Sitting of 4 March 1897

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD BILL.
  Read a Second time, and committed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIENhad on the Paper the following Notice of Motion:—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert provisions in the Bill for the extension of the Municipal Franchise to all Parliamentary voters having qualification in the municipal borough of Kilkenny, except lodgers, and to such women as would, but for their sex, have been Parliamentary voters (other than lodgers), and to provide that the lodgers' lists of the Borough shall be revised and made up by the same persons and about the same time as the Parliamentary register."
*MR. SPEAKER: The Instruction of the hon. Member is out of order. The Provisional Orders (No, 1) Bill merely enables the town of Kilkenny to take compulsory powers to acquire land for waterworks. An Instruction proposing to extend the municipal franchise would be out of order on that Bill, and therefore I cannot put it.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On the point of order, may I point out that a similar Instruction was carried last Session in regard to the Dublin Corporation Bill, which only proposed to give power to the Corporation of Dublin to charge for water which they were previously empowered to sell. This is a Bill for the construction of waterworks which will cost the citizens £60,000, and out of a population of over 11,000 there are only 247 persons entitled to vote in the municipal borough. I might also remind you, Sir, that, in the case of Armagh, last Session a similar Instruction was put upon the Paper. It was withdrawn, and in the Committee, without the knowledge of this House, clauses extending the franchise to Armagh were
1572
inserted. In view of these circumstances I was in hopes that you would see your way to allow the House to pass this Instruction, which is not opposed. I have an assurance by the Government that it is not opposed. The Corporation of Kilkenny have passed resolutions unanimously in its favour—and the Corporation is composed of four political parties—and the citizens have also, by resolution, approved it.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: The hon. Gentleman says this Instruction is unopposed. I came down to the House to oppose it, and should have persisted in my opposition had it not been ruled out of order.
*MR. SPEAKER: I am quite clear that it is out of order. As to the case of Armagh, which the hon. Gentleman mentions, the Instruction was not withdrawn until I had ruled it out of order. In the course of the Debate on the Second Reading the hon. Member who put down the Instruction asked me whether it was in order. I said it was not, and that is the reason it was withdrawn. What happened in Committee upon that Bill was not brought under my notice. If it had been, I might possibly have had something to say on the subject. As far as any statement in this House as to what took place in the Committee is concerned, I hear it now for the first time. As regards the Dublin Corporation Bill, the hon. Member who moved that Instruction gave me an assurance very similar to that which has just been given by the hon. Member for Kilkenny—namely, that it was an unopposed Instruction, and was moved by general consent; and, as it was an Instruction on a matter which had been much debated in the House, and as I understood from what was stated in the House, without any contradiction, that it was in the nature of a compromise on a subject which it was desirable to settle, and as everyone was agreed upon it, I allowed the Instruction to pass. But I expressly stated that I doubted very much whether it was in order, and that nothing, except the assurance that the Instruction was unopposed, would have induced me to have allowed it to pass. Therefore it cannot

1573
in any way be taken as a precedent, and certainly the results of allowing it to go on are not such as to encourage further experiments in the same direction. I am quite clear that this Instruction is out of order.

QUESTIONS.

  INCOME TAX FORMS.
  MR. HUDSON KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the object of Income Tax Form No. 8, list of all persons employed, to be delivered by persons employing others (whether paid by weekly wages or otherwise), under penalties, and what is the meaning of the note stating that the penalty is not incurred by omitting to include in the list the names of persons whoso total incomes respectively do not exceed £160 a year; and whether employers are expected to question all servants and workmen not returned for as to their private means; if not, whether he will cause the wording of the instructions to be altered, so as to make it clear that the responsibility of the employer in respect of this list is limited to making a true return of I salaries over £160 paid by himself to his servants?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): The form to which the hon. Member refers is issued under the authority of Section 50 of the Act 5 and 6 Vict., cap. 35, and the note is inserted because of the proviso to that section, which enacts that no one who is required to deliver such a list shall be liable to penalties for the omission of the name of any person in his employ, if it shall appear to the Commissioners for executing the Act that such person is entitled to total exemption from income-tax. I am unable to agree with the hon. Member that the responsibility of the employer is limited as he suggests. It seems to me that the law requires that, if the employer wishes to omit from the list the name of any person in his employ, he should use reasonable means to satisfy himself that the person is entitled to exemption.

  VOLUNTEER BATTALIONS (ALDERSHOT).
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if it is intended to allow provisional and other battalions of Volunteers to proceed to Aldershot for instruction in the bank holiday week in August from the metropolis and elsewhere, and in such case if definite notification thereof can be made as early as practicable, having regard to the necessity for zealous Volunteers in public and commercial offices to make arrangements several months beforehand to take their annual holiday at that period, and so devote it to the service of the country?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The 2nd inst. was the day when the proposals of Volunteer corps as to their annual camps were due at the War Office. Their applications will be considered without delay, and those for permission to go to Aldershot will be acceded to as far as circumstances will allow. Notification will be made as early as possible.

  PIERS (IRELAND).
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Clare (Major JAMESON), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in reference to the statement that the piers at Kilrush, Liscannor, and Carrigaholt, in West Clare, were built out of Imperial Funds, and not out of Irish funds, he will inquire if this is the case; and, if he finds it is not so, will he recommend a grant out of Imperial funds to make these piers effective?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The total cost of the erection of the piers at the places named in the Question was £33,324, of which £7,868 was provided by grants out of Imperial funds, £615,101 by grants out of Church funds, and £10,355 from local sources. I have already stated, with reference to the construction of piers by-means of Exchequer grants, that it is not now the practice to provide such expenditure in the Annual Estimates, out that the Government were always

  1575
  prepared to inquire into and consider each case on its own merits. With reference to Liscannor pier, the only circumstance calculated to raise a question as to its effectiveness for fishery purposes was a complaint made some time ago that the harbour was being filled with sand. The Board of Works had deepened it previously to handing the pier over to the Grand Jury, and the duty of maintaining the harbour at a proper depth rests with that body. I am dealing with Kilrush pier in reply to the next Question of the hon. Member.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Clare (Major JAMESON), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, with reference to Question on the subject of pier at Kilrush, he will specially consider the need of expenditure on Kilrush pier and harbour owing to the increasing importance of the trade of this town both in respect to fishing and other commercial enterprise?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No money could be provided for the improvement and extension of the existing pier at Cappagh, Kilrush, from repayments of loans under the Sea Fisheries (Ireland) Act of 1883, because the need for the extension is a commercial need unconnected with fisheries. The question whether it is possible or desirable for the Government to assist in carrying out the extension from any other source is now under consideration.

  VOLUNTEER OFFICERS (EXAMINATIONS).
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War how many Volunteer officers have passed the examination in all the following subjects: Tactics, field fortification, military topography, organisation and equipment, and military law; in accordance with paragraph 356 in the Volunteer Regulations 1896; and whether, in view of the importance of the examination, he will issue a Return giving the names of the successful officers?
  *MR. BRODRICK: Three, Sir, in accordance with the Regulation in Section 356 recently issued.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (PENSIONS).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the amount of pension to which a sergeant and a head constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary are respectively entitled to on retirement after 21, 30, and 40 years' service?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Head constables and sergeants are entitled to pensions of 22/50ths of their pay after 21 years' service, and to ⅔rds of their pay after 30 years' service. There is no increase in the pension rate beyond ⅔rds except in the cases of a few men who were appointed to the force before the 10th August 1866.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS PENSION (IRELAND).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that Miss Margaret Ryan, who served with distinction under the Board of National Education for 44 years, 10 years of which she was head mistress of Templemore National School, 8 years as head mistress of Kilkenny Model School, and 26 years as organiser of Convent National Schools, has been granted on her retirement a pension of only £77 10s. per annum; (2) whether Miss Ryan was entitled according to the rules of the service, as administered in the case of other teachers of less distinguished services, to a pension of £90 per annum for 40 years' service as head mistress; (3) whether he is aware that Miss Ryan resigned the position of head mistress of Kilkenny Model School at the repeated and urgent request of the officers of the National Board of Education in order to take up the position of organiser of the Convent Schools; (4) is he aware that, in addition to these distinguished services, Miss Ryan educated and passed to the grade of first class nearly 40 teachers, who subsequently became distinguished in the service of the Board of National Education; and (5) whether, under the circumstances of the case, he will recommend the Board of National Education to reconsider Miss Ryan's claim to an increase of pension as has been done in

  1577
  the case of Dr. Joyce and others who more recently retired?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts appear to be as stated in the first paragraph. Mrs Ryan left the Model School service in 1862, and in her new position of organiser of National Schools her case fell within the scope of the Civil Service Superannuation Act of 1859. The Teachers' Pension Act, under which she might have qualified for a higher pension had she remained in the Model School service, was not passed until 1879, 17 years after she had left the Model School service. The Commissioners of National Education have no knowledge of the facts alleged in the third paragraph. Her acceptance of the position of organiser was purely voluntary on her part. The Commissioners see no reason for questioning the accuracy of the statement in the fourth paragraph. There is no analogy, I am informed, between the case of Miss Ryan and that of Dr. Joyce.

  LIGHTSHIPS (IRELAND).
  MR. J. L. CAREW: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin, St. Patrick (Mr. W. FIELD), I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state up to what date the Board of Trade surveyors were employed in the supervision of repairs to the hulls, masts, and riggings of lightships under the jurisdiction of the Irish Commissioners; whether he can state why their services were dispensed with; and whether he can state under whose supervision the work is now carried out, and what was their practical experience of modern and composite shipbuilding at the time of their appointment?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): Up to 1890, the Board of Trade surveyors were, on the application of the Commissioner's of Irish Lights, from time to time employed in the supervision of repairs to lightships under the jurisdiction of the Commissioners. Since that date no further applications for the services of these surveyors have been made to the Board of Trade by the Commissioners, who, in 1890, informed the Board that they considered that their lately appointed foreman ship-
  1578
  wright was in every way able to take full charge of the work under the Inspector of Lights. I have no information as to what had been the practical experience of those officers as to modern and composite shipbuilding, but evidence on this head can no doubt be elicited at the official Inquiry which I have ordered to be held into the loss of the lightship Puffin.
  MR. CAREW: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin, St. Patrick (Mr. FIELD), I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that the Irish lightships are not supplied with boats fitted with air tanks such as merchant vessels are compelled to carry, the Board of Trade will cause the Irish Lights Board to supply equally seaworthy boats to their lightships as are common to merchant vessels?
  MR. RITCHIE: The question whether Irish lightships are properly equipped with boats and other life-saving appliances is one that will no doubt be fully gone into at the official Inquiry which I have ordered to be held into the loss of the lightship Puffin. When the report of that Inquiry has been received, the Board of Trade will be prepared to consider with the Commissioners of Irish Lights any recommendation which the Court may make on this subject.
  MR. CAREW: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Inquiry will be held, and when?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Inquiry was ordered to be held some time ago, and a great many arrangements had to be made with regard to the witnesses, so that it is not possible to say when the Inquiry will be commenced.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say where it will be held, and whether he does not think it desirable to hold it in Queenstown, where most of the witnesses live?
  MR. RITCHIE: I answered the question as to where it would be held some time ago. It strikes me that it was at Cork, but I cannot say.

  SUCK DRAINAGE SCHEME.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statement, made by Mr. Commissioner

  1579
  O'Brien, at Castlerea Session of the Land Court on the 17th ult., that the Suck drainage scheme had cost a great deal more than the benefit it had produced on the land; and, whether the Government will take steps to relieve the heavy taxation imposed upon the tenants in the Suck drainage district?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have seen the statement purporting to have been made by Mr. Commissioner O'Brien on the occasion referred to. I am unable to say whether Mr. O'Brien based these remarks, if correctly reported, on personal examination or on anything beyond the opinions expressed at public meetings. The tenants are charged only with the estimated value of the actual improvements effected in their holdings by the Drainage Works, and I have no evidence before me that this estimated value is incorrect.

  RECEUITINU AREAS (COLONIES).
  CAPTAIN PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the changes about to be made in the British Army, and to the fact that in many cases our territorial recruiting areas do not suffice for the demands made upon them by their territorial regiments, the Government will give serious consideration to a proposal to create regimental districts in the several greater Colonies of the Empire, especially, in view of the popular sentiment in favour of such a proposal recently exhibited in Canada, and in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of Her Majesty's reign.
  *MR. BRODRICK: A proposal of the nature referred to in the question has been received from Canada and has been referred to the Canadian Government for an expression of their opinion upon it. Her Majesty's Government are fully alive to the desirability of encouraging such tendencies on the part of the Colonies, but it is obvious that any steps in this direction must need very careful consideration before action is taken.

  CORDITE (H.M.'S SHIPS).
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether inasmuch as when, on the 2nd ult., a hundredweight of cordite was fired in the open
  1580
  air in Woolwich Arsenal, twelve other hundredweights securely done up in twelve separate cases, and not in contact with the hundredweight which was intentionally fired, instantly detonated, and that the detonation was of the true shattering nature characteristic of nitroglycerine and gun-cotton, and made a hole in the solid ground some 15 feet deep, it is intended to put it inside big guns or to carry it onboard Her Majesty's ships?
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): The circumstances of the late experiment were not quite as stated in my hon. Friend's question. Twelve metal cases, each containing about 130lb. of small cordite not made into cartridges were stacked together, forming a pile in close contact. One was fired, whereupon the mass exploded. These cases were not, however, packed with cordite under service conditions—that is, with cartridges made up of the sized cordite in use for heavy guns. Cartridges of cordite will continue to be used and carried on board Her Majesty's ships.

  BANDSMEN ASSAULTED (SCOTLAND).
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if his attention has been called to a decision of the magistrates at Airdrie, on the 25th February, when 13 young men, members of the Bellshill Conservative Flute Band, were fined five shillings each or three days' imprisonment for playing the "Protestant Boys" and the "Boyne Water;" and whether playing Protestant tunes in the streets is contrary to the laws of Scotland; and, if so, whether he is prepared to assent to an alteration of the law?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): On February 6th the Bellshill Flute Band passed through Holytown playing airs of no local significance. [Laughter.] On arrival at Marion street, Mossend, an entirely Roman Catholic quarter, they struck up airs of "Kick the Pope"—[laughter]—and those mentioned in the question. [Renewed laughter.] Some excitement followed, and eventually a Roman Catholic assaulted two bandsmen

  1581
  and was arrested, the band thereafter retiring to a public-house. [Laughter.] Several of the men referred to were charged with behaving in a noisy and disorderly manner and with parading the streets playing those tunes with the premeditated purpose of provoking and exasperating, whereby a breach of the peace was committed and they were convicted and sentenced. The Roman Catholic was charged with assault, was convicted and sentenced. I see no reason whatever to call in question the magistrates' decision in either case. [Cheers and laughter.]
  MR. JOHNSTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how they decided on premeditated intentions? [Laughter.]
  [No reply was given.]

  UNIVERSITY EXTENSION (ANNUAL GRANT).
  SIR JOHN MOWBRAY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered a petition, numerously and influentially signed, presented to him in 1896, in favour of an annual grant by Parliament for the promotion and development of the system of higher education, commonly known as University Extension, and in particular asking that such grant should be administered by the four central authorities of the University Extension movement, namely, the Oxford Delegacy, the Cambridge Syndicate, the London Society, and the Victoria Committee, and also by the two Extension Colleges at Reading and Exeter; and, whether he is prepared to recommend to Parliament to make any such grant?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have carefully considered the petition referred to, but have not felt able to recommend to Parliament a grant for the general work of University Extension. Such a grant would be a new departure, for the work is of an entirely different character from that which is done by individual colleges. The two Commissioners who recently visited the University colleges which receive Parliamentary grants, the President of Magdalen College, Oxford, and Professor Liveing, of Cambridge, by my directions also investigated the two Extension Colleges at Reading and Exeter. They
  1582
  reported that these Colleges, though doing good work in many respects, were as University Colleges in an experimental stage, and they did not consider that they had as yet arrived at a position in which a grant could properly be given.

  TRAMPS (IRELAND).
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Fermanagh (Mr. RICHARD M. DANE), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that it is a common practice for tramps to seek shelter for the night in the union workhouses in Ireland, when on their way from town to town, upon a false plea of destitution; and that in the week ending 17th February in the present year the names of over 40 tramps were on the books of the Irvinestown Union, and for the week ending 24th February a similar number; and, whether any power rests with the workhouse officials to refuse such well-known tramps admission; if not, will the Irish Government take steps to have the law amended?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The fact is as mentioned in the first part of the question, though the same state of things unfortunately prevails, I understand, in England as in Ireland. The number of tramps relieved in the Irvinestown Workhouse for the weeks ended 20th and 27th February were 23 and 22, respectively. The official returns are made up at the close of each week and do not give the numbers and the dates mentioned in the question. Workhouse officers can refuse admission to any persons not considered destitute, and they have also the power to prosecute under the Vagrant Act 1847 any tramps going from union to union for for the purpose of obtaining relief. The Local Government Board have frequently drawn the attention of Boards of Guardians to the powers possessed by them in this respect.

