor Law is free from all the objections of Socialism.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSS: It is a social Act.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: A social Act, but it is an Act which traverses all the principles my noble Friend is so fond of laying down, and which puts on the State the duty of providing that which, according to his principles, the individual should provide for himself. That is what the Poor Law has done. I do not say that in strict principle the Poor Law is in every respect to be defended—there are two important schools upon that subject—but it has been for three centuries part of our social structure, and I think most people will agree that its general influence not only upon the happiness of the people but upon the stability of the country has been advantageous, and not detrimental. ["Hear, hear!"] Now take the Amendment of Lord Rathmore, which seemed so reasonable. What an atrocious and infamous act to make a railway company pay for the action of some person—an entire stranger to the railway company—who has mutilated or killed some person employed on their line. But supposing a man now, under the
  1436
  existing law, laid a sleeper across the rails and killed an engineman, who paid for the support of the wife and children? The owners and farmers of the fields around who have no interest, or the very smallest possible interest, in the prosperity of the railway which passes through their country. They, at least, are the last people who, according to the strict principle of the noble Lord, ought to pay; and if we have transferred the burden from the ratepayer to the industry we have been guilty, not of a Socialistic act, but of a return to the healthier principles which my noble Friend is so fond of preaching. I refer to the principles of my noble Friend, because I regret the extraordinary line he is taking. I think he discredits the cause—not from any personal quality of his own, but by his action, he discredits the cause which he desires to serve. There is a great danger of Socialism in the present day; it is an inclined plane down which we are tending to move, it is a snare which we should avoid in all our legislation; but it is impossible to cry "Wolf" when there is no wolf there, and if you perpetually cry out "Socialism" whenever an Act for the benefit of the people is introduced, you do not weaken the Socialistic propaganda by so doing. On the contrary, you destroy the argument which will be used against it, and you give to every Socialist reasoner a basis for saying that the arguments against his views are simply imaginary, and pointing to your own extravagances as his proof. I think that is the great danger of such language as my noble Friend has used with regard to this Bill and one or two Bills besides. To my mind the line which is to be drawn in dealing with State interferences is largely affected, if not entirely governed, by the question whether you are saving property or saving life. ["Hear, hear!"] My noble Friend is the head of an organisation—I have sometimes thought he is the only member of an organisation—[laughter]—called the Liberty of Property League. The name is a most just one. Where property is in question I am guilty, like him, of erecting individual liberty as an idol, and of resenting all attempts to destroy or fetter it; but when you pass from liberty to life, in no well-governed State, in no State governed according to the

  1437
  principles of common humanity, are the claims of mere liberty allowed to endanger the lives of the citizens. ["Hear, hear!"] Look at the tyranny, according to such principles, with which you deal with sailors. You do not allow men to go to sea in any cranky ship they please; they are endangering their own lives and they are endangering the lives of other men, and for that reason their liberty must be restrained, and the State must be satisfied that the ship they go to sea in is fit to use. The same consideration applies to railways, applies to mines, applies to a thousand other things. The State lets a right and it is the duty of the State, to see to those interests which are represented by safety of the and limb in all its citizens, and the claims of property to be free from interference, however high you put those claims, must bow and give way at once if the lives of the citizens of the State are in question. Those who would examine on what road we are travelling I would ask not only to consider our progress, a lamentable progress to some extent, I admit, on the road of Socialistic development, but also to consider that series of enactments, commencing with the first successes of Lord Shaftesbury, winch have dime so much to save life and health amongst vast masses of our artisan population. That is a distinct movement. They are not isolated Acts; one has followed another. At their introduction they were met by fears of the same kind as those which my noble Friend has expressed. Their unlimited spread was freely prophesied, and every kind of danger was pointed out as likely to result from their enactment, and such fears mastered even the masculine minds of men like Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Bright. But the prophecies have not come true. On the other hand, great interests have been served, an unexpected amount of health and freedom from the causes of diseases or of death has Been introduced into our artisan population, their prosperity has been enormously increased, and, though efforts are occasionally made—the wisdom of which one is inclined to doubt—to extend the principle of those Acts further than the circumstances of the case will justify you in doing, Parliament has never moved with a hasty or rash or reckless step, but has always
  1438
  considered, with the utmost circumspection, the advance it thought it right to make in order to satisfy its supreme duty of protecting life even at a temporary cost of money. If anybody, doubts the effect of this great series of legislation, I would ask him—it is not a very severe task to put upon him—to cast his eye over Mr. Disraeli's novel "Sybil." There is in that novel a most striking picture of the straits to which our manufacturing population was reduced at that time. Compare the picture drawn there to the picture you may see now and you will see that the interference of the State, judiciously and carefully applied and with due circumspection, without fanaticism, hurry, or passion, may have a most enormous and most salutary and gratifying result in exalting the health and increasing the happiness of the people. It is very dangerous to apply the language of formula, the language of rigid principles as they are called, to discussions of this kind, and where the interests of life are in question it is very dangerous to dwell too much on the interests of property, as though they could be weighed in equal balances against each other. Such is not the case. I should be sorry to lay down in answer to the general principle of my noble Friend any general principles in return; but I do strongly demur to the accusations, not veiled accusations of mere interested motives, which he has flung at men who have desired to remedy great evils and to remove a great stain from our industries, and who in doing so have transgressed no right of property that had a claim to be regarded, and who certainly may be supported in their hopes by reflection on the splendid results which in the past in dealing with a closely analogous case have followed the efforts, even bold efforts, of those who desired to remedy and prevent some of the hardest injuries by which mankind is afflicted. [Cheers.]
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the closing words of the noble Marquess were that this was an analogous case to the well-known Factory Acts. That is a proposition I entirely deny. [Cheers.] I do not yield to the noble Marquess in my admiration of those—they were Conservatives, at least Lord Shaftesbury was—who introduced the system of Factory Acts; but the Factory Acts