  IMPERIAL MUSEUM, CALCUTTA.
  MR. M. M. BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether a German gentleman was recently appointed to an important position in

  1583
  the Imperial Museum at Calcutta; whether, before filling up that post, the Government of India had made any endeavour to find a native of India competent to fill it; and whether, with reference to this appointment and any other similar appointments to which Indian gentlemen of education and special attainments would seem to justly have the first claim, any correspondence has taken place during the past few years between the Secretary of State for India and the Government in India; and, if so, will he place such correspondence upon the Table of the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): In the early part of last year the trustees of the Indian Museum at Calcutta, after making inquiries, decided, subject to the approval of the Government of India and of the Secretary of State in Council, to appoint Dr. Bloch for a term of five years to the post of first assistant on account of his very exceptional qualifications for the performance of the special duties attached to it. The Government of India recommended the appointment for approval. The Secretary of State in Council, after careful consideration, decided not to withhold his sanction, but intimated his opinion that the post was one which might appropriately be filled by a qualified native of India, and that in future candidates for such appointments should in the first instance be sought among graduates of the Indian Universities. I shall be ready to lay on the Table the correspondence to which the hon. Member refers if he will move for it.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS BILL (EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he will consider the advisability of repealing the 17s. 6d. limit for evening continuation schools as well as for elementary day schools?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The Committee of Council have had this matter under consideration, but it cannot be dealt with in the Bill now before the House.

  NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade have had their attention directed to sub-section 4 of clause 9 of the North Eastern Railway (Additional Powers) Bill; whether he is aware that the effect of the construction of the works authorised thereby will be to destroy the shelter now afforded to small craft entering and leaving the Hull Docks, thereby rendering the use of the docks for canal-borne traffic impossible or difficult; and whether, having regard to the probable consequent discouragement to traffic on canals, the Board of Trade will issue a special Report upon the Bill?
  MR. RITCHIE: The proposals contained in the Bill referred to are receiving the careful consideration of the Board of Trade, and a Report with respect thereto will be presented at an early date.

  LAND COURTS (IRELAND).
  Mr. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if he is aware that, on the 22nd ult., the registrar of No. 3 Sub-Land Commission Court sent a list of decisions in cases, previously heard at Armagh, to be posted on the notice board of the courthouse in that town; and that almost immediately after this list had been posted a person connected with an Armagh newspaper removed the list from the notice board, and carried it away, much to the inconvenience of those desirous to inspect it; (2) is this a case in which a prosecution would lie; and, if not, will he give instructions that in future registrars of Land Courts in Ireland shall send copies of decisions to all solicitors engaged in the cases?
  MR. GERALD BALEOUR: The facts appear to be substantially as stated in the first paragraph. The list was returned, however, to the courtkeeper on the following day by the gentleman who had taken it away. No proceedings lie in the case, and the Land Commissioners do not propose to issue directions as suggested, as, under existing circumstances, solicitors engaged in cases can, on application, at present obtain information as to the decisions, either from the

  1585
  deputy registrars or from the office of the Land Commission.
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lard Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the Sub-Commission promised over a month ago will sit to fix fair rents in cases listed for moving from the Shirley Estate, county Monaghan: and whether he can give the names of the Sub-Commissioners who will try these cases; are they Ulster farmer's; or what knowledge have they of land in Ulster?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Sub-Commission Court will commence its sittings fur cases arising from this district on the 18th inst. The Court will consist of Mr. Edge, Q.C., Judicial Commissioner, and Messrs. Patterson and Mowbray, lay Assistant Commissioners. The hon. Member will be aide to obtain from the Return, which will be laid on the Table to-day, information as to the localities in which the two latter gentleman acquired a practical experience of land.
  MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if, having regard to the number of applications to fix fair rents in the liberties and county of Limerick, and to the urgency of their circumstances, he will direct an immediate sitting of the Land Commissioners in that county for the disposal of such applications?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A Sub-Commission Court will probably hold a sitting early in April for cases arising in the County Limerick. The number of cases received since November, when a Court last sat, is comparatively few. I have no power to control the arrangements made by the Land Commission.

  JAMESON RAID (PRESIDENT KRUGER'S CLAIM).
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to state to the House the exact amount of the claim made by the Government of the South African Republic on account of moral and intellectual damage; and whether he has received any details of these and the other claims; and, if not, whether, before seriously considering them, he
  1586
  will obtain such a detailed and classified statement, and will lay it upon the Table of the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have no information beyond what I gave to the House on February 18, except a telegram from Lord Rosmead dated February 25, giving the Dutch words used for "moral and intellectual damage," in what Lord Rosmead calls the "additional claim for £1,000,000."

  ENTERIC FEVER (INDIA).
  GENERAL, RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the great increase of enteric fever in India; whether the medical authorities can give any explanation for this increase; and whether the Government propose to take any stops for the better enforcement of sanitary regulations at the various stations where this complaint has recently been most prevalent?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have noticed with regret the increase of enteric fever in India, the causes of which are still very obscure. The Government of India have adopted various measures for improving the sanitation and water supply of cantonments, and the question as to the means of checking this disease is one which is constantly engaging their attention.

  SALISBURY PLAIN (TENANT FARMERS).
  MR. E. A. GOULDING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government have taken into consideration the necessity of giving full and adequate compensation to any tenant farmers who may be disturbed through the purchase of a portion of Salisbury Plain for military purposes, in respect of land laid down to pasture, or other-agricultural improvements which have been carried out by them?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: It is hoped and believed that only a small number of tenants will be disturbed; but adequate compensation will be given in all cases where disturbance takes place. This has not been lost sight of in the negotiations which have been carried on and are progressing.

  STEAMSHIP "UTOPIA" (CLAIM AGAINST OWNERS).
  MR. J. G. BAIRD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to an important shipping case which has been before the law courts of Naples for the last five years, and is still pending, in which the owners of the steamship Utopia are being sued, in formâ pauperis, for compensation for the loss of life of a number of Italian emigrants through the sinking of the Utopia in Gibraltar Bay after collision with the ram of H.M.S. Anson; whether he is aware that the owners have been held responsible without being allowed to adduce evidence, and have been refused the limitation of liability prescribed by the Italian Code; and what steps the Government proposes to take in the circumstances, the case being one of exceptional importance to British shipping?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): The case of the Utopia has been brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government. They understand that it is about to come before the Court of Appeal at Naples; and, agreeing with my hon. Friend that it is one of exceptional interest to British shipping, they have instructed Her Majesty's Consul carefully to watch the proceedings and to furnish a report thereupon.

  CEETIEICATED TEACHER'S DISMISSAL (GAWBER, NEAR BARNSLEY).
  MR. J. H. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education (1) if he has received information that at Gawber, near Barnsley, a certificated teacher, described a year ago by the Vicar as a very worthy man, a scrupulous, steady, conscientious, and persevering teacher, who has been successful in satisfying the requirements of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, and, according to the Diocesan Inspector, has raised the school to an excellent standard of efficiency, religious instruction having been given in a thoroughly satisfactory manner, who has helped in the Sunday school, played the church harmonium and trained the choir, has nevertheless been
  1588
  dismissed upon the ground, as alleged by the Vicar, that he does not possess the First Class Drawing Certificate, although he does possess the Special Drawing Certificate, and for the past three years has obtained the "Excellent" report and grant for teaching drawing; (2) whether the Vice President is aware that the villagers, in public meeting assembled, have unanimously protested against the dismissal; and, (3) whether anything can be done to give effect to the wish of the villagers that the teacher should be retained?
  SIR J. GORST: The teacher referred to has been for five years at Gawber school, and has obtained satisfactory reports from H.M.'s Inspector. He has the Special Drawing Certificate, and for the past three years the school has obtained the "Excellent" grant for drawing. Otherwise, the Committee of Council have no information as to the statements in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Question; but they would be unable in any case to interfere with the discretion of the managers in regard to the dismissal of a teacher. I have just heard from the managers that the teacher in question has accepted a post elsewhere.

  CHILDREN'S METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD.
  MR. B. L. COHEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will lay upon the Table of the House the answers he has received from the guardians of the Metropolitan parishes to the draft order prepared by the Local Government Board for placing certain classes of children under the care of a new central authority in London?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): In a large proportion of the communications I have received I was asked to defer a decision until a conference was held on the subject. This conference was held on the 26th ult., and resolutions were passed by large majorities to the effect (1) that it was desirable that separate provision such as is indicated in the draft order should be made for certain special classes of children, and (2) that it should be urged upon the

  1589
  Local Government Board, before constituting a new board, to consider whether the duties created by the new order might not with advantage be conferred on some existing authority or authorities. At the conference referred to every board of guardians and the managers of each district school in the Metropolis were represented by delegates, and I have received no communication from any board of guardians on the subject since the conference took place.
  MR. COHENasked if the answers received from the guardians could be laid on the Table.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he did not think further information could be obtained, but he would see what could be done.
  MR. T. LOUGHasked if the right hon. Gentleman would consider favourably the recommendation to reconsider the decision to constitute a new authority rather than give the work over to one of the existing authorities.
  MR. CHAPLINreplied that the whole matter was under consideration.

  CHELSEA HOSPITAL.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that when pensioners are admitted as inmates of Chelsea Hospital they forfeit their pensions and are only granted an allowance of 2d. a day, whether steps will be taken to revise this rule, with a view to more generous treatment of old soldiers whose lives have been worn out in the service of their country?
  *MR. BRODRICK: The money payment to in-pensioners of Chelsea Hospital has recently been doubled, and, in the interest of the men, it is not considered desirable to make it greater than at present. The evidence taken by a recent Committee, over which Lord Belper presided, shows that there is an increasing desire on the part of pensioners to obtain admittance to the Hospital; and it is beyond question that the advantages of the men in the Hospital are in excess of those enjoyed by similar pensioners outside.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that some of the tombstones in the old grave-yard of
  1590
  Chelsea Hospital are in a very dilapidated condition; and whether it is intended to put them in repair, or to utilise this disused burial-ground for the benefit of the public?
  *MR. BRODRICK: It is in contemplation to repair some of the dilapidated tombstones this spring, when all chance of frost is passed.

  COLCHESTER BARRACKS.
  MR. JAMES ROUND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any further extension of barracks is contemplated at the camp at Colchester; and when the rebuilding of the existing wood huts will be completed?
  *MR. BRODRICK: An extension of the camp at Colchester is not in contemplation. The existing huts are to be replaced by permanent buildings; but, as only a portion can be dealt with at one time, the completion of the work will occupy a considerable period.

  TRUNK TELEPHONE SYSTEM (SCOTLAND).
  MR. J. W. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the trunk line of telephone passing through Bervie will be made available to the inhabitants of that town for communication with Glasgow and the north?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): I understand that a local telephone exchange has not yet been opened in Bervie, and, until this has been done, it would be premature to consider the question of a connection with the trunk telephone system.

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND).
  MR. JOHN DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he can now state the number of applications which have been made to the Land Commission by evicted tenants under Section 47 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1896; the result of these applications; the names of the landlords on whose estates the applications have

  1591
  been made and the number of applications on each estate; how many tenants have been restored to their holdings under Section 47; and (2) whether the Government propose to take any further steps to carry out the policy of that section?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The number of applications received by the Land Commission under the 47th Section of the Act of 1896 is 447. In twelve of these cases the applications were consented to by the landlord; in 295 cases objections were made by the landlord; in G 9 cases the applications were refused as not coming within the provisions of the section; and in six cases the applications have been withdrawn. The remaining 65 applications are still pending. No tenants have yet been reinstated under this section. As I have already intimated to the hon. Member, it would be undesirable that the names of the landlords on whose estates these applications have been made should be published. The answer to the last paragraph of the question is in the negative.

  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY OF IRELAND.
  MR. CAREW: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin, St. Patrick (Mr. FIELD), I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on the Great Northern Railway of Ireland, on Monday 8th February, Signalman C. Farrell was taken ill and Signalman J. Gannon, his mate, came on duty in his place at 8 a.m., although he was not due on till 4 p.m., and he was kept on constant duty from Monday 8th until Sunday 14th, day and night, without any relief; and that this has occurred more than once at Navan Junction; and, whether, in view of the passengers' safety, he will prevent its repetition?
  MR. RITCHIE: The manager of the Great Northern of Ireland Railway telegraphs to the Board of Trade that Farrell was taken suddenly ill and his mate was called upon to take the night duty which was very light. The stationmaster believing the signalman would be well immediately did not ask for relief for a day or two, but immediately this was known relief was given for the few days. Gannon had not to work night and day, but 16½
  1592
  hours. There are, as far as I can gather from the time table, only 18 trains passing in the course of the 24 hours, but 16½ hours is too long for any man to be on duty, and I shall ask the Great Northern of Ireland Company to impress upon their stationmasters the propriety of asking for relief men to supply the places of servants incapacitated by illness.

  TILLETT, MR. BEN (IMPRISONMENT IN BELGIUM).
  MR. H. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make a statement to the House as to the negotiations between this country and Belgium relating to the recent imprisonment of Mr. Ben Tillett?
  MR. CURZON: The Belgian Government have agreed to the suggestion of Her Majesty's Government that the claim for compensation put forward by the latter in the case of Mr. Tillett should be referred to arbitration.

  INDIAN FAMINE.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the statements of Reuter's Correspondent that in the poor-house at Nagpur deaths occur daily, and that in one village in the Central Provinces over twenty deaths from actual starvation had occurred before 4th February; and whether he is in possession of any information as to the total deaths from famine up to date?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have seen the statements to which the hon. Member refers, but they are associated with explanations which are as worthy of attention as the statements themselves. The second set of famine papers, which have been in the hands of the printers for ten days and which will soon be ready, contain all the information I have received regarding famine mortality, including a comparative statement of the total deaths in the Central Provinces from all causes for the years 1895 and 1896.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked when the noble Lord could

  1593
  answer the Question, and whether at Nagpur deaths were not occurring daily?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: There must be a lapse of time between the collection of statistics in India and their arrival here, and that cannot be reduced to less than three months. If there is exceptional mortality I have directed the Indian Government to inform me.
  MR. MACNEILLsaid he really must press the noble Lord as to whether, aye or no, deaths were not taking place at Nagpur daily. [Ministerial cries of "Order."]
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid the question had already been answered.

  INDIAN COUNCIL.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in filling up the approaching vacancies in the Indian Council, he will consider the expediency of appointing an experienced and representative Indian?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The suggestion which the hon. Baronet puts forward is one which I have already considered, but I have not been able to find that association of recent administrative experience and general representation of native views sufficiently combined in one individual to enable me to act upon it.

  LIMERICK (NIGHT WATCH).
  MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if his attention has been drawn to a letter, dated 22nd February 1897, from Sir Andrew Reid to the Town Clerk of Limerick, in which he stated that, in the event of the existing night watch of the city of Limerick being replaced by the constabulary, the existing free quota of police assigned to that city would not be sufficient to perform the additional duties of night protection, and that extra police should be appointed; (2) upon what basis Sir Andrew Reid calculated that the yearly sum of £1,32.3 would be required for such an additional duty; (3) whether he is aware that similar duties (night protection) are performed in Cork and Waterford without any charge to the local rates; and on what grounds, as suggested by Sir Andrew Reid's letter, special legislation would be
  1594
  required to place Limerick in the same position as the other Irish cities mentioned occupy; and (4) whether it is the duty of the Royal Irish Constabulary to protect day and night the persons and property of the inhabitants?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have seen the letter referred to, which is to the effect mentioned in the first paragraph. The cost to the Corporation was estimated on a basis of an extra force of 30 men, which number was mentioned in 1885 as the extra force required to enable the Royal Irish Constabulary to take over the duties. In Cork and Waterford the free force of the Constabulary is sufficient to perform a certain amount of beat duty at night as well as by day. Such work as can be performed by the free quota is done without charge to local rates; and this is also the case in Limerick, where, however, the free quota is not sufficient to perform night duty to the same extent as in Cork or Waterford. In Limerick the duty at night devolves by statute on the night watch.

  LIMERICK CANAL AND SHANNON SERVICE.
  MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why, contrary to the custom heretofore acted on, the wages due to the lock-keepers on the Limerick Canal and Shannon Service are not paid on the 2nd or 3rd of each month; is he aware that in some cases at present arrears of two months' pay occurs before one month's service is paid, although receipts for payment must be given in advance; and whether he will direct regular monthly discharge of wages to be made in future?
  MR. HANBURY: The collectors on the Shannon Navigation retain their salaries out of the rents, tolls, and other monthly receipts in their hands, as far as the sum collected will cover them. About 4–7ths of the amount of the salaries is so retained. The receipts for their salaries are forwarded with their monthly accounts, and if, in any case, the collection has not been sufficient to pay the salary, the balance is forwarded to them. The Board of Works have been unable to find any instance in which arrears of two months' pay have accrued before the payment of one month's service is paid.

  1595
  Recently there has been remissness on the part of some collectors who delayed their accounts, and this has had the effect of deferring payment. The delay in furnishing the accounts is being made the subject of investigation, which it is hoped will lead to punctuality on the part of the collectors, and the consequent payment to them of balances of salary without delay.

  TRUCK ACT (METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY COMPANY).
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the old notice of fines posted on the District Railway, and to the new-notice which has recently been posted on the same line, headed Truck Act, 1896; whether he is aware that in the old list for the first and second offences it is stated that only a caution would be given, while in the new list it says that a fine is to be inflicted in all cases; and that the highest fine stated in. the old list did not exceed 2s., while the lowest fine posted under the new Truck Act is 5s., ranging up to 20s.; also, that this latter new scale of fines has been adopted by all the leading railway companies; and, if so, whether he can do anything to secure its abolition?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I have seen these two notices, with copies of which the hon. Member has been good enough to supply me. The new one is that adopted by several of the leading railway companies, but not by all of them; the fines specified in it are, I am advised, illegal, being in contravention of the provisions of the Truck Act of last year—["hear, hear!"]—and I am communicating with the companies on the subject.

  SCOTTISH RIFLES (5TH VOL. BATT.).
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether orders have been given for the disbandment of the 5th Volunteer Battalion Scottish Rifles, with headquarters at Airdrie; if he is aware that no reason has been given for this step, and that no fault
  1596
  has been found with the battalion other than the unavoidable delay in filling up the vacancy caused by the forced resignation of the late commanding officer, Colonel Forrest; is this delay the warrant for the order, which has aroused serious indignation in the locality; and will he agree to suspend action until a full inquiry into the whole circumstances is held? The hon. Member further asked the Under Secretary of State for War if he was aware that, at the unanimous request of the officers of the 5th Volunteer Battalion Scottish Rifles, Major Black, of Airdrie, was nominated as commanding officer on the 19th October 1896, and submitted to the War Office for approval; has this nomination reached the War Office, and for what reason has that appointment not hitherto been made; is be aware that several officers have as recently as in January last received their commissions, who, if disbandment is insisted upon, will suffer loss and damage; and what action be proposes to take in the matter?
  *MR. BRODRICK: Orders have been given for the disbandment of this Volunteer battalion, as, in the opinion of the, military authorities, after most careful investigation, the reports on its discipline, and other circumstances connected with the corps, made no other course possible. Major Black's nomination for the command was considered, but he was not recommended for the appointment by those responsible. The only officer appointed in the present year is a surgeon-lieutenant, and only two were appointed in 1896.
  MR. J. WILSONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman, was aware that the last annual inspection took place on June 20 last, and that the inspecting officer reported favourably on the discipline of the corps?
  *MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir; I should not question any observation which the hon. Member may make as to the Report, but there were other circumstances which have come to light ranging now over two years, which have been carefully considered by the military authorities, and which point to a lack of discipline and efficiency in the corps.
  MR. J. WILSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would produce the Inspecting Officers' Reports for the last ten years?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I have not the least objection to showing my hon. Friend the Reports on the inspection of the corps, but I would point out that the Reports of the inspection are not the only Reports on which the War Office has to act. Various irregularities in the administration of the corps have come to light, but I am most reluctant to enter into details which may give pain to individuals. ["Hear, hear!"]

  ARMY HORSES.
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can now state the number of horses purchased by the military authorities in Ireland during the years 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895, and 1896 respectively; also the number purchased respectively in Canada and in foreign countries during the same years?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Since April 1, 1887, the total number of horses bought has been 15,018, of which 9,139, or nearly 61 per cent., have been purchased in Ireland.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it not the fact that horses bought in Ireland are far superior in appearance and endurance to horses purchased abroad? [Langhter.]
  MR. FLYNN: Will the hon. Gentleman be able to give me a return of the respective numbers in the years mentioned in my Question?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The respective numbers in the years named bear about the same proportion as the total proportion—namely, 61 per cent. I shall have no objection whatever to furnish the hon. Member privately with the details for each year, if he desires them.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the hon. Gentleman say how many horses have been bought in foreign countries during the same period, and how many of them are alive to-day?
  [No answer was given.]

  WEST HAM (ELECTRIC LIGHT).
  MR. H. V. BUNCOMBE: I beg to, ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having reference to a correspondence which appeared in the public press relating to the adjudication on tenders for an
  1598
  electric lighting installation at West Ham, and a Resolution of the Town Council of West Ham to request the Local Government Board to make an inquiry into the circumstances, the Local Government. Board have resolved to institute the inquiry requested?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The Local Government Board have no authority under which they could undertake such an investigation as has been suggested, and the Board have informed the Electric Construction Company, who have been in communication with them on the subject, that if they consider that an offence has been committed under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1839, they might either themselves institute a prosecution or submit a statement of the facts to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  "COSTA RICA" PACKET CASE.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have received official notification of the award of the arbitrator in the case of the Costa Rica Packet; and, if so, whether he has any objection to communicating the terms of the decision arrived at?
  MR. CURZON: The award of the arbitrator in the Costa Rica Packet case has been received, and is to the following effect: To Captain Carpenter a sum of £3,150 is awarded; to the officers and crew of the Costa Rica Packet £1,600; and to the owners of that vessel £3,800; with interest for all damages at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum, from November 2nd, 1891. The above sums, together with the costs of the arbitration, fixed at £250, are to be paid by the Netherlands Government.

  SICKNESS AMONG SCHOOL CHILDREN (COUNTY DONEGAL).
  MR. MACALEESE: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Donegal (Mr. THOMAS B. COREAN), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland will issue instructions to the Examiner of Inishowen, County Donegal, to take into account the prevalence of influenza and other sickness in that locality?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Examiners for Results Fees cannot depart from the provisions of the Rules under which no allowance can be made for epidemics in allotting the marks on which those fees are paid. But, on the general question of diminished attendances of pupils, owing to epidemics, every consideration possible within the limits of the Board's Rules, and of the Acts under which payments are made, will be given to the claims of the schools of the locality referred to, when the School Returns setting forth the causes of low average come to be dealt with.

  MUNICIPAL VOTERS ACT (AUGHNACLOY).
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland (1) whether his attention has been called to the case of Aughnacloy, which is a town under the Towns Improvement Act, 17 and 18 Vict., c. 103; (2) is he aware that by the last census the population of Aughnacloy was only 1,100, and that it has since then been gradually decreasing, although the Towns Improvement Act requires a population of 1,500 for its application; and (3) under these circumstances, will he state whether the town commissioners and the town court are legally constituted, and what authority exists in the place for the revision of the Municipal Voters Act?
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): My attention has been called to the case mentioned in the Question, and also to the fact that by the last census the population of the town of Aughnacloy only amounted to 1,100. I have no means of ascertaining whether the population has since decreased. The Town Improvement Act only requires that a town before it can adopt that Act should have a population of 1,500, but makes no provision for the case of the decline of the population below that limit after the Act has been adopted. Aughnacloy had a population of the prescribed number when it adopted the Act, and is, in my opinion, still governed by its provisions.
  MR. MACALEESE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph of the Question?
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: I have answered the last paragraph. This town is, in my opinion, still under the operation of the Act.
  MR. MACALEESEwas understood to ask what was the proper authority in this case?
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: The same authority that exists in every case under the Towns Improvement Act.

  SERVANTS' HOMES AND AGENCIES.
  MR. S. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the recent disclosures made in the Maryle-bone Police Court with respect to servants' homes and agencies, in the case of Curtis-Bennett, with a view of remedying and rendering the repetition of such cases impossible; and whether he will consider the advisability of licensing all servants' agencies and homes so as to bring them under the control of the police.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have seen the report of a case recently brought before Mr. Curtis - Bennett, which is, no doubt, the one referred to in the Question. The police occasionally receive complaints against houses of this kind, and I will ask the Commissioner to make further inquiry. On the information before me at present, however, I have no reason to suppose that a system of licensing is desirable.

  PRISON CLERKS (PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS).
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that W. H. Scriven, Chief Clerk at the County Prison, Chelmsford, acted as poll clerk at the Parliamentary elections in Romford on 1st February, and at Walthamstow on 3rd February 1897; and whether it is legal for Government officials to act in such capacities during a Parliamentary Election.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The facts are as stated, but I am not aware that it is illegal for a Government official to act in this capacity. I may add that the work was undertaken by the officer while on leave, and did not

  1601
  therefore conflict with the discharge of his official duties; and that, not being an act of political partisanship, it did not infringe the rules which govern in this matter the servants of the Crown. ["Hear, hear!"]

  COURT OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the order which was submitted by the Judges of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland to the Lord Chancellor for approval to empower the official assignees of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland to act as official liquidators of public companies did, when first submitted by the Judges of the Court of Bankruptcy, also provide for empowering the official assignees to act in any other capacities than official liquidators; and, if so, in what other capacities?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Any communications that may have passed between the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and the Judges of the Court of Bankruptcy in reference to the framing of the proposed Order before its publication in the Gazette must be regarded as confidential, and therefore I cannot give the hon. Member the information which he desires.

  MARYBOROUGH GAOL (PRISONER FITZHARRIS).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin, St. Patrick (Mr. FIELD), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with regard to the allegation that Fitzharris, a prisoner in Maryborough Gaol, has only recently recovered from a very serious illness, and has had a relapse, whether he will appoint an independent medical inquiry to be made regarding the condition of Fitzharris?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: With the permission of my right hon. Friend, I will reply to this question. It is the case that this convict had been suffering from influenza, and that he had a relapse; but, in the opinion of the General Prisons Board, the ailment was not dangerous, and the convict now appears to be convalescent. There are no grounds for ordering an independent medical inquiry into the case, as suggested.

  QUEEN'S REIGN (VISIT OF COLONIAL PREMIERS).
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give any information as to the number of Colonial Premiers who have accepted the invitation to attend the celebration of Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Acceptances have been received from the following six Premiers:—The Premiers of Cape Colony, Newfoundland, Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, and Western Australia. The Premier of Canada, while stating the proposal will be heartily taken up, has requested to be allowed to consult his colleagues before giving a definite reply. The late Premier of Natal was compelled to decline the invitation on the ground of health, but it has been renewed to his successor. Answers are shortly expected from the two Premiers last mentioned, and from the remaining three, the Premiers of New South Wales, South Australia, and New Zealand.

  BURIAL GROUNDS.
  MR. H. C. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that under the operation of Section 15 of the Burials Act 1855, c. 128, whereby it is provided that land purchased and used for burial purposes by local authorities shall not be liable to re-assessment, wealthy authorities owning burial grounds in adjoining poor parishes absorb rateable area, and pay a very small proportion of the rates for poor, sanitary, district, school board, and county, which, but for Section 15 of the above Act, they would have to pay; and, whether, as cases of great hardship exist, he will cause a return to be made of authorities having burial outside their own area within the intent and powers of the Burials Act 1855, c. 128?
  MR. CHAPLIN: Under Section 15 of the Burials Act 1855, land acquired by a burial board for the purpose of a burial ground (with or without any building erected or to be erected thereon) is, while used for such purpose, not to be assessed to any county, parochial, or other local rates, at a higher value than the value at which it was assessed at the time it was acquired. I have no doubt

  1603
  that the result is that lands used as burial grounds are in many cases assessed at a lower rate than would otherwise be the case. If my hon. Friend will give notice of a Motion for the return which he desires the matter shall be considered.
  MR. FREDERICKWILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Parish Council of Guilden Morden, Cambridgeshire, having recently adopted the Burials Acts, purchased land for a burial ground and raised £200 by loan; will he explain on what grounds, although an inspector from the Home Office and the medical officer of health for the district inquired fully into all questions relating to the sanitary suitability of the site, the Local Government Board caused a second inquiry to be made by a special inspector when the application was made for sanction to the loan; and whether with a view to economy, he will take steps to prevent in future the holding of two inquiries where one would suffice?
  MR. CHAPLIN: So far as the Local Government Board are aware there was no public inquiry as to the proposal to acquire the land in question except that which was held by the Inspector of the Board. It is no doubt very desirable that in such cases the visits of two Inspectors of different departments should be avoided, and I will communicate with the Home Secretary on the subject.

  MUZZLING DOGS.
  MR. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, having regard to the importance of preventing the further development of rabies, and to the slight advantage and consequent difficulty under present circumstances of maintaining the muzzling order in the county of Middlesex, he will as soon as possible give effect to his statement that a muzzling order for the whole of the Metropolitan area would be issued by the Board of Agriculture; and whether he can now give the date when such order will be issued?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG (): The
  1604
  new orders which I have it in contemplation to make with regard to rabies will be issued with the least possible delay, but I would point out that those orders are intended to give effect to the recommendation of the Departmental Committee that a determined and systematic attempt should be made to stamp out rabies not only in the Metropolitan area but throughout the United Kingdom. The adoption of this policy involves the settlement of several difficult questions which are now engaging my active consideration, but, in any event, adequate notice of the new requirements must be given to the public before they can take effect. In these circumstances I have suggested for the consideration of the Middlesex Council whether the most convenient course to be taken by them during the interim would not be that their regulations should be brought into harmony with those now in force in the other districts comprised within the Metropolitan area.
  MR. STEPHENSasked whether the light hon. Gentleman meant that the Middlesex County Council should take off the order now?
  *MR. LONG: The Middlesex County Council must take the course which in their judgment is the best in the interests of those over whom they have jurisdiction. I think that it might be more convenient that there should be an interregnum.

  CRETE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether the Foreign Office have received any official information concerning the mutiny of the Turkish gendarmerie at Canea, and the murder of their officer, Colonel Suleiman Bey; and that the mutineers also fired at Major Bor, a British officer appointed to re-organise the gendarmerie; and (2) whether, in view of these occurrences, the British representative will urge upon the Powers the advisability of withdrawing the Moslem troops and gendarmerie as a condition precedent to the withdrawal of the Greek troops?
  MR. CURZON: Official information has been received that on the evening of the 2nd instant about forty Albanian

  1605
  Zaptiehs belonging to the old gendarmerie mutinied owing to non-payment of their arrears of pay. When ordered to disarm in presence of a detachment of the allied forces in occupation of the town, the mutineers opened fire, killing their colonel, Suleiman Bey, and wounding about six other persons, including one Italian seaman. The foreign forces were compelled to fire, and wounded five gendarmes. The mutineers were disarmed, and three ringleaders arrested. In answer to the last paragraph, Her Majesty's Government cannot assume the responsibility for giving advice that would in all probability be immediately followed by the most deplorable loss of life in the island.
  MR. FLYNN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Collective Note sent to the Porte mentioned the withdrawal of the Turkish troops as a gradual withdrawal?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether these mutineers formed part of the force to protect the inhabitants of Crete?
  MR. CURZON: No, Sir; these mutineers, as we understand, form part of the old Turkish gendarmerie, and not of the new International gendarmerie, which has been organised since the autumn of last year, and which is under the command of Colonel Bor.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the case that a considerable number of the Christian members of the new gendarmerie deserted with their arms and joined the insurgents? [Laughter.]
  MR. CURZON: I have no information to that effect.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he had any information regarding the Mussulman inhabitants and Turkish troops beleaguered at Candamos; and (2) whether the artillery used in the attack was supplied by the Greek invaders?
  MR. CURZON: There are four ships of the allied fleets at Selinos. The captains have orders to do what lies in their power to disengage the besieged Mussulmans at Candamos. This has been notified by the Admirals to the Greek Commodore for
  1606
  the information of the commanders of Greek troops, bidding them responsible if Candamos Mussulmans were massacred. The Greek Vice Consul at Canea, who has denied that Greek troops are at Candamos, has received orders from his Government to go to Selinos and try to liberate the Mussulmans besieged at Candamos.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the last paragraph of my question?
  MR. CURZON: I have answered it to the best of my ability, in that part of my reply in which I said that the Greek Consul had denied that Greek troops were at Candamos, and if not Greek troops, I suppose not Greek guns.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg leave to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether his statement in this House on Tuesday last that the Powers are in absolute agreement, and that the Government had received the full and formal assent of the Powers to the scheme of policy of Her Majesty's Government, is to be taken as applying to the agreement of the Powers as to the withdrawal of the Turkish troops from Crete?
  MR. CURZON: As regards the actual words I used in the Debate referred to, I did not use the words "formal assent." I used the words "full assent."
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: You were so reported in The Times.
  MR. CURZON: Yes: I was misreported in the papers as having used the word "formal." I used the word "full." Inasmuch as the form of autonomy guaranteed by the Powers to Crete is described by them as an absolutely effective autonomy it is certain that they are in agreement with Her Majesty's Government that the Turks shall retain no military control or influence over the island.
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: I also desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will state to the House the exact terms of the Collective Note presented by the Powers to the Sultan. We have had the terms of the Collective Note presented to the Greeks, but not the terms of the Collective Note presented to the Sultan; and particularly what are the conditions agreed upon by the Powers

  1607
  as to the withdrawal of the Turkish soldiers from Crete, as to the religion of the Governor to be appointed, and whether the Collective Note of the Powers declares the intention of the Powers to enforce such conditions upon the Sultan?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am afraid I cannot answer the questions of the right hon. Gentleman, because we have not heard from Constantinople whether the Collective Note has been submitted to the Porte. I believe there has been some interruption in the telegraphic communication. But I propose to lay on behalf of the Government—or my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary will do so—the text of both Notes as soon as they are received. Perhaps that will be the most convenient way to proceed.
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman will excuse me for pressing him. If he can give us a statement upon this question of the agreement as to the terms of the withdrawal of the Turkish troops, he will see the great effect it must have on the action of the other Power—I mean Greece.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes; but I am afraid it would be very improper for me to give what I believe to be the terms which will be submitted to the Porte until we know they have been actually submitted. I am sorry I am not able to give the information to-day. I had fully expected to be able to do so, but for the reason I have indicated, I am not in a position to do so.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Is it not possible to give the House the Greek Notes?
  MR. CURZON: What Notes?
  *SIR C. DILKE: There was one of February 10, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in his speech the other night.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put a question down with regard to this matter for to-morrow. Meanwhile, I may repeat that the texts of the two Notes—one Greek and the other Turkish—will be laid on the Table of the House as soon as we are in a position so to lay them.

  CLARE ASSIZES (DIMINUTION OF CRIME).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been directed to the address of Chief Baron Pallas, at the opening of the Clare Assizes, in which his Lordship pointed out that there were only seven cases to go before the Grand Jury; that there were no offences of an agrarian character in the county, except a few threatening letters; and that the authorities were able, in consequence of the improved condition of the county, to considerably reduce the extra police force during the past year; and (2) whether, in consequence of this very satisfactory condition of the county, he will recommend His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant to reconsider the cases of the Glendree prisoners, and others who have been imprisoned for a great number of years for alleged agrarian offences, with a view to their release during Her Majesty's Jubilee Year?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have read a newspaper report of the learned Judge's address to the Grand Jury at the opening of the Clare Assizes, in the course of which he alluded to the gradual improvement in the state of the county, and to the fact that it had been found possible in recent years to effect a reduction in the extra police establishment of the county. As regards the second paragraph, I am unable to see any reasons for dealing with the kind of crimes for which these prisoners were convicted with any peculiar leniency.

  COUNTY COURT JUDGE (COUNTY DOWN).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether Mr. Walker Craig has been promised the appointment of County Court Judge for county Down, in which capacity it will be his duty to revise the Parliamentary register; (2) whether he is aware that Mr. Craig was the Unionist candidate for Down in the last general election, and has since been selected as the Unionist candidate for South County Down at the next election; (3) whether there is any precedent in England or Ireland for appointing a political partisan as Judge in

  1609
  a county where he was a Parliamentary candidate, and whether it is intended to give Mr. Craig the appointment; if so, whether an opportunity will be afforded for discussing the matter in this House before the appointment is finally made?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It would be altogether irregular to announce the intentions of the Executive with regard to an appointment before that appointment is made. In the meantime, the second and third paragraphs appear to be irrelevant to the question of the appointment of a County Court Judge for the county Down.

  WEST INDIA AND CAPE MAILS.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKE: I bog to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Post Office authorities intend to alter the present practice of sorting letters from the West India and Cape mails in a travelling post office en route for London, and have determined that the country letters shall be detained at Plymouth for sorting, and the London letters be sent straight to London; what is the reason for this decision; and, whether he will undertake that such change will not be made without full opportunity being given to the Chamber of Commerce and Mercantile Association at Plymouth to point out the strong objections on public grounds to any such change?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has already explained to the hon. and learned Member in a letter that there is no scheme for discontinuing altogether the present practice of sorting in a travelling post office mails from the West Indies and South Africa landed at Plymouth. It will be readily understood, however, that the amount of benefit to be derived from railway sorting varies considerably, according to the time of day or night at which the mail packets may arrive; and as it has been found that costly arrangements for sorting in a travelling post office have sometimes been carried on without adequate advantage in the delivery of letters, the Post Office is considering the question of restricting this sorting to those cases in which there will be a distinct gain to the mails. Such a restriction would not
  1610
  in any way prejudice the postal accommodation of Plymouth; but any representations on the subject from the Plymouth Chamber of Commerce shall receive careful consideration.

  JUDGES (TEANSVAAL).
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether the Volksraad have passed a law making the Judges of the High Court of the Transvaal subject to resolutions of the Volksraad, and giving the Boer Executive power to dismiss the Judges; (2) whether the High Court have formally protested against this violation of judicial independence, and have suspended their sittings till May; and (3) whether the Outlander lawyers recently imprisoned at Pretoria have been threatened with exile because they have protested against this new law?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first and second questions of my hon. Friend he is substantially accurate in his facts, though not verbally correct. As regards the third I have no information.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to point out the verbal inaccuracies?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I wished to spare the House that. [Opposition laughter]. It is not, for instance, verbally accurate to say that they have "suspended their sittings till May." What they have done is to say that they will administer the law until the 5th inst., when the present term ends, and will await the decision of the people. The next term begins on June 1. There are other trifling inaccuracies of that kind. [Opposition laughter]

  ONE-MAN COMPANIES.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: beg to ask the Attorney General whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to the recent case of a one-man company, practically consisting of a single individual, and formed by him to take over his own business, and through which he continued to trade for his own benefit under limited liability; and also to the Judgment of the House of Lords (reversing that of the Court of Appeal), in which it was

  1611
  held that debentures issued to himself by such individual were validly secured upon goods supplied to the company by ordinary trade creditors, which had not been paid for, and were entitled to take priority in the distribution of the company's assets arising from the sale of such goods over the claims of the creditors who had supplied them; and, whether, seeing that such cases are of frequent occurrence, the Government will take immediate steps to check the abuses thence arising?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHAND WEBSTER,): I am fully alive to the necessity that exists for an amendment of the law in relation to trading companies. I would point out to the hon. Member that a Bill has already been introduced in the House of Lords by the Board of Trade and is now before the Standing Committee on Law, which will give an opportunity of dealing with the matter to which the question refers.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: Arising out of that answer, may I ask my hon. and learned Friend whether he is aware that under the Act passed last year, the Light Railways Act, one individual may become a light railway company? [Laughter.] I propose myself to start a railway on those lines, and I should like to know whether I am likely to be harshly dealt with? [Laughter].
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not think there is much connection between the two subjects. The question of the hon. Member on the other side of the House refers to debentures issued for the purpose of raising money by these trading companies, which are really one-man companies.

  CORNISH MINING INDUSTRY.
  MR. A. STRAUSS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is prepared to support a proposal for a Select Committee to inquire into the depression in Cornish mining, and report on the measures that should be taken for improving the mining industry of Cornwall?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have to say that I am aware of the greatly depressed condition of the mining industry in Cornwall, and of
  1612
  course the Government would be very glad to do anything they could to alleviate that distress or mitigate that condition. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to consult the Home Secretary on the subject with him to see whether anything would be gained by appointing the Royal Commission he desires.

  IMPERIAL TAXES (IRELAND).
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has noticed that the amount collected for Imperial taxes in Ireland in the year ending 31st March 1894, the last year included in the Report of the late Royal Commission, was £7,568,649; and that, according to Return No. 337, issued in August 1896, the amount exacted in the year ending 31st March 1896 was £8,034,384, being an increase of £465,735 over the amount pronounced, with the practical unanimity of the late Commissioners, to be two and three-quarter millions in excess of what Ireland could justly pay: and whether, as he has announced his intention of appointing another Royal Commission, which will take some time to report, the Government is prepared to undertake that such financial arrangements shall be made this year as will at least prevent any sum in excess of the revenue of 1894 being collected in any one year in Ireland until a definite decision has been arrived at upon the report made by the late Royal Commission?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think the hon. Gentleman has mistaken the nature of the argument advanced by the late Royal Commission in support of their conclusions. As a matter of fact, the disparity between what Ireland does pay and what in the opinion of the late Commission she ought to pay is less now than it was at the time the late Commission reported.
  MR. LOUGH: But, leaving aside any error in the figures, will the Government arrange that, pending the consideration of the question whether the taxation of Ireland shall be reduced, no increase of taxation will take place?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I hope the hon. Gentleman will put down on the Paper any question on the subject which he desires me to answer.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to introduce their promised Employers' Liability Bill on an early date; and, if so, about what date will it be introduced?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am afraid it is not possible in the present condition of public business for me to name a day on which the Employers' Liability Bill will be introduced.

ORDERS OF THE DA Y.

  VOLUNSTARY SCHOOLS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]
  [PROGRESS, 3RD MARCH.—FOURTH DAY.]
  Clause 1,
  "(1) For aiding Voluntary Schools there shall be annually paid out of moneys provided by Parliament an aid grant, not exceeding in the agregate 5s. per scholar for the whole number of scholars in those schools.
  "(2) The aid grant shall be distributed by the Education Department to such Voluntary Schools and in such manner and amounts as the Department think best for the purpose of helping necessitous schools and increasing their efficiency, due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions.
  "(3) If associations of schools are constituted in such manner in such areas and with such governing bodies representative of the managers as are approved by the Education Department, there shall be allotted to each association while so approved,

  "(a) a share of the aid grant to be computed according to the number of scholars in the schools of the association at the rate of 5s. per scholar, or, if the Department fix different rates for town and country schools respectively (which they are hereby empowered to do) then at those rates; and

  "(b) a corresponding share of any sum which may be available out of the aid grant after distribution has been made to unassociated schools.

  "(4) The share so allotted to each such association shall be distributed as aforesaid by the Education Department after consulting the governing body of the association, and in accordance with any scheme prepared by that body which the Department for the time being approve.
  1614
  "(5) The Education Department may exclude a school from any share of the aid grant which it might otherwise receive, if, in the opinion of the Department, it unreasonably refuses or fails to join such an association, but the refusal or failure shall not be deemed unreasonable if the majority of the schools in the association belong to a religious denomination to which the school in question does not itself belong.
  "(6) The Education Department may require as a condition of a school receiving a share of the aid grant, that the accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the school shall be annually audited in accordance with the regulations of the Department.
  "(7) The decision of the Education Department upon any question relating to the distribution or allotment of the aid grant, including the question whether an association is or is not in conformity with this Act, and whether a school is a town or a country school, shall be final."
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSruled out of order a number of Amendments, including the following Amendment standing in the name of Mr. F. A. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.):—In Sub-section (2) after the word "Department," to insert,—
  "And for the purpose of determining with respect to every county the number of schools which are to be deemed to be necessitous, and the proportion of such aid grant as may be payable to each such school, the Education Department shall, on the passing of this Act, hold such local inquiries by inspectors of the Department or otherwise, and call for such returns from School Boards or school attendance committees or other local authorities, and require such accounts with vouchers from the managers of any schools as may in their opinion be necessary, and shall publish a list of all schools determined to be necessitous, and the proportion of such aid grant to be assigned to each such school in respect to the average attendance in such school."
  MR. CHANNING,on a point of order, suggested that, from the wording of the Sub-section, there could be no objection to an Amendment authorising the Education Department to take steps for the grant to be distributed independent of the associations.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The hon. Member's Amendment is out of order, because it is in the wrong place. It ought to come at the end of the sub-section or as a new clause.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHmoved in Sub-section (2) to leave out from the word "to" to the end of the subsection, in order to insert the words, "all voluntary schools at the rate of five shillings per scholar in average attendance."

  1615
  He said that the object of the Amendment was to provide that the 5s. grant should be paid direct to the schools; and one of its great advantages was that it would remove from the Bill these proposed associations of schools. If the grant were paid direct, it would be enjoyed by the best schools in the country as well as by the worst, and thus an injustice to the schools which had done the best for education would be prevented, for under the scheme of the Government it was the worst schools which would be subsidised. He knew it had been said that many of the poor Voluntary Schools would be shut up if aid were not afforded to them; but he did not. believe that that was said bonâ fide. It was simply a threat to blackmail the taxpayers. As to the Boards of Managers in connection with Voluntary Schools, those bodies were not thought highly of in Wales; but whatever they were, these proposed associations would simply be composed of their representatives—that is, the representatives of unrepresentative men. Surely it would be better to deal with the men themselves, however unrepresentative and incapable they might be. Another advantage of the Amendment was that the country would be saved the expense, friction, and strife inseparable from these associations, which were now to be compulsory. In the Bill of last year they were to have been voluntary, and what had happened since last year to induce the Government to abandon the voluntary principle? There was a suggestion in the Bill that the Department might make different rates for town and country; but, in any case, the money ought to go direct to the school instead of being pooled by an association. The Vice President of the Council had said, "Parliament had set before it the task of devising some means of replacing the School Board system in rural districts where it had been a failure by some better system." He supposed that this clause would hardly be defended on that ground. The existing machinery at the command of the Department was amply sufficient for the purposes of this Bill, without the creation of these associations. By accepting the Amendment, the Government would have an opportunity of showing a generous and conciliatory spirit, and of removing one of the blots of the Bill. He begged to move.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said the hon. and learned Gentleman was probably justified, according to the Rules of the House, in referring to the associations which were dealt with later on in the Bill, but it would probably not be for the convenience' of the Committee that they should, at the present stage discuss the special machinery by which distribution, according to merit or need, should be carried out; but they should confine themselves to the question whether they ought to distribute according to fixed amount, irrespective of need, or whether they should, through the machinery in the Bill or some better machinery, attempt to discriminate between different schools and different parts of the country. The answer to the Amendment was a very simple one. In his first argument the hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong in point of fact. Our educational legislation had always, from 1870 onwards, recognised that schools might require more money from the Treasury if they were specially situated. There was the provision hi Section 97 of the Act of 1870, under which a considerable sum of public money was annually given to schools for no other reason whatever than that they were situated in districts where the rateable value was exceedingly small; and, in addition to that, there was the well-known provision in the Act of 1876, by which small schools in fact received an immense exceptional endowment at the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In these circumstances the hon. and learned Gentleman would, he thought, feel himself forced to abandon his first position—namely, that the Government were now introducing some inequality in the treatment of different schools according to the necessities of these schools. Coming to the second argument, which, if he might say so without offence, seemed to be no argument at all, he held that schools had no primâ facie title whatever to public money. They were only entitled to public money, in his judgment, when they were necessitous; if they were not necessitous they could not be said to have even a primâ facie claim to the grant of 5s. to each scholar in average attendance. If the Government had brought forward any plan of this kind

  1617
  they would have been denounced not only in the House but from one end of the country to the other as squandering public money, by their own confession and avowal, on schools that did not require the money—["hear, hear!"]; and he, for his part, felt so much the strength of that argument that he was willing to fight the question of the machinery by which the distribution was to be made rather than adopt the simpler, and, no doubt, easier plan of simply dividing the money equally among all Voluntary Schools according to the number of children in average attendance. He felt the strongest objection to the plan suggested from two opposite points of view—that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the public taxpayer, and the point of view of the Voluntary Schools themselves. He objected to the Amendment from the point of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he did not wish to see public money given to schools which did not require it; and he objected to it from the point of view of the schools, because he thought 5s. per scholar was very much too little for many schools, and therefore, unless some schools which did not require it were not given a full amount, there would be no surplus to give to those schools, to which it was in the highest degree to the public advantage that greater assistance should be granted. The broad case of the Government was, he submitted, unanswerable, or, if it was to be answered at all, it could only be by showing later on that no machinery could be devised under which their end could be attained.
  MR. A. H. D. ACLAND (York, W.R.,)was not quite so sure that, if the Bill had contained a, proposal to give the grant all round in the first instance, the Government would have been denounced up and down the land. At all events, in last year's Bill such a, proposal was made, and he could not recall many denunciations about the Bill on that account. What the Opposition protested against in laying this alternative scheme before, the House was the compulsory association of schools. A great many of the most experienced men in this country who understood this problem best, and who did not by any means belong to one political party, were firmly convinced that, try as they would, it was quite impossible
  1618
  to draw any distinction between necessitous and non-necessitous schools, and yet such a distinction and definition was the very basis, as he understood it, of the Bill. Comparing the case of the average Lancashire school with that of the average London school, no one could doubt that the former was more necessitous than the latter. Therefore, if they were to be equally treated under this Bill, the Lancashire schools should receive 7s. 6d. of the grant and the London schools 2s. 6d. The same comparison would apply to the dioceses of Canterbury and Chester—one of them ought to be a 7s. 6d. diocese and the other a 2s. 6d. diocese; and if the Government were to give each of them the 5s. grant they would be laying themselves open to the charge which they made against the Opposition of proposing to give 5s. equally to those schools which did not want it and to those schools that wanted more. There was no attempt made in the Bill to divide the country into necessitous and non-necessitous areas. It was impossible to lay down any principle for the distribution of the grant between necessitous and non-necessitous schools. The difficulties of laying down such a principle of distribution had been very clearly pointed out in The Times during the early stage of the Debate upon this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President: of the Council had pointed out that if a, great number of schools stood out of the association it would be an impossible task to form such associations, and that the power of refusing the grant to those schools which declined to join the associations would have to be pretty freely used if the associations were to be prevented from falling to pieces. In other words, that meant that schools would have to be compelled to join the associations if they desired to participate in the grant. How were they going to use compulsion as between parish and parish? The Times, in a leading article published on February 16, wrote:—
  "If, in two neighbouring parishes, one school kept up in a state of solvency and efficiency by the liberality of the squire and the parishioners is recommended for only a small grant, while another, where the subscriptions are niggardly, obtains a large amount of relief, on the ground that it is necessitous, what is likely to be the result? It will be hardly consistent with human nature if the parish in which the subscriptions are adequate and liberal is not tempted to bring down its contribution to the

  1619
  level at which it can claim a larger share of the grant."
  ["Hear, hear!"] If such a levelling down process were to be adopted, the Voluntary Schools would not only lose a large portion of their subscriptions, but they would be so reduced as to claim the 5 s. grant all round as a right. In adopting the principle of a varying grant they were making a new departure. The Act of 1870 gave an equal grant, and so did the Free Education, Act of 1891. There were, of course, the exceptional cases of very small schools having from 60 to 90 scholars, in sparsely-populated districts, which required additional assistance to enable them to pay their teachers. But this grant of between half and three-quarters of a million was to be given to all the Voluntary Schools on the understanding that it was to be apportioned between necessitous and non-necessitous schools according to their requirements. But who was to decide what was a necessitous and what was a non-necessitous school? In one parish they might say that they had for years watched with interest the growth of their school, that they had never allowed it to fall behind in regard to efficiency, and that they had constantly appealed to their friends for assistance in order to prevent deficiencies in the accounts, with the result that, by means of careful management, they had been able to maintain their school in excellent condition. Such a parish would ask why in these circumstances they were not to be assisted, and why, in view of all the facts, they were to lose the grant instead of being rewarded for the exertions they had made in order to maintain the efficiency of their school. They might say that they wished to teach cookery and cottage gardening, or other subjects of study, but were prevented from doing so by want of funds; and they might ask why they were to be treated less generously than the neighbouring parish which had neglected their school and had allowed it to become necessitous. In his view, if the compulsory principle were to be eliminated from the Bill the greater part of the sting would be taken out of the Measure. He was not often the depositary of the views of those who were represented by hon. Members opposite, but during the last few weeks he had received an extraordinary number of communications from Conservatives, Churchmen,
  1620
  and clergymen, who were all opposed to him in politics, complaining of the compulsory character of the Bill, which would strike a blow at independence by forcing them into associations. He believed that this complaint was amply justified. ["Hear, hear!"] The result of the adoption of such a compulsory principle would be to make the managers of the schools extremely discontented, and to drag the schools down to a level of inefficiency. ["Hear, hear!"] Why should they not adopt the principle of enabling groups of Church schools to join together? That would put an end to discontent, while the richer schools would be willing to give their portion of the grant to aid the necessitous schools. What did they intend to do with regard to endowed schools in reference to this grant? If they refused the grant to a school on the ground that it was endowed, they would be practically alienating a part of the endowment of the school and handing it over to another parish. ["Hear, hear!"] For whom was this compulsory association necessary? He could hardly believe that it was necessary for the Roman Catholics, in fact, he was not sure that they would get any advantage at all out of it; be was perfectly confident that they could do all they desired to do by voluntary association. ["Hear, hear!"] Was it demanded by the British schools?. Did they want to be associated together and dole out the money by compulsion? Was it desired by the Wesleyans? He did not believe there was a demand for it from either of these two quarters; so that the demand was solely made in the interests of Church schools, though he believed that a great many of the managers of these schools did not at all like the suggestion that they should he compelled to enter into association. He believed that many of the Bishops were very anxious for this, but he thought they were misled in supposing that even with the most benevolent intentions they could work compulsory association as they had hitherto worked voluntary funds. ["Hear, hear!"] The task imposed on these associations by the Bill was to draw up a schedule of schools in their areas and submit it to the Education Department. Each association was to be responsible for distinguishing between schools and schools over an area containing, perhaps, 1,000,000 people, and for presenting a

  1621
  scheme—which to many of the schools would be extremely unsatisfactory—to the Education Department, who would act as their bankers and send out the money to the various schools. He was perfectly confident that the line taken by Canon Barker, Archdeacon Wilson, and by the Northern Counties Voluntary Schools Defence Association, was the right one. What did the latter body say? They said they wanted to omit the word "necessitous" altogether, and to substitute the word "those," the feeling being that all Voluntary Schools which satisfied the demands of the Education Department and were efficient in themselves should have from public sources the full sum necessary to maintain that standard. Did that not mean that they wanted to get rid of the compulsory character of association? As far as he could understand it, they required something much more like a grant all round. ["Hear, hear!"] But there were even wider reasons from his point of view, reasons in the broader interests of education. It had been lightly suggested that the Education Department had admirable representatives in the country villages who could grapple with this task to a, large extent. It would be a most thankless task, and he should be very sorry to see the inspectors, who were now welcomed in all schools, involved in it. ["Hear, hear!"] They had plenty of work to do of a practical educational kind, and were not at all fitted for work so difficult in its character and so dangerous to their own influence. The proposal of the Bill would also involve the officers of the Department in an enormous amount of work which would divert them from their regular duties; and the character of these officers would be altered the moment they were involved in the difficult task of distinguishing between schools. It would make the association unpopular, and it would to a large extent make religious bodies unpopular. It would raise a new cry against religious bodies which it was not desirable to raise, and it would make it much more likely that a demand would be made to upset arrangements in the future. He felt quite certain that the proposal made on his side of the House for a grant all round and a modification of that grant only where it was desired among schools which had grouped themselves to help one
  1622
  another, was the better one. A grant all round and voluntary association were much more likely to lead to a permanent settlement than the scheme of this Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] He felt no hesitation in saying that, so far as permanent settlement went under this Bill, the House would do much more wisely to adopt a scheme such as that, than to try and force into association schools which did not want to go into association. It would avoid the irritation that would be involved in taking away money from schools that thought they were entitled to it, and he sincerely believed that when these associations had done their best to distinguish between school and school, they would find that in 90 per cent. of the cases it would be almost impossible to do so, and they would demand the very scheme now being put before the House of equal grants all round. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. G. C. T. BABTLEYsaid that he agreed that from the sentimental point of view it would be desirable to adjust this new grant in proportion to the necessities of schools, but those who had had to do with schools would acknowledge at once that, practically speaking, when they had got association, it would be impossible under any fair system to adjudicate between school and school. ["Hear, hear!"] Although some schools were better off than others, the schools that were better off were anxious to spend more money in useful and legitimate objects, which they were only prevented from doing by want of funds. It seemed to him that compulsory association would involve an immense amount of friction. The main object of each school would be to get as much as it could. ["Hear, hear!"] In the case of voluntary association an altogether different spirit would be displayed. He had heard it said that some schools were to get 10s., 12s., or even more, while others were to get nothing. He was quite sure that no such an arrangement would follow compulsory association. The association would meet, each school would desire to have its full quota, and the result would be that every school would get 5s. ["Hear, hear!"] That, he acknowledged, was not a desirable plan, and speaking with some practical knowledge on the subject, he said that in his

  1623
  opinion a compulsory system of association would lead to assimilation, and the only possible solution of the difficulty would be to recommend that every school should have 5s. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. HENRY BROADHURSTsaid that if the Amendment were accepted, and this portion of the Bill omitted, much of the opposition to the Bill would undoubtedly be removed, or at least largely modified. They would prefer rather that the money should be more under the control of the central authority which was known, than under the control of a newly-constituted body which they did not know and which they very much feared. He objected to the association altogether. It appeared to be forgotten by the Leader of the House that there were large communities in this country not associated with the Church of England who had consciences and religious convictions. More than half a million of Nonconformist children were driven at the present time into Church Schools; and under this clause the control and the authority of the Church over these schools would be enormously increased. This was one of the reasons why they so strongly opposed this portion of the Bill. No one knew exactly what the machinery was to be, and as it appeared in the Bill it seemed to him to be full of confusion. An intense feeling of suspicion and alarm existed in the minds of Nonconformists with regard to this unknown body of associations. Nonconformist schools had not asked for this Bill; they did not want it and they did not support it. On the contrary, the largest and most influential Nonconformist bodies in the country were almost entirely opposed to the Bill; and it was reasonable to ask the Government to pay some attention to their wishes and feelings. But Nonconformists had received no consideration from the Government, and he urged that this was not a wise policy for the Church itself or for its future interest or position. He supported the Amendment on the ground of religious equality and freedom, and in order that Nonconformists might be released from the bigotry and despotism which would be exercised by the clergymen in the villages in the allocation and management of the fund which was contributed by all classes of the community.
  *MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid that the Amendment involved two questions which were separate and distinct: (1) the fixed grant as against the variable grant, and (2) compulsory federation. In his judgment the first was the only question which should be raised now. Anyone who had knowledge of the needs of schools would not only agree that this new grant should be distributed in varying proportions between school and school, but would regret that the existing grants now paid were not distributed on the same principle. He admitted that the grants to the poorer schools should be larger than the grants to the rich schools. If there were one great merit which attached to the proposed grant in this Bill it was the attempt which was being made to differentiate between the needy and the rich schools. Whether this attempt could be achieved was a different question, but he certainly did not think it would be attained by the machinery in the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] When the question of compulsory association was brought forward he should not hesitate to offer opposition to the proposals outlined in the Bill. Whether it was possible or not, in considering the principle of the fixed as against the varying grants, to distinguish absolutely between the necessity of one school and another school, he would not now inquire; but it was perfectly possible for the Education Department, by means of its inspectors, to lay down a series of rules having reference to the average attendance in schools under which the whole grant might be well distributed. He could not understand how in the speeches of some Ministers the suggestion should be made that the larger grant should be given to schools in urban districts rather than to schools in rural districts. ["Hear, hear!"] Again, if the Education Department had to revise all the schemes it might as well frame them, and he thought that the proposal would lead to a large amount of friction in many localities. Owing to the large number of schools that would be under the control of each association he thought that the machinery provided would be almost unworkable, in addition to being exceedingly expensive, as well as leading to the diversion of a large proportion of the voluntary subscriptions from the schools. All the best

  1625
  Voluntary Schools would, he felt sure, send up vigorous protests against the proposed machinery.
  MR. J. M. PAULTONsaid that in this case they had to choose between waste and injustice, and, for his part, he was inclined to think that the lesser of the two evils would be a certain amount of waste, which, he quite admitted, would result from the operation of a fixed grant all round. But, to his mind, the important thing in the whole matter was the question of efficiency, and it did seem to him that, under the proposal of the Government, every sort of discouragement would be given to those schools which had done most to deserve recognition. In short, under this system they would give most to those who deserved least. The principle of compulsory association appeared to him to be a very doubtful and dangerous experiment. Under Section 7 of the Act of 1891 the schools had had the opportunity of forming associations, and they had done so only to a very slight extent, if, indeed, at all. Obviously, if this principle was so desirable, they would have availed themselves of it to a much greater extent; and, if it was not desirable, surely it was a dangerous thing to put it into compulsory operation. The School Guardian had pointed out that the advantage, from their point of view, of this principle of compulsory federation was not alone, and it would give a means of distributing the money. It said:—
  "They"—the associations—"will prove useful in many other ways. At present there is little control over individual schools. The Board of Management may any day close their school or surrender it to the School Board without consulting anybody. The association would be able to exercise a supervision which would render such independent action on the part of the management practically impossible."
  Was that the way this principle of association was going to be worked? There was nothing whatever, so far as they could see, to prevent it from being so worked. Not only on its merits was it desirable that they should adopt the Amendment, but he thought it was also most important that they should enable the Committee, by adopting it, to get rid of the difficulties and the dangers of this principle, which, he felt sure, would never be satisfactorily worked.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid he should like to say one word as to the attitude of the Church of England, so far as he was acquainted with it, upon this question of federation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherham said he had received a large number of letters from warm supporters of the Church and of the Government protesting against these provisions in the Bill. He thought it was always a very suspicions thing when the arch-enemy of Voluntary Schools was the recipient of the confidences of supporters of the Government and of Voluntary Schools in the country. He confessed that he viewed that correspondence with a certain amount of suspicion. He could say with absolute confidence, because he knew, that to a very small extent had protests been received by the National Society, and, indeed, it was not surprising, because the National Society itself had passed the strongest resolutions in favour of this part of the Bill. He did not know whether hon. Gentlemen recollected that it was an essential part of the scheme put forward at the Church House in the winter that the special aid should be paid to federations, and, as far as he knew, it was not opposed by any very large section, and it was certainly adopted as the programme of the Church as represented by that meeting of enormous importance. He did not believe there was any very large section, with, perhaps, one exception, of those who took an interest in the welfare of Voluntary Schools, who had in any way signified their protest against the federation clauses of the Bill. He did not think that voluntary federations had been an entire failure; but he thought they had been partially, and for very obvious reasons. However much in theory the supporters of Voluntary Schools, whether rich or poor, might approve of federation, when it came to the actual point of sharing a sum of money, which they might keep themselves, with others, he thought it was expecting too much of human nature, even of clerical human nature, to be entirely unselfish in this respect. He was not at all sure if he were a manager that he should feel entitled to enter into a voluntary federation of this kind. He should hold his position as a trustee; and what right had a trustee to part

  1627
  with the money granted to him by Parliament, to be administered under that trust for the needs of a particular school in a particular parish, for other schools in other parishes? He saw immense difficulties in the way of the success of voluntary federation. As to the necessity of discriminating between school and school, it was so obvious that he did not think it was seriously denied by anybody. Let him give an illustration to the Committee. Take the five school districts which appeared in the Return for the county of Oxford. In the first case, the cost per child was £3 2s.; in the second, £3 10s.; in the third, £1 12s.; in. the fourth, £3 7s.; and in the fifth, £2. Was it not absurd to give exactly the same assistance to the case of a school which only paid £1 12s. and to the case of a school which paid £3 10s.? That was manifestly absurd. Some kind of discrimination there must be. He had never defended the provisions of the Bill as perfect, none of these methods of discrimination as between association and association were perfect, and until his hon. Friends realised that a certain mixture of rate aid should accompany the aid proposed in the Bill there could not be a perfect discrimination. Until they had realised the advantages of the proposal put forward by the Church of England, he was content with what he could get. He recognised the desire of the Government to make this discrimination. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherham, said one effect would be that there would be a desire on the part of subscribers, when less than the 5s. grant was awarded them by the association, to diminish subscriptions. He could not conceive any such foolish policy. A certain amount of discretion ought to be reasonably expected. An association would take into consideration the warm efforts made by subscribers, special regard would be had to unselfish efforts made, and, certainly, the first consideration would be not to diminish sources of present income. Everything must be done to maintain these subscriptions, valuable in themselves, and valuable as implying moral support. He did not apprehend any such danger as the right hon. Gentleman had indicated. He believed that this provision could be wisely and strictly administered, all regard being paid to the consideration that
  1628
  subscriptions should not suffer. He should vote most cordially against the present Amendment, for he believed that this discrimination was absolutely essential to the proper working of the Bill.
  MR. H. H. ASQUITHregarded this as one of the first important Amendments that could be presented, and could not agree with the noble Lord that the sole question raised was the expediency of providing a fixed sum. He could not dissociate from the questions raised by the Amendment the compulsory machinery proposed to be constituted, and which, in his view, would certainly lead to disastrous results from the point of view of educational efficiency, and from the point of view of regular and equitable distribution of money contributed by the taxpayers. It was quite true that the Amendment as it stood, and in the form in which it appeared before the Committee, might have the possible result that some of the money might go to schools having no practical need of it. No schools were so prosperous or in an educational condition so ideally perfect that they could not make a sufficient use of this 5s. grant, no one would deny that; but he agreed that there were a certain number of schools where there was no urgent need for this additional sum, therefore it might be that in some cases a fixed grant might lead to something of the nature of waste. But the Committee had to choose between alternative proposals, between this comparatively slight risk and the demonstrable administrative evil of inequality by the method of distribution proposed. The Government might have proposed, as had been pointed out, that the sum granted by way of relief should be an amount proportionate to the number of children in necessitous schools. They might have supplemented that by a definition in the Bill—he would not undertake the task, he would rather leave it to a better draftsman—of what a necessitous school is, and what were the criteria of necessity. The Government could not put that into an Act of Parliament, but they would give to associations throughout the country the determination of a question which, as a matter of drafting they could not solve for themselves. The Government might have adopted that plan, and he did not envy them the task, but if they had done

  1629
  so they would be in a logical and intelligible position. What was their position? A sum was to be distributed, the amount of which had no relation whatever to the number of children in necessitous schools, it was proposed to be arrived at by a process nobody had yet explained. The sum the Chancellor of the Eschequer could afford was arrived at by the number of the children in Voluntary Schools, and that sum was to be distributed among necessitous schools. But then the Government refused to give a definition of necessitous schools, and proposed to intrust to a perfectly irresponsible authority, an authority compulsorily constituted, the determination of what schools fell or did not fall within the category of schools to be relieved, the Educational Department having a superintending but absolutely illusory authority. If the Department exercised that authority in a practical and effective sense not only would it impose vast additional work—and the Department was already overladen, as they knew on the authority of the Vice President, and incapable of transacting the business it had at present—but by bringing inspectors and officials into contact with local jealousies and local rivalries with which they were unfitted to deal, there would be prejudiced that universal belief now prevailing in the impartiality of the Department. How did the matter stand? A sum of money was aggregated, not on the ground of necessity at all, and distributed among necessitous schools, there being no definition of necessitous, and the instrument of distribution was to be not the Education Department or an authority responsible to Parliament, but these associations, to be formed in some manner not yet defined, throughout the country. ["Hear!"] The noble Lord had defended the compulsory association, and he said managers would not go into association voluntarily, that it would not be in human nature to do so. He implied that human nature would not permit any clergyman or set of managers of any particular denominational school, being willing, voluntarily, to part with any of the amount that might come to them.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid he explained that trust deeds would stand in the way.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid the noble Lord first argued on the broad ground of human
  1630
  nature, and his view of the matter was: that managers of Voluntary Schools, if left to themselves, apart altogether from their trust deeds, would feel themselves so constrained to look exclusively to the interests of the schools with which they were connected, that even the important considerations of supporting denominational education would not induce them to give up a shilling of the grant to relieve the urgent needs of other schools. That being the noble Lord's idea, he recognised the necessity for compulsion. Human nature was to be coerced, and managers were to be forced to associate whether they desired to do so or not, at the risk of losing that which they honestly believed ought to be given to the schools with which they were connected. With that idea he did not agree, he took a broader, more elastic view of the conduct likely to be pursued. He recognised the probability of voluntary association among schools of the same denomination, and that there would be sufficient public spirit and zeal for education to bring about an amicable arrangement for distribution according to needs. On another point raised by the Amendment he invited explanation. The proposal in the Bill was bad from the point of view of the taxpayer, it was still worse from an educational point of view. What answer could be made to the argument urged by his right hon. Friend, that if this money was granted to exclusively necessitous schools it was putting forward a bribe or a premium to schools that had raised themselves above the level of the necessitous to reduce themselves to the category of those entitled to the relief? Take the case of the two schools side by side, one of which, by the strain of an excessive effort of generosity on the part of a not always rich but often very poor clergyman who had contributed out of his own means far in excess of what duty required, had been kept in a state of efficiency largely by the self-sacrifice and spontaneous zeal of the clergyman and a few supporters. That school was not inefficient, and it would not get a halfpenny. In the next parish, owing to the neglect of the clergyman and want of zeal on the part of the parishioners, there was a school which had been allowed to come into the category of an inefficient or necessitous school, and because of its inefficiency it was entitled to a share of

  1631
  this grant. How could they contend that where they had a state of things in which one of these schools was rewarded for its inefficiency and the other punished for its efficiency the effect of the Measure would not discourage educational zeal and lower the standard of the Voluntary Schools? ["Hear, hear!"] That was, to his mind, even a more important consideration than that which related to the point of view of the taxpayer", and on the ground that this was a most improvident and irresponsible surrender on the part of Parliament of the control over the expenditure of public money, and on the ground that it was putting a premium on educational inefficiency and want of zeal, he should heartily support the Amendment. [Cheers.]
  MR. C. A. CRIPPSremarked that there was one part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument with which he thoroughly agreed, and that was that the present Amendment was really a discussion of the most important portion of the Bill. But when the right hon. Gentleman put it on the one side as waste, and on the other as a system of inequitable distribution, he admitted the argument, so far as waste was concerned, but he thought the argument was easily answerable so far as an inequitable distribution was concerned. The reason why this portion of the Bill should be supported as an essential part of the Government's proposal was that it was so drawn as to insure, as far as possible, equitable distribution, and to maintain the control of Parliament, because he thought, upon this point, the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood the provisions of the Bill itself. Before dealing with the proposal itself, there was one other argument to which he should like to refer, and that was what the right hon. Gentleman had called the education argument. He supposed so little public spirit in the managers of Voluntary Schools and so little zeal on their part in the interests of real education, that they would throw away funds and bring themselves to a condition of poverty in order—having brought themselves to that condition—that they might get some of this 5s. grant. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman on what he called the argument applicable to human nature, was it
  1632
  in accordance with human nature that they should throw away money with one hand on the chance possibility of picking it up with the other, and were they to do that in the case of voluntary education, in which he, at any rate, gave credit to the voluntary managers for having at heart efficient religious education in this country? As to the proposal itself, it was of the very essence of the Bill that relief should be given by discrimination to necessitous schools. If they went outside the principle of helping schools which wanted help he thought there was much to be said, as had been argued by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side, by treating all schools, whether Voluntary or Board Schools, in the same way, as regarded the Parliamentary grant. But if they were not going to do that—and that was not proposed to be done at the present moment—what was the only fair test they could make? It was, whether the schools were Voluntary or Board Schools, that Parliament was asked to come forward and help their necessities in order that the efficiency of education in their necessitous schools might be increased and advanced. If hon. Gentlemen succeeded in taking the word "necessitous" out of the Clause, they would then say that there was no principle as regarded the Government proposal for helping education at the present moment. They might have taken the principle of "necessitous" and applied it both to Board Schools and Voluntary Schools, but once take that word out and it appeared to him they had no sound argument for giving the grant to non-necessitous Voluntary Schools that would not equally apply to the giving of it to non-necessitous Board Schools, because the test, as he said, was the necessity of the additional money in order to insure in the case of the poor schools, whether Board or Voluntary, a more efficient system of education. The right hon. Gentleman opposite asked what was meant by a necessitous school? He thought the answer was easy enough. A necessitous school was one in which the funds, from whatever source derived, were insufficient to provide an efficient education, having regard to the cost of education so far as that particular school was concerned. If they took that definition, which was the only true one, then everyone who

  1633
  was in favour of enhancing the efficiency of education at the present time ought to vote for an increased Parliamentary grant, where the funds were insufficient for bringing about an efficient and adequate system of education. That was the real basis of the demand now made for the Voluntary Schools. It was not made for all Voluntary Schools, but for all necessitous Voluntary Schools, because in those eases, without they had further aid the interests of education might suffer. On the principle of discrimination he could not help thinking that the light hon. Member for Fife had not observed what the real proposals were. The association which it was proposed to set up had nothing to do, either with the local management, or with the question of local subscriptions. If it had he, for one, should be opposed to it, because he believed that if they set up by compulsion an association which superseded local management as regarded their Voluntary Schools they would do very much to injure the management itself, and certainly destroy a large number of voluntary subscriptions. The principle of association, however, had nothing to do with local management, it merely had to do with the distribution of the proposed 5s. grant. It was limited to that, and to that alone. Let him point to a second way in which the power of the association was limited. It was not accurate to say that this money was to be distributed by an, irresponsible federation or association. It was to be distributed by the Education Department, and the only force of the association was that the Education. Department might be advised by it in an admittedly difficult manner. The right hon. Gentleman said he objected to the Government proposal, because they were dealing with the taxpayers' money without retaining the control of Parliament. The answer was that the right hon. Gentleman had not appreciated the proposal. The whole responsibility as regarded the distribution was thrown upon the Education Department, who would be responsible in respect of this 5s. grant, just as they were at the present moment as regarded the sum of nearly 30s. a head distributed to Voluntary and Board Schools alike. Again, this had been described as a compulsory association. But the only compulsion was that in Sub-section (5), which
  1634
  was merely that the school must not refuse unreasonably, according to the opinion of the Education Department, to join one of these federations or associations. The true basis of it was that it was to be an association entered into for the purpose merely of distributing this 5s. grant, and the only risk that was run by the schools which did not join in it was lest they should lose the five shillings, supposing their conduct was held to be unreasonable. If they looked at the proposal from that point of view, he said the associations of the Bill ought to be most cordially supported as one of the most essential factors for making this great Government scheme of assisting Voluntary Schools of the greatest utility when the Bill was first passed and as regarded education in the future. The right hon. Gentleman had said they must not have waste. In order to secure that, they must have discrimination, and, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, Parliament must retain control. Parliament did retain control, because the fund was to be distributed by the Education Department. On the question of association he believed that a large number of Members would be agreed, when they appreciated what was really proposed by the Government, that it was no interference with local management, or the question of local subsriptions, but merely an association that might advise the Education Department to distribute this sum of five shillings in the most efficacious way for promoting the efficiency of education. When these points were understood, he thought the proposal of the Government ought to have the most cordial support of all who were really interested in the future of education, and he should certainly vote most heartily, and without any misgivings, against the Amendment.
  MR. J. H. YOXALLsaid that if a necessitous school was, as the hon. and learned Member for Stroud defined it, a school the income of which, from whatever cause, was insufficient to meet the claims upon it, then there were hundreds and thousands of such schools. Could a school be regarded as necessitous when a tithe was taken by the clergyman for rent? There were thousands of schools where, under good management, the sum received from the State would be ample if it were not "milked" in that way. As it was, such schools were now

  1635
  defined as necessitous. He believed that a year after the Bill was passed there would be two necessitous schools for every one that now existed. It had been suggested that Voluntary School managers might throw away local income to get more State income. It was a question of local contributors withholding local income. [Cheers.] A Tory squire and Churchman, and a great supporter of Voluntary Schools, had written to him saying he had conferred with other subscribers, and he assured him that what would happen would be that subscribers to Voluntary Schools not strictly necessitous would say, "Why should we go on subscribing when, if we withdraw our subscriptions, the maintenance of the schools will fall on the State?" If so, necessitous schools would multiply, and practically every Voluntary School in the country would become necessitous, and 5s. per bead would have to be allotted all round. If it were provided that the withdrawal of existing subscriptions should prevent any claim for State aid under the Bill, the catastrophe might be averted, but they had no assurance that there would be any such safeguard. There were other modes of differentiation than those in the Bill. There might be differentiation of the grant between school and school, or the Education Department might have a sliding scale of grants, giving more per child the smaller the school, and less per child the larger the school. The differentiation proposed by the Bill was bad. It would reduce all schools to the same level, and 5s. per head would have to be given all round.
  LORD EDMUND TALBOTwished to correct the impression left by the speech of the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Acland) that Catholics did not favour the priciple of the association of schools. The Catholic Bishops recently issued a statement, signed by all of them, on this Bill, in which the following occurred:—
  "We welcome the proposal to establish associations that will secure an equitable grant in aid and promote the general advancement of public elementary education."
  So that the Catholics of this country, headed by their Bishops, warmly approved of the principle of association contained in the Bill.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYcontended that the definition given of necessitous schools would be of no use whatever to the associations to be formed under the Bill, and they would have as much difficulty as the Government in deciding what were necessitous schools. As to the Bill not interfering with local management, he thought the Bill would give the associations a large controlling influence. If a school did not comply with the desires of the association as regarded religious education it was quite possible the majority in the association would do all in their power to prevent it from getting any portion of the grant. Besides, this; would undoubtedly tend to create a larger number of necessitous schools, which did not exist at the present time. He was a large contributor to Voluntary Schools—one of the largest in the House—and he regarded with some alarm the prospect of schools to which he largely subscribed not getting the 5s. to which they were entitled. Why, in many instances, were voluntary subscriptions given? Often to prevent the formation of Board Schools—[cheers]—the subscribers thinking Board Schools were more expensive. ["Hear, hear!"] Most of the subscribers, when they found the schools were not to have their share of the £620,000, would be inclined to say, "We will discontinue our subscriptions, and the result will be that a large number of the schools will be compelled to appeal to the Board Schools, or become Board Schools instead of Voluntary Schools." He defied anyone to give an accurate description of a necessitous school. The Bill in its present form would cause untold difficulties and quarrelling in various localities. It was impossible to put the task of deciding what were necessitous schools on the inspectors. They had work enough to do, and they were constantly getting into difficulty with the managers of the various schools, and if the powers proposed were put into their hands they would increase their difficulties. In his opinion, it was unwise to make it compulsory for every school to join an association. He could not see why a school, which had been maintained up to the present by voluntary subscriptions should not be entitled to this grant as well as any other which might not have been carried on efficiently, owing to a want of private funds. He

  1637
  hoped the hon. Member would press his Amendment to a division. If the Bill was passed, without some other means of distributing the money than the provision with regard to associations, it would give great dissatisfaction in the country, and he believed these schools would become Board Schools to a large extent.
  *MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid the discussion, which for the last two hours had been on the desirability of compulsory association, was quite foreign to the issue now before them. ["Hear, hear!"] There was nothing about associations in the sub-section they were discussing, or in the Amendment. With regard to the compulsory character of the association, they need not deal with that until they came to Sub-section (5) of this clause, when they would have had more time to make up their minds as to that very important, and, he must say, difficult question. He was somewhat surprised at the support which the Amendment had received from the front Opposition Bench. They were now told, and he believed for the first time from that Bench, that the desirable plan, if they gave the money at all, was to give it as a dole without any discrimination whatever. The inevitable effect of the Amendment would be, that this very large sum would be distributed equally per head among all schools, whether in the West End or the East End, whether in poor or wealthy districts, whether the schools were small or large, or were heavily endowed or not endowed at all. He submitted that they would make a very great mistake, both from a financial and an educational point of view, if they abandoned once for all any power of discrimination between necessitous and non-necessitous schools. ["Hear, hear!"] He believed there were various ways that might be adopted of devising machinery for reserving some power of discriminating between the amounts to be granted to various schools; but this was not the time to discuss that machinery. If they refused to give any power of discrimination to the Education Department or to any other authority, the inevitable result would be a great deal of waste. He should, without hesitation, vote against the Amendment.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid the hon. Member had declared himself a very strong advocate of discrimination, and had indicated that, at some future time, they should be better able to discuss the best mode of deciding that question. He had, however, thrown no light upon that scheme, although he had intimated the possibility that he might suggest another scheme. He ventured to think that now was the proper time to raise this question. If they could, by some certain and infallible process, ascertain what schools needed the money most it would, no doubt, be the wisest course to give those schools the money. But they had to take this scheme, with all the imperfections not only of human and clerical nature, but of House of Commons nature. They must necessarily see whether the machinery suggested by this Bill justified them in departing from what had been the uniform practice in distributing grants for education. A grant of money for education had in that House always been distributed either on the principle of capitation or because the merit and efficiency of a school entitled it to a grant. They had never, until the present occasion, raised the question of the income of the school or the income of those by whom the school was supported. The Bill, however, introduced a new principle—they were going to give public money to necessitous schools. Until that night they had never had a definition from the other side of "necessitous." The First Lord of the Treasury did not give them a, definition; he told them that in the Act of 1870 there was a definition of necessitous schools, and that under Section 97 of that Act provision was made out of the public Exchequer for necessitous schools.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid it was true that he referred to Section 97 of that Act, but he did so to remind the Committee that the contention first advanced by the Mover of this Amendment, and now repeated by the right hon. Gentleman, had really no foundation, and that Parliament had not gone on the principle of distributing a fixed grant apart from the necessities of the schools to which the grant was given.
  SIR H. FOWLERapologised for misunderstanding the right hon. Gentleman, but pointed out that what Parliament did in 1870 was to recognise the necessitous school districts—["hear, hear!"]—not the necessitous schools. There was a vital distinction between the two. ["Hear, hear!"] When Mr. Forster inserted that clause into his Bill, his contemplation, and that of the Government of that day, was that the additional cost of education would be met by a 3d. rate. At that time the subscriptions of the voluntary subscribers represented about one-third of the cost of the school, the actual average being something over 7s. The clause was introduced in order that, where a rate of 3d. in the pound would not produce 7s. 6d. per head of all the children in the schools, the Government out of the grant were to make up the difference between the rate and the 7s. 6d. That was the definition, if he might so express it, of the Parliament of that day of a necessitous School Board district. They were not now dealing with the School Board districts, however, but with Voluntary Schools. The hon. Member for the Stroud Division said it was an essential part of this scheme that the money should be given to necessitous schools only. They joined issue upon that point. They contended that it was impossible to discriminate as to what was a necessitous school. They might say that there was a class of subscribers that were necessitous, or a class of subscribers that would not give what they ought to give—which he thought was the more general rule—["hear, hear!"]—and they might give the money to that class of subscribers, but that was not giving it to necessitous schools. An hon. Member just now defined a necessitous school as a school in which the funds were insufficient to defray the cost. But there was a question behind that—namely, why they were insufficient. ["Hear, hear!"] His hon. Friend the Member for Durham had told them of a wealthy coalowner who handsomely subscribed to the Voluntary School of the district for the economical motive of keeping out the School Board. Under the Bill that school was not a necessitous school, because there were sufficient funds to pay the expenses. But if there was a wealthy coalowner in
  1640
  the next parish who did not give anything to his school, that school was to be subsidised at the rate of 5s. per child in attendance. If that were so, it was probable that the first wealthy coalowner would drop his subscription to his school, which would then become necessitous, and would receive an extra grant under the Bill. [Laughter and cheers.] This was a question that he did not desire to approach in any controversial spirit. The House had determined that this £620,000 was to be given for the relief of Voluntary Schools, and the question now before them was whether the machinery of compulsory Associations was a preferable or even a practical mode of carrying out that desire. He should like to say in passing that he did not agree with the assumption that the Government were wrong in having admitted that there was a stronger case for urban schools as against rural schools. He agreed with the Government in that view. In towns where there were School Boards, there was a far greater pressure on the Voluntary Schools than on similar schools in the rural districts, where there were no School Boards. That question came to the front immediately they proceeded to deal with necessitous schools. What the managers of schools in all the large towns desired was to increase their expenditure in order to make the schools better, and he believed this 5s. per head would be as much wanted by the best Voluntary Schools in towns as it would be by the most impecunious Voluntary Schools in country districts. The hon. Member for Stroud had said that the object of forming the Associations was to insure the equitable distribution of the grant. Then why was that not set out in the Bill? The Government did not prescribe in the Bill the formation of the Associations. They had not sufficient confidence in the wisdom of the Associations to make the formation of the Associations compulsory. Their form was left entirely optional, and Associations thus constituted were to have practically the distribution of the money. And why? The Vice President of the Council had said that if the Department had the distribution of the money it would break down under the labour of deciding which schools were necessitous and which schools were not necessitous. It was, indeed, impossible that the Department

  1641
  could do it, and so they were reduced to this—that those irresponsible Associations would have the ultimate and final power of distributing this money. It was said that the Department would hear appeals. If that were so, he thought the Department would soon find appeals would be so numerous that it would be far better for them to undertake the distribution of the grant. Every school that would not get a grant would think itself injured and would therefore appeal. What was the objection of giving a grant all round? The new Associations would not be strong enough to say that a certain class of schools should have only 2s. per head and that another class should have 10s. per head. The managers of the schools would not submit to such discrimination. He thought, therefore, they were entitled to ask the Government frankly what they mean as to the constitution of those Associations. The Bill was vague and uncertain. It was an essay. It was a theory. The whole working part of it was left out of the Bill altogether. If the Government thought this a vital part of their scheme to which they intended to adhere, they must have made up their minds as to what the framework of these Associations was to be; what was to be their constitution; what was to be their powers; what responsibility they would have to Parliament; how Parliament was to exercise that responsibility; whether there was to be a general scheme of the Education Department to apply to all Associations and to be laid on the Table of the House for discussion. He thought that it would save time if, before they went any further into this Bill, the Government gave the Committee their views on this important question of the machinery for the distribution of the money.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, with, he was sure, the best intentions, had recommended the Committee to make this the opportunity not merely for a general consideration of the machinery of the Bill as to the distribution of the money, but for a detailed consideration of the plan of the Government. In the observation he had already had the honour of making to the Committee, he had said that he would confine his remarks, as he did rigidly, to the consideration of the questions whether they ought
  1642
  to give this money according to the needs of the schools to whom it was to be given, or whether they should confine themselves to the grossly imperfect plan of giving 5s. per head all round. He still thought the Committee would have been well advised if they had followed the advice which he then gave them. But, of course, he recognised that it was strictly in order to this Amendment to ask whether the particular machinery the Government had proposed for the distribution of the money was good or was not good. But inasmuch as that point must be inevitably raised on later Amendments dealing with the associations, he would suggest, in the interest of the rapid discharge of business, the orderliness of Debates, and the avoidance of repetition, that they should as far as possible postpone till then all dealing with the details of the plan of the Government in regard to the Associations. He would not even criticise the phrase, so often inaccurately used, that these associations were to be compulsory. He would leave that until the time came to move Amendments practically raising that issue, and he would appeal to the Committee to bring this particular branch of the subject as to the distribution of the money to an early termination in order that they might come to the important questions that would, he admitted, have to be raised before they passed the three sub-sections of the clause. But he would deal with some of the points raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They had been told that they could not define necessitous schools, and that it was beyond the power of the draftsman to do so, and they were also told that the scheme of the Bill would involve injustice, and bring about a state of things approaching something like disorder. He confessed that these gloomy forebodings did not influence his judgment in the least. ["Hear, hear!"] On the other hand, he did not pretend that he looked forward with absolute foreknowledge to the future of those associations, or to the distribution of the grant. He admitted that undoubtedly the task that would be thrown on the associations would be one of some difficulty, and that it would demand on their part the exercise of public spirit and uncommon devotion to a common cause. ["Hear, hear!"] But, in the circumstances granted, was

  1643
  the task of discrimination one that it was impossible to accomplish fairly and justly? ["Hear, hear!"] He thought not. In his judgment, the framework of the Bill was so contrived that it would obviate the danger of assisting schools where the poverty was, as it were, self-made, and that it would not operate as the right hon. Member for Fife had stated, as an. inducement to schools to make themselves "necessitous" in order to participate in the grant. ["Hear, hear!"] He was aware that some hon. Gentlemen opposite, apart altogether from any Party feeling, did look forward with some apprehension to the attempt about to be made in favour of discrimination between the schools. But, after all, was not the experiment worth making? ["Hear, hear!"] If the Committee agreed to the Amendment just as it was, they would give up for all time any hope of carrying out the plan proposed, and hon. Members must admit that that plan of accomplishing the object in view was the best that had been devised. ["Hear, hear!"] If, as he hoped, and firmly believed, the difficulties of the task were not beyond the patriotism and public spirit of the managers of the schools, nor beyond the administrative capacity of the Education Department, the advantage of retaining the Bill in its present form would be that there would be no squandering of the public money. [Cheers.] For those reasons he would earnestly press upon the Committee not to accept the Amendment, which would seriously mutilate a Measure that otherwise he sincerely believed would prove to be of incalculable benefit to education generally. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the proof that the Government had no confidence in the public spirit of Voluntary School managers was shown by the fact that the managers were penalised by Sub-section (5) if they refused to enter the projected associations. In Section 97 of the Act of 1870 there was a distinct principle for ascertaining whether a district was necessitous. The district must be one in which a. 3d. rate did not produce a certain amount. Again, in the Act of 1876, to which the Government was always referring, there was a principle laid down—the necessitous district was defined by a population limit. Where the population of a district within
  1644
  two miles of the school was less than 300, and there was no other public elementary school recognised by the Department, the Act provided that a special Parliamentary grant should be made to the school. But in this clause the Government were making a distinction on a principle entirely opposed to that of the Act of 1870 or of 1876. They were discriminating in favour of the towns as opposed to the country districts in favour of the districts of large rateable value and population, as against the districts of small rateable value and population. The noble Lord the Member for Rochester had said that if he were the manager of a Voluntary School, and the question were left to his discretion, he should not vote for any portion of the grant payable to his association being taken from his school to be given to a more necessitous school. The noble Lord said that he did not think it would be right to do so. And yet the noble Lord was going to support a Bill which would compel managers to do the very thing which the noble Lord thought it would be wrong for them to do.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid that the hon. Member had referred to the case of Manchester as a town in which the subscriptions per scholar were not up to the average over the country. This was an argument which had been exposed over and over again. The explanation was that in Manchester a very much larger proportion of the population sent the children to Voluntary Schools, and where the subscriptions were low, the population was exceedingly poor.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEpointed out to the Committee that there were eight schools in Manchester where the subscriptions were above the average, and that, under the Bill, they would suffer for the benefit of the others.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid that it was perfectly evident that only an authority well acquainted with the district would be qualified to judge of the best manner of distributing the grant.
  MR. ALBERT SPICERsaid that the hon. and learned Member for Stroud and the First Lord of the Treasury had repeatedly insisted on the fact that these associations would have nothing to do with the local management of schools, but only with the distribution of the grant. Being a member of

  1645
  a Voluntary Church, he had had some experience of somewhat analogous conditions, and he was sure that the Government did not clearly apprehend what the effect of these associations would be. If there were to be discrimination between school and school, it was inevitable that sooner or later local management would be touched. Any association wishing to distribute the grant according to the necessities of its different schools must make inquiries to get at the facts. They would find all sorts of circumstances existing. For instance, they might find in one school district that a Broad Church squire refused to subscribe to the school because it was conducted on the principles of a High Church clergyman; and the association would be bound to refuse aid to any school which did not meet reasonable local requirements. The Government were discriminating from the wrong end. If they had admitted some principle of local control all might have been well. But this they had persistently refused.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLdenied that the deputation of Lancashire Members, to whom reference had been made, were opposed to the principle of association. It would be unfair, he thought, to those who desired to see this Bill passed that such a statement should go without contradiction.
  MR. R. W. PERKShoped he was right in gathering from what the First Lord of the Treasury had said that the Government might not, at some later stage of the discussion, be indisposed to seriously consider the abandonment of the compulsory form of association of schools. As to the question of the aid grant, or, as some people called it, the 5s. dole, the scheme for discretionary distribution or favouritism, or picking and choosing between school and school, had been very carefully considered by the Committee who had charge of all the Wesleyan schools, and who had to consider the interests of something like 300,000 Wesleyan children in Anglican elementary schools. Although the Committee embraced some political supporters of the right hon. Gentleman, they came unanimously to the conclusion that there was no just and equitable method of
  1646
  differentiating between school and school. There was one point which did not seem to have occurred to the Leader of the House, and that was the view which the parents might take of this question. Some schools might receive out of the public funds 25s. or 26s. per head, while other schools might get 32s., 33s., 34s., or 35s. Was it not extremely probable that the parents of those children in the schools receiving the lesser amount, would seriously complain that less was being spent upon the education of their children, than upon those in the schools receiving larger sums. Already protests were being made against the scheme of federation, even by the managers of Voluntary Schools. The Worcester Herald had gone to the trouble of ascertaining the opinions of Voluntary School managers in and around Worcester, and it had been ascertained that no less than one-fourth of the managers in that district strongly repudiated the system of compulsory association. And leaders of opinion in the Church of England like the Bishop of Hereford, Canon Barker, and Archdeacon Wilson had joined in repudiating this portion of the Bill. He wished that at some later stage of the discussion the Government would announce that this cumbrous and unnecessary machinery would be dropped.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that the system of federation was impossible in practice. The First Lord of the Treasury had spoken about some virtuous individual who would see to the interests of the schools, but that individual would not be able to vote against his own school getting a large grant, however rich that school was. There was nothing to show which school was to get large help and which school was to get small help, and the result must be that every member of an association would be pledged to do all he could to benefit his own school.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYclaimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 90.—(Division List, No. 69.)
  Question put accordingly, "That the words 'to such Voluntary Schools' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 228; Noes, 88.—(Division List, No. 70.)
  On the return of the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, after the usual interval,
  *SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEmoved, in Sub-section (2), to leave out all the words after "schools," to the end of the sub-section, and to insert
  "in accordance with regulations which will insure that it shall be applied—
  "(a) in improving the teaching staff as regards number, qualification, or salary; and so far as it is not in the opinion of the Education Department required for that purpose—
  "(b) in the payment of the teaching staff, the provision of special teachers whether on the permanent staff or not, and in the improvement of the eduaction of pupil teachers; and
  "(c) in the improvement of the educational fittings and apparatus of the school, and in otherwise increasing its efficiency."
  He said that the sub-section of the Bill now under consideration dealt with the distribution of the grant, and he was encouraged to move the Amendment by the fact that, in the only speech which the Vice President of the Council had delivered on the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman used these remarkable words:—
  "I am quite certain that any Amendment which merely goes to secure that this State-aid grant shall be used merely for the purpose of promoting and improving the education of the country will be welcomed by the Government."
  It was true that the right hon. Gentleman spoke, as he said, in the absence of the First Lord of the Treasury, but he could not doubt that, when he used those words, he not only spoke the mind of the Education Department, but really represented the collective wisdom of the Government. This grant might be applied in one of three ways. In the first place, it might be applied in promoting educational efficiency; in the second place, it might be applied in relieving voluntary subscribers; and in the third place, it might be wasted altogether. The last course was not at all an improbable one, and constituted a real danger, as was evidenced by what the Duke of Devonshire said when he
  1648
  received a deputation of Church dignitaries in November 1895. On that occasion the Lord President said:—
  "another objection to the increase of the grant is that in some cases it does not appear to be needed, and would therefore involve a very considerable waste of public money."
  That contention had been put forward on more than one occasion by those on his side of the House; and he was glad to have the high authority of the Lord President of the Council that that was a danger which ought to be specially guarded against. He wanted to see these provisions in the statute itself. It was a precaution which the Government felt in providing for the application of a lesser grant last year. No one had made more clear than the Duke of Devonshire and the Vice President the necessity of a provision of this character. The Duke of Devonshire said:—
  "It seems to me there is a real danger unless any increase of a fixed grant should be guarded very carefully; it is rather difficult to see how any increase would be used for the purpose which you desire—the placing of Voluntary and Board Schools on an equal footing."
  He was referring to the contention that the Church was unable to continue the expense of keeping the Voluntary Schools in an efficient state, because of the competition and the inequality which existed between Voluntary and Board Schools. A no less remarkable declaration was made by the Vice President in November last, when he said:—
  "Unless effective precautions were taken a grant would do little to relieve the financial difficulties of managers; it would be swallowed up in relieving subscribers, and there would be nothing left for managers to spend on the schools."
  It was in consequence of these declarations that he invited the Committee to put into the Bill what one of the Education Ministers called "careful safeguards," and what the other called "effective precautions," against any misapplication of the money to other purposes than the promotion of educational efficiency. During the last few weeks two very important bodies had been considering this subject, both strongly representing the interests and necessities of Voluntary Schools—the Northern Association of Voluntary Schools and the Northern House of Convocation. Both of these bodies pressed for the deletion of certain words in the

  1649
  sub-section; what were they? The words were, "Due regard being had to voluntary subscriptions." Why was this asked? Was it because they thought that, by retaining them, educational efficiency would be promoted? No; they could only surmise that the reason for the deletion of the words being asked was a fear that the money could not be applied to the relief of voluntary subscript ions. The Dean of Manchester said that he wanted the words "due regard" deleted—
  *THE GHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I do not exactly see how the question of voluntary subscriptions arises on the Amendment of the hon. Member.
  SIR J. WOODHOUSEsaid his point was this: If the money was not applied as he proposed—namely, to educational efficiency—it would be applied to the relief of voluntary subscriptions.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The question of "due regard" is one which can be debated at a later stage. It is obviously inconvenient to debate it now, because the Amendment raises a totally different question.
  *SIR J. WOODHOUSEsaid a grave suspicion was raised in their minds that unless this money was protected in the Bill by express statutory provisions it would go to relieve voluntary subscriptions. Those safeguards, therefore, ought to be introduced in the Bill. What was the ground on which the Ecclesiastical authorities had asked for this grant? The Archbishop of Canterbury said that the necessity for it had arisen on two grounds, (1) because of the competition of the Board Schools; and (2) because of the insufficient staffing and teaching in the Voluntary Schools. He complained that the School Board spent too much on buildings, and that they spent too much on salaries—an argument which came very badly from a former head master of one of their public schools in receipt of a very large salary. He also read A letter from a teacher of a very important Voluntary School, who complained of the School Board competition, and said:—
  "We are better off than most Voluntary Schools, for although we get nothing from voluntary subscriptions, we receive 15s. per head in school fees. Voluntary Schools will
  1650
  never compare favourably with School Boards until they are similarly staffed. I have not one trained certificated assistant; my rivals have nothing else. When my ex-pupil teachers gain their certificates their ambition is to get into a Board School, and my pupil teachers do the same."
  That was the case placed by Dr. Temple before the Government as the reason why they should have this additional aid, and he now asked the Government to embody in this Bill that which would insure that the money should be applied for the purposes and on the grounds upon which it was asked by that deputation which waited upon the Lord President and Lord Salisbury. Upon the question of the comparative efficiency of Board Schools and Voluntary Schools, the Royal Commission came to this conclusion:—
  "There is no doubt that, if the results of Government inspectors are a fair test of the efficiency of schools, the Board Schools are much more efficient than the Voluntary Schools."
  The statistics showed that that was true in a remarkable degree. Take, for instance, the proportions of certificated teachers. In Board Schools every head master was not only a certificated teacher, but 53 per cent. of the teachers and assistant teachers were certificated, against only 21 per cent. in Voluntary Schools. Then there was the question of discipline and organisation. The highest grant was awarded by the Department as a measure of the efficiency of the school as a whole, and 88 per cent. of that was obtained in Board Schools, and only 75 per cent. in Voluntary Schools. Again, if they took accuracy of knowledge and general intelligence, which was the basis on which the principal grant was awarded, the two systems yielded this result: 67 per cent. in Board Schools, and 40 per cent. in Voluntary Schools. Then as to the training and education of pupil teachers. The test of relative efficiency was the proportion of student teachers who obtained first-class certificates, and in that the proportion for Board Schools was 20 per cent. and in Voluntary Schools it was only 9 per cent. He was anxious that this money should be applied to more adequately remunerating the teachers, to increasing their number, and to increasing their efficiency, by getting more certificated teachers, and in that way to the

  1651
  improvement of the standard of education throughout the country, which should be the great object of that House in awarding money for educational purposes. That this question of the salary of teachers was a very important one was made clear by the memorial of the Voluntary teachers themselves. They said:—
  "The average salary of head teachers in Voluntary Schools is very much less than that of head teachers in Board Schools. In the case of masters it is 34 per cent., and in that of mistresses 58 per cent., while the salaries of certificated assistant teachers in the two classes of schools show even a greater disparity, the masters receiving 46 per cent. less and the mistresses 62 per cent. less than assistant teachers in Board Schools, whose duties and responsibilities are of precisely the same character."
  With that remarkable statement before them could the Committee doubt the wisdom and the necessity of laying down in that Bill the direction that the money was applied to equalise that great disparity? The Royal Commission said:—
  "The most important subject of our inquiry, that which lies at the root of all educational progress, is the quality of the teaching and the character of the teacher. We owe a duty to him and to the children to secure that their work shall be done with no external hindrances, with the best appliances, and with well adapted premises. But after all the most important factor in the success of the school is the teacher. "
  He wanted this money applied to the removal of those hindrances, to obtaining the best appliances, and to securing those well adapted premises which the Royal Commission said were so essential for the success of their educational progress in this country. In putting forward this argument he was but stating in much more imperfect language what was stated by the Vice President himself in the only speech with which he had honoured them during the consideration of this Bill. He was quite sure if the Government accepted this Amendment it would be appreciated in the country irrespective of Party, because it would convince the country that the Government were serious in their desire that this money should be applied in a proper manner.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the hon. Member had referred to a statement made by his right hon. Friend the Vice President that the Government would be willing to accept any
  1652
  Amendment which would have for its result the improvement of education in the Voluntary Schools. He entirely agreed with that. He also agreed that there was no difference as to the object they had in this particular matter. The only question between them was whether the Bill would be improved by the words proposed by the hon. Member. He presumed the hon. Member considered it an alternative proposal.
  SIR J. WOODHOUSEsaid the words he proposed were the same as in the Bill of last year.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYdid not deny that the hon. Member's account of what efficiency consisted of was a very fair account, but he failed to see that the words in the Bill would not carry out all that the hon. Member desired to achieve. He did not think that it was necessary to enumerate what efficiency consisted of. The hon. Member in his Amendment did enumerate the elements of efficiency as they occurred to his mind, but he still had a fear, and he swept up the unknown by introducing the words, "and in otherwise increasing efficiency." The last words of his Amendment, therefore, included everything that he set out at length in the first lines of the Amendment. The Government believed that they attained the same end by the phrase in the Bill.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid they were dealing simply with the best way in which the money could be applied. As regarded the obligation, there was no difference of opinion between them—it was simply a question as to the best way in which the idea could be expressed. His hon. Friend thought that specific words should be put in with a specific purpose. They were this year dealing with a larger sum than last year, and there was practically no control at all, and they now found the Government unwilling to accept words which they themselves proposed last year. What they wanted was to be clear on two points. They wanted to be quite certain that none of this money goes into the pockets of subscribers; and, secondly, they wanted to be assured that the money should really go to increasing the efficiency of Voluntary Schools. They knew quite well, as had already been pointed out over and over again, that the Bill as