  1439
  were Acts for the purpose of seeing that factories were so conducted as to secure as far as possible the health of those who were employed, and the limitation of hours, which was one of the most contested portions of those Acts, was called for because it was thought that in the case of women and children the length of hours was not consistent with the health of those employed. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Marquess repeatedly described the Bill before us as a Bill for the protection of life and limb. I find nothing in the Bill which is for the protection of life and limb. Before this Bill was introduced negligence in the employer rendered him liable, under conditions no doubt not legally entirely satisfactory, but rendered him liable to compensate the employed, and so far it was a strong inducement to him to see that accidents were not caused by his negligence. What does this Bill do? The very object of the Bill is to eliminate the question of negligence for the most part, and to say that in all cases those who suffer from accidents shall be compensated or their families when the accident is fatal. Where is there in that any additional safeguard for life and limb? It is when the life has been sacrificed or the limb has been hurt that in one case the family is secured, very properly I think, in a certain provision, and in the other case, if the man is prevented from continuing his employment or is not able to earn the same wages, he also will receive an indemnity which the employer will have to provide. But where is the security against the accident itself? It is a security against the consequences of the accident. ["Hear, hear!"] I believe myself that there will be under this Bill no sensible increase whatever in the inducements to employers to prevent accidents which may occur. Therefore I entirely deny that the noble Marquis has a sound basis for his argument when he puts it on this being a Bill for the protection of life and limb, or that this Bill is on all fours with the legislation he calls analogous. ["Hear, hear!"] The object of the noble Marquess in introducing these arguments was to counteract the argument of my noble Friend on the cross Benches, that this is, as he termed it, a Socialistic Measure. The noble
  1440
  Marque ss referred to the Poor Law. I am not any more enamoured than the noble Marquess of the practice of calling Measures by opprobrious names; but if we are to term Measures Socialistic, then I say that the Poor Law was undoubtedly a Socialistic law, and further, that this Bill is directly an extension of the same principle. The Poor Law provides that no man shall suffer from want of shelter, food, or clothing. This Bill will provide that no man shall suffer from an accident that may befall him in the means of maintenance for himself or his family. The principle is the same. The difference is that in one case the State provides subsistence.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: The parish.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I call it the State, whether the relief be given out of the rates or out of the taxes. There is no denying that rates and taxes are not the same thing, but rates must be considered to be levied from a public source by taxes imposed on certain property in this country, and we have more and more, and, I think properly, gone in the direction of relieving that particular class of property from what is considered an undue burden thrown upon it. As I said before, I believe this must be recognised as a State affair—["hear, hear!"]—and I do not believe in the justice or fairness of throwing on the employers exclusively the results of accidents they will not have the means of preventing—not merely throwing upon them, which I think would be just, the results of accidents caused by their own negligence, but throwing on them individually, on each particular employer or company, the new burden of having to provide for those accidents the result of which they cannot in a large number of cases prevent by any means in their power. I say it may be Socialistic—I am not frightened by the word—but if the people of this country are persuaded that it is not too great a burden for the country to bear to relieve the working men in these trades—or it may be in all trades—from the result of accidents, then I say that it would be perfectly fair and just, if the country so decides, that the public purse should bear the burden. It will then be distributed over all the employers of the country, and what is more, to a considerable extent over the workmen themselves. That may be

  1441
  Socialistic, but it would be fair and just, and although I approve of the principle of this Bill because it does make a provision for the workman, I do not approve of the manner in which the principle is carried into effect. The noble Marquess used one argument which I cannot help introducing. He alluded to the case of an engine-driver going from London to Birmingham, who was killed in consequence of an obstruction placed on the railway. The noble Marquess said that the result of that accident would be to entail now the payment of the maintenance of that engine - driver's family by some parish through which the engine passed.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: They might live in the parish.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Marquess knows that it is exceedingly improbable that the engine-driver's family would be residing in a small rural parish. They would be far more likely to be living in a large town. I do not think—although I must freely acknowledge that the rating argument is an extremely ingenious one—that it has very much bottom in it or that it will support such a superstructure as tins Bill creates. We may have our own opinion as to the consistency of various public men, but I think on the occasion of a Bill of this kind it is more to the purpose to consider the bearings of the Measure itself and its effect on the interests of the whole nation than the particular course pursued by certain public men or the result it may have on the interests of our Party warfare. Holding the general view I do that the Bill, as far as it goes in giving compensation, is one that may properly pass, I shall not be able to vote with my noble Friend against the Bill. [Cheers.]
  The House divided on the Question that "now" stand part of the Motion.

  CONTENTS

  69

  NOT-CONTENTS

  6

  Resolved in the affirmative.
  LORD BELPERmoved to add to Subsection (6) the words:—
  "in the case of the death or refusal, or inability to act of an arbitrator, the Judge of the County Court may, on the application of either party, appoint a new arbitrator."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In Subsection (7), after "sent," insert the words "in runner prescribed by the rules of Court" after "shall" ["who shall"], insert the words "subject to such rules"; leave out "charge" and insert "fee"; in Sub-section (9), add at end of the Subsection:—
  "and such rules may be made by the five Judges of the County Courts appointed for the making of rules under Section one hundred and sixty-four of the County Courts Act 1888, and when allowed by the Lord Chancellor, as provided by that section, shall have full effect without any further consent."—(Lord Belper.)
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid that in the words which had been added to the second schedule as follows:—
  "or deduct any amount for costs from the said sum awarded, except such sum as may be awarded in the arbitration on an application made by either party to determine the amount of costs to be paid to the said solicitor or agent, such sum to be awarded subject to taxation and to the scale of costs prescribed by rules of court,"
  the words "in the arbitration" had been inadvertently used. He moved their omission, and the insertion in their place of the words by the Arbitrator or the County Court Judge."
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BELPERmoved "That the Bill do pass."
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid he desired to call attention to what was probably the unforeseen effect of leaving out the word "employer" in Clause 3, about which there had been a little discussion. If the Committee of the workmen managing a fund or scheme mismanaged it, the Registrar of Friendly Societies, on it being shown to him that the scheme was Lot properly managed, had no alternative but to revoke the scheme, and as a

  1443
  consequence the original liability reverted back to the employer. Therefore the workman had only to mismanage a scheme in order to bring about the end of that scheme. He hardly thought that was a result which the Government foresaw.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDthought his noble and learned Friend was raising a false objection. The objection seemed to be that the workmen might intentionally mismanage their own scheme—
  LORD HERSCHELL: No; I do not mean that. He had no particular love for the clause, and he only interposed because he thought the Amendment might have gone further than the Government intended.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid there was an opportunity of considering the point elsewhere, and it would be considered elsewhere.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: Do I understand the noble Lord to desire that a scheme should go on after it had been proved that it was mismanaged? [Laughter].
  LORD HERSCHELL: No; I do not desire it should go on; but I thought the Amendment of the Government might have a larger effect than the Government intended. My only desire was to assist the Government. I am sorry now I spoke. [Laughter].
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  PARISH COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) (CASUAL VACANCIES) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be Read 33 on Tuesday next.
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be Read 3a Tomorrow.
  NAVAL WORKS BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

  OUTDOOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said its main object was to indemnify the Guardians of some Unions in Ireland against the consequences of having given outdoor relief, technically against the law, but with the sanction of the Local Government Board.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid that if he read the Bill rightly its scope was considerably beyond that which the noble Lord explained. The noble Lord said the Bill was required for the purpose of enabling certain liabilities which had been incurred by Boards of Guardians to be returned to them. That was provided by the second clause, and that he understood, but by the first clause there was to be a general power, up to a certain time, for the Local Government Board in Ireland to authorise that relief to be given. He did not quite understand what that relief was.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid he was perhaps not quite correct in saying that the only object of the Bill was to indemnify Guardians. That was the main object, but the noble Earl was correct in saving that the Bill went slightly further, and he must remind the House that a very short time had been allowed for the operation of the Bill. It only extended until the 1st day of September, and it was intended to meet certain cases of extreme poverty and distress which the Irish Government thought it advisable to grant outdoor relief to.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought the Bill contained a most extraordinary provision. He could quite understand the necessity of the policy of outdoor relief, which had always been considerably limited in Ireland, but unless there was some specific distress in respect of which it was thought there should be special relief grants, it certainly seemed a curious proceeding to relax the whole system of outdoor poor relief in Ireland for two months in order to enable the Local Government Board in Ireland to authorise anywhere they pleased that which was contrary to the principles of the Irish Poor Law. He did not remember ever having seen such a Bill, and one of which there was apparently no explanation.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDENsaid his objection to the Bill was that it enfranchised paupers in Ireland, an object which was not worthy their Lordships' House. One clause of the Bill, however, he considered important, and that was that which affected the enfranchisement of the pauper and gave him a vote the same as any other man. He was very much against that, as he had always been under the belief that taxation and representation ought to go together.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)said the Irish Government had, in view of the state of the country, considered that it was necessary and desirable that exceptional extension of the Poor Law system should be permitted during the present summer—that was, within the period ending the 1st of September. That was the general scope of the Bill, and under it, so far as those exceptional measures of relief had been extended before the passing of the Bill, it would be possible to indemnify those local authorities which had acted in that way, and who would otherwise be liable to be surcharged.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHreminded the noble Lord that the Bill had been drawn en almost the same lines as the Bill passed by Mr. Morley when he was Chief Secretary.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: As a temporary provision?
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: Yes.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: Was the franchise clause in that Bill?
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: I think so.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (EXEMPTIONS FROM PILOTAGE) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), passed, and sent to the Commons.
  POOR LAW BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order); an Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  SCHOOL BOARDS' EXPENSES BILL.
  Read the Third time.
  Clause 1,—

  PAYMENT OF SCHOOL BOARD CONFERENCE EXPENSES.
  (1.) The school board of any district may, subject to regulations made by the Education Department under this Act, pay out of the school fund—

  (a.) the reasonable expenses of any members of the board, or of the clerk to the board, in attending any conference of school boards held for the purpose of discussing any matter connected with the duties devolving upon them; and

  (b) any reasonable annual or other subscription towards the expenses of the conference.

  (2.) A school board shall not pay under this Act the expenses of more than three persons attending a school board conference.

  (3.) The Education Department may make such regulations as they think fit for regulating payments by school boards under this Act.

  (4.) Expressions used in this Act have the same respective meanings as they have in the Elementary Education Acts 1870 to 1893.

  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDmoved in Sub-section (3), after the words, "make such regulations as they think fit for regulating payments," to insert the words, "and the amount of payments." He proposed this Amendment with a view of meeting the objections which had been raised to the holding of more than one of the proposed conferences a year.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid he thought the Amendment would render the Bill more intelligible.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  JAMESON RAID.
  EARL CARRINGTONasked the Prime Minister whether, as it had been determined that no punishment or penalty was to be inflicted on those persons who were the instigators of what was known as the Jameson Raid, he did not consider that it was right and just that the commissions of Sir John Willoughby and of those officers who obeyed orders under mistaken impressions should be restored to them. The circumstances were so well known to their Lordships that he would not say anything else except to express their very earnest hope—he might say the general hope—that Her Majesty's Government might be able to see their way to consider this matter favourably.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid he should like to support the prayer of the noble Lord. He thought they all felt—he certainly did himself—that the punishment which had been inflicted upon these officers had been a very severe one. Although, of course, legally speaking, they thoroughly deserved what they had received, at the same time he thought the punishment had been very unequal. He trusted that the noble Lord might receive a sympathetic answer.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): With my noble Friend's permission, I will answer the Question. Her Majesty's Government are not aware of any reasons which would justify the restoration of their commissions to these officers. If the Parliamentary Inquiry, which has lately been concluded, had had the result of materially altering the aspect of the case, we should have been glad to reconsider our decision, and, if it could have been shown that any injustice had been done, to take steps for the purpose of redressing it. But no facts materially affecting their position have been elicited, and the Committee has made no recommendation in their favour. Their case seems to us to stand substantially where it did when the decision of Her Majesty's Government was conveyed to Sir J. Willoughby in the official letter of September 16, 1896, which has been published with the proceedings of the Committee. I quote the following passage from it,—
  "The statements now made by you only show that you had allowed yourself and others to be led into the commission of a very serious
  1448
  offence by most erroneous information as to the attitude of the Imperial authorities. Moreover, I am to observe that you disregarded the order of the High Commissioner to retire immediately from Transvaal territory. I am to add that, to an officer of your standing and experience, it should have been evident that an authority given by the Administrator of Matabeleland to organise and take part in an attack on a friendly State was ultra vires and invalid, and in such a case it was your duty to verify that authority by direct application either to the High Commissioner or to the Secretary of State."
  Nothing has, in our belief, happened since that letter was written to justify us in arriving at any other conclusion. The House will remember that 13 officers were implicated in the Raid, and that eight of these officers were, at the suggestion of the Attorney General, discharged on the ground that, although they had undoubtedly taken part in the expedition, there was nothing to show that any of them had been
  "concerned in the preparation and fitting out of, and actively engaged—or engaged at all—in, the getting up of the expedition, or that they did more than some hundreds of others did in obeying the orders of their leaders at the last moment.
  The five officers committed for trial were differently dealt with, because, to quote the words of the Attorney General, they were
  "prominently connected with the scheming, preparing, fitting out, and inducing others to join in the expedition."
  Of this offence they were convicted, and for it they were sentenced by a properly-constituted Court. It was clearly established by the evidence that they had disregarded the express orders of the Queen's direct representative to withdraw immediately from Transvaal territory. They were—I am quoting from the High Commissioner's message—directed "to return immediately," and told that—
  "This violation of the territory of a friendly State was repudiated by Her Majesty's Government, and that they were rendering themselves liable to severe penalties."
  Our decision followed the finding of the Court, and we do not consider that we ought to go behind it, nor do we admit that, even if it were shown that some of the persons concerned in the Raid have been less severely punished than these