  1653
  it stood gave such vague directions that there would be the greatest difficulty in seeing that this money was properly applied. They wanted the Department to take the question of subscriptions into account. They had a great suspicion, they had great doubts, they had fears, that in dealing with these schools the increased grant would, directly or indirectly, load to the diminution of subscriptions. They were therefore especially interested at that moment, not in putting into the Bill vague and unmeaning words, which gave them no guarantee that this £620,000 would go to promote efficiency; they wanted to make sure that the money would be applied to the improvement in the teaching of these schools. Everyone who knew anything about elementary education, everyone who was in any way concerned with the voluntary system, knew quite well the weak spot and where the strain was greatest. That weak spot was with regard to the teaching. They knew that the teachers were underpaid and overworked. ["Hear, hear!"] The strain was not so much upon the managers, but upon the teachers. It was to that point that relief ought to go. If they wanted to assure that the money should go to the promoting of efficiency—and efficiency was really in question—why should they not state it specifically? He felt bound to say that he could not follow the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House in his argument that the words of the Bill were clearer than the Bill of last year. They wanted the teaching class improved, and they wanted the condition of the teachers improved. They were not opposing the amount of money to be given, or whether it was applied to certain schools or all round; they wanted the weak spot dealt with and the teaching improved. They knew very well that the strain was on the teachers, and the strain was greater than it was in Board Schools.
  *MR. WALTER HAZELLobserved that the Amendment would make more clear the object which the Government said they had in their mind. If any form of words could be adopted which would make it more sure that this grant would go towards the provision of more efficient education and further appliances, a higher paid and a larger staff, then, he thought, much good would be done.
  1654
  There was one point he should like to refer to. Most hon. Members were aware of the scope of the Fair Wages Resolution of the House. Were they not at the present time sanctioning an anomaly? Here is a body of men who were carrying on their work under the control of a Government Department, and with money which, in the case of Voluntary Schools, was mainly provided by Parliament, and in the case of Board Schools largely by Parliament, and merely by the accident of their being in Voluntary Schools instead of Board Schools, their salaries were much lower. It was most undesirable that public servants should be coming before Parliament with claims for higher salaries oftener than could be avoided. He would ask the House whether, in face of the Fair Wages Resolution, it was not stultifying itself by permitting a system to continue a day longer than was necessary, by which two groups of public servants, with the same qualifications, performing the same duties, and both equally efficient, should be paid on an arbitrarily different scale of emolument. Believing that this Amendment would help to raise the salaries in Voluntary Schools, he cordially supported it.
  MR. REGINALD McKENNAhoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his determination not to accept the Amendment, which really served a most admirable purpose. It indicated to the associations what was the meaning of this extra grant. It was not to be used in defraying the ordinary expenditure of the school, but in meeting the increased expenditure which had been incurred by improving the teaching staff. That was to say, the money was not to be spent merely upon maintaining the existing staff, apparatus, and requirements of the school, but exclusively for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the school. There was a further reason for the acceptance of the Amendment. If hon. Members would turn to Sub-section (4) of the clause they would find that the associations were to prepare schemes which were to be sanctioned by the Department before the money allotted to them would be distributed by the Education Department. The Committee of Council on Education had, through the Vice President, expressed their opinion as to what the schemes should be. The

  1655
  right hon. Gentleman stated on the Second Reading of the Bill, that
  "The scheme will not only have to indicate the amount of public money to be allotted to each of the constituent schools, but it will also have to prescribe the purposes for which the money so allotted shall be used by the schools."
  That was to say, the scheme put forward by the association would have to embody such terms as those presented in the Amendment. Was it not the most reasonable thing in the world that the Committee should suggest, by introducing this Amendment, the terms of the scheme and the idea of Parliament as to what the basis of the action of the association should be? It ought to be made clear that it was for the very objects embodied in the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman of last year that this money was specially demanded, and for those objects alone. For these reasons he supported the Amendment.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONremarked that up to the present it had been illegal for the managers of schools to devote public moneys of this character to the payment of debts which had been incurred in the erection of permanent buildings, or in connection with the carrying on of the schools. According to the present. Bill, however, it would be perfectly legitimate for an association to use money for the purpose of repairing or adding to existing buildings. This was an exceedingly important matter, and it seemed to him that the money granted by this Bill might be used in the same way as that in which, in some cases, the 10s. fee grant had been used, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartford (Sir William Hart Dyke), who had been responsible for the Education Department in that House, had admitted that the money received under the Fee Grant Act 1891, had been used for the particular purpose of paying off debts previously incurred. Diocesan associations existed at the present time, and he had no doubt the Diocesan Board would look for the money to be obtained from this Bill to enable them to pay debts they had already incurred in the maintenance and repair of existing buildings for which they had made themselves responsible. The Government ought to take some precautions to prevent such an allocation of public money. ["Hear,
  1656
  hear!"] He thought the Leader of the House had too much confidence in the ability of the associations to put the money to the right uses, but if this Amendment were accepted it would give an assurance not merely to the Committee but to the country at large that the money would be used for the purpose for which Parliament intended it. The noble Lord the Member for Rochester (Viscount Cranborne) had said that the chief strain at the present time was upon the teaching—the difficulty being to provide adequate salaries in order to attach efficient teachers to the Voluntary Schools. If that was the case, what objection could there be on the part of the noble Lord or of the Government to give, at any rate, some directions to the associations that they might allocate the money to such an object. He was convinced that if the Government would accept this or some similar Amendment, which would not absolutely limit the allocation of the money to the narrowest possible channel, but would give the association some indication of the purpose the House of Commons had in granting this money, they would be giving considerable satisfaction to the House and to the country. [Opposition cheers.] It was a serious matter that this huge sum of public money should be left so largely in the discretion of irresponsible bodies. There might have been some excuse for leaving the matter open if these bodies had been of a responsible character, but being of an irresponsible character there was a fear that they might not use the money as it ought to be used. The Government would render the cause of Education and even Voluntary Schools a great service if they would give some indication of how this money was to be spent for the benefit of education and of the schools they desired should be supported by this Bill. [Opposition cheers.]
  *MR. CHARLES HARRISONpointed out that the words of the Amendment were identical with those used in the Bill of the Government of last year. Inefficiency arose undoubtedly and admittedly from an inefficient teaching staff. The Bill of 1896 specified that the first item of application of the money for curing the inefficiency should be by its application to improving the teaching staff as regards the qualification or salary. Those objects had priority over all others,

  1657
  and the Bill of 1896 provided, so far as the fund might not be required for that particular purpose, then it should be applied in the order set out in the present Amendment for remedying the deficiencies in the school by applying the balance generally in payment of the teaching staff, the provision of special teachers, whether on the permanent staff or not—an object which would not fall within the provisions of the clause as now drafted—the improved education of pupil teachers, and the improvement of the educational fittings and apparatus of the school, and it was only by the 5th Sub-section in the Bill of 1896 provided that the surplus which remained, if any, should alone be applied by the Education authority at their discretion. Until these objects had been fulfilled, no general discretion arose as to the application of the money. Its application embraced objects beyond the words mentioned in the present Bill, and as the grant in aid allotted to a particular school under the scheme of the Bill might not be in fact sufficient, it was essential that the order of application should be laid down by the statute. This was effected by adopting the terms of the Amendment, the language of which and the objects of which were more extensive and were not the same as those intrusted to the Department under the words in the present Bill. If this Amendment were accepted, the money could not be applied to any other purpose whatsoever. But under the words of the present Bill, which were "increasing their efficiency," no order of priority was given by which the money might be applied for any one or other of the numerous causes which made the particular inefficiency, and the object of the Amendment was to say that, having regard to the inefficiency, they should cure that inefficiency, first by applying the grant to the improvement of the teaching staff, and then to the other objects mentioned in the Amendment. For these reasons he strongly supported the Amendment.
  MR. A. J. MUNDELLAsaid this was one of the most important Amendments which had been submitted to the Committee, and it was one which he should have thought would have been welcomed on the opposite side of the House. Throughout the country the supporters of the Bill had proclaimed that their sole object was to improve the
  1658
  efficiency of the Voluntary Schools, and everyone of them when he addressed his constituents would say that that was the object of the Bill.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: To relieve the intolerable strain.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Had the right hon. Gentleman no ulterior object in mind when he spoke of the intolerable strain? About this time last year they had under discussion a Bill introduced by the Vice President of the Council, and which he declared had for its object the efficiency of all the schools. He specially pointed out that the grant of 4s. per head was earmarked for the purpose. How was it earmarked? In the very words of the Amendment. [Cheers.] The First Lord of the Treasury knew how important it was to specify in the Bill in what respect it was intended to improve the efficiency of the schools, and that the first condition of efficiency was that there should be efficient teachers. When the Government set out in a clear, lucid, and specific manner in the Bill of last year the requirements of the schools, why did they content themselves with, the mere expression of a pious opinion this year? Why did the Government object to the words of the Amendment?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Because they were surplusage.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Were they surplusage last year? No one but the right hon. Gentleman would say so, and if he could spend a week in the Education Department he would not say they were surplusage. Efficiency was the crux of the whole question, and it depended on the efficiency and sufficiency of the teaching staff in elementary schools. On the Second Reading of the Bill of last year they were promised by the Vice President of the Council that "any Amendment which really goes to secure that this State aid grant shall be used for the purpose of promoting and improving the education of the country will be welcomed by the Government," They now welcomed such Amendments by a conspiracy of silence. [Cheers and counter cheers.] We had arrived at a period of the 19th century when, if anything was required in the British House of Commons, it was that it should spare no effort and no money to raise the character of the education of the country. Nothing was so vital to the public interest of this country or its

  1659
  future productiveness and prosperity as improved schools, and the very key to improvement was an improved teaching staff. The right hon. Gentleman had ridiculed the words of the Amendment as surplusage. That was treating the matter with levity. [Cheers.] It seemed that the House of Commons no longer existed for debate and deliberation, but merely to register the fiat of a Minister. They were not permitted to make any improvements in this Bill; so far from Amendments being welcomed they were rejected with almost silent contempt. ["Hear, hear!" and cries of "No."] It would be the duty of those who sat on that side of the House, and it would be his duty as one who supported Mr. Forster in carrying the Act of 1870 through the House, to let the world know, and to let his countrymen know—[ironical cheers]—that the compromise had been broken, and that that valuable Measure had been injured and all but destroyed by the action of the Government. They would also expose to the country what they were not allowed to discuss in that House.
  [At the conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, there were Opposition cries of "Gorst."]
  *MR. HOBHOUSEthought his right hon. Friend had been a little hard upon them on that side of the House. There was surely no question of breaking the compromise of the Act of 1870. Many of them had exactly the same object in view on that subject as the right hon. Gentleman had. He desired that this money should go to increase the efficiency of the schools. It was really a question of words—whether the words should be more general or more specific. If the exact words proposed by the hon. Member were here inserted, it would make this sub-section a very bad specimen of drafting. [Mr. MUNDELLA: "Government drafting."] He quite admitted there would be some advantage in specifying the particular objects, and if that could be done by the addition of a few words in a later sub-section he should have no objection to it, although he did not think that in the interests of education it was at all necessary. It was perfectly well known both to officers of the Education Department and to managers of Voluntary Schools and their representatives on the Boards of Association in
  1660
  what the efficiency of a school consisted. It consisted, in the first place, in the efficiency of the teachers, and they could not get good teachers without paying them a fair salary. The Inspectors of the Department would no doubt have the power when they went round to audit the accounts of seeing that the money had been actually applied to the proper purposes. The Government had not altered their opinion as to the objects to which this money was to be applied, but they could hardly be blamed, after their recent experience, for having chosen that form of words which would provoke the least discussion.
  *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts,)said the Amendment was opposed on miserably inadequate grounds. He believed these words would strengthen the Education Department, which was constantly engaged in struggles with local authorities, in order to secure efficiency in the schools. Perhaps the hon. Member who had just sat down did not know the difficulties which the Inspectors sometimes had in presenting honest and honourable reports. The requirements of the Education Department in regard to buildings, fittings, and appliances were the constant subject of complaint by the managers of the schools. When this Bill was passed the Department would be entitled to be even more exacting in the future than it had been in the past. By the insertion of the words in the Amendment they could so strengthen the Education Department that it would have clear statutory authority for the requirements it would make, which would render the future course of the Department more easy. The hon. Member for Huddersfield had made out an unanswerable case in support of the contention that the Voluntary Schools as a general rule were inferior to the Board Schools. The candid friends of the Voluntary Schools admitted that. They say, "Let us put funds at the command of the managers, and they will show that their schools can be made as good as the Board Schools." The Amendment would take those gentlemen at their word, and it would give to the Education Department the right to require from the managers of the Voluntary Schools evidence that their teaching was efficient. He was sure no friend of education would regret the insertion of the Amendment.

  1661
  He was also sure that many real friends of education would deeply regret that the Government had refused to accept it.
  MR. YOXALLsaid the objection of the First Lord of the Treasury to the Amendment was that it was lengthy, verbose, and expressed its object in a roundabout way. The hon. Member for Somerset had said that if short form of words were proposed he must support it. He, therefore, asked the First Lord whether, as both sides were anxious that the money should be spent for the improvement of the teaching staffs, he would agree to insert after "increasing their efficiency," the words" particularly by improving the number, qualification, and remuneration of the teaching staffs." That form of words was short and unmistakeable, and met all the objections of the First Lord. Without the insertion of some such words they would have no security that the money would be spent to increase the efficiency of the Voluntary Schools. What was the condition at the present moment of the teaching staffs of the Voluntary Schools? In thousands of those schools throughout the country there was only one adult teacher and he had usually to teach twelve different subjects in six or seven different classes. He had often asked the teachers of such schools what they would do if they had an additional revenue of £10 a year, and the answer invariably was that they would get an additional teacher. There were some 12,000 teachers in the Voluntary Schools who had no academic qualification; no certificate of professional efficiency, except that they were 18 years of age, and the inspectors allowed them to teach. There were probably 20,000 teachers in the Voluntary Schools who were little more than children. In fact, the Voluntary Schools were largely worked by child labour—youths of 15 or 16 years of age, who taught all day and studied all night. There were 25,600 certificated teachers in the Voluntary Schools. Of those only 698 had salaries of £200 a year; 11,759 got less than £75; 2,006 got less than £50; 1,096 got less than £15; and 367 got less than £10. The houses of many of those teachers had only four rooms—
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! I do not think that that comes within the scope of this Amendment.
  MR. YOXALLsaid he would not press that point further. He would only urge in conclusion that if they wanted to make the teaching in the Voluntary Schools more efficient they would have to im-improve the condition of the teachers.
  *MR. H. C. F. LUTTBELLsaid that if the real object of the Bill was to improve education by the efficiency of the schools, rather than to bring the Voluntary Schools into competition with the Board Schools, he could not see why the Government should hesitate to accept the Amendment, which was proposed for the only purpose of improving the teaching staff and raising the character of the school. ["Hear, hear!"] The only objection they had heard from the other side against the Amendment came from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, who contended that it was a surplusage. Hon. Members who supported it, however, were of a contrary opinion. The Bill had many faults, but no one could accuse it of being too lengthy—then why this undue care about printers' ink? By contending that the Amendment was a surplus Amendment the Government practically admitted that their Bill was a surplice Bill, and if that were so its effect would be only to assist parsons, Bishops, members of the Church of England. [Loud Ministerial cries of dissent.] Well, he would not say members of the Church of England alone, but of religious denominations, and he urged that education should not be made in any way a matter of religious denomination. Unless the Amendment, or some other Amendment to the same effect, was passed, the operation of the Bill would be to assist the religious denominations through giving to the projected associations, which would be largely influenced by denominational opinions, the opportunity of framing what arrangements they pleased. It they wished to have the children of the country well taught, they must have good teachers. On the grounds he had stated he strongly supported the Amendment. [" Hear, hear!"]
  MR. BARTLEYthought the Committee had been engaged for two hours in discussing a matter which involved