  1449
  officers, this would of itself be a sufficient reason for asking Her Majesty to exercise her prerogative for the purpose of restoring to them the commissions which they were required to resign last year. I greatly regret that it is my duty to announce to my noble Friend a decision which may seem to him a harsh one. We are, however, unable to arrive at any other.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid this was such a serious matter for a brother officer that he need hardly apologise for trespassing upon their Lordships' time for a minute or two while he said a word in reference to the answer of the Secretary for War, which he had heard with the greatest possible disappointment. He had read a letter, dated September 15, 1896, in answer to a letter written by Sir John Willoughby. With the permission of their Lordships, he would like to read that letter. It was dated
  "H.M. Prison, Holloway, Sept. 1, 1896.
  "To General Sir Redvers Buller, V.C., G.C.B., etc.
  "Sir,—I have the honour to state that I took part in the preparation of the military expedition and went into the Transvaal in pursuance of orders received from the Administrator of Matabeleland, and in the honest and bonâ fide belief that the steps were taken with the knowledge and assent of the Imperial authorities. I was informed by Pr. Jameson that this was the fact. It was in these circumstances and on these statements that I took in time other officers with me—namely, Major II. F. White and Captains R. Grey and R. White, and the foregoing explanations apply to them, also.—I have, etc.,
  "JOHN WILLOUGHBY."
  This letter had never been withdrawn. Sir John Willoughby, who, when he signed that letter, thought Jameson had approved of the actual words, and that Jameson had seen the letter as drawn out and signed by him, was only by severe cross-examination got to admit that he might have worded it differently. But neither he nor Jameson ever denied that the effect and result of their conversation was to make Sir John Willoughby certain that the Government would not object, and he was therefore justified in saying so to his junior officers, who had no option but to obey. About these officers not having returned when in the middle of the enemy's camp and having received a message from the High Commissioner,
  1450
  as far as he could see there was no evidence to prove that this was ever shown to any junior officers. Sir John Willoughby, perhaps, got the order and read it, and wilfully disobeyed it. That he himself did not know. But there was no evidence to prove that either of the junior officers knew that this distinct order from the Government had been sent out, and he was bound to say that, as an old brother officer, knowing these officers well and what they had done, it was with the most profound disappointment and regret that he had heard the decision of the Government. It seemed to him that in this matter fair play had not been exercised, that there was one law for the rich and another for the poor, and that, although the instigators of this disgraceful and unhappy business had escaped without penalty and punishment, it had fallen on those who, after all, to the best of his belief, were only their dupes and agents. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think it would be useless on the present occasion to attempt a general review of the evidence given either during the trials or before the Parliamentary Committee. I only wish to make one observation with regard to what the noble Earl has said. He is quite mistaken when he expresses his belief that there is nothing to show that the orders sent by the High Commissioner, first from Mafeking and afterwards Irma Johannesbug, failed to reach the officers for whom those orders were intended.
  House Adjourned at Twenty Minutes past Eight o'Clock, till To-morrow, a Quarter past Four o'Clock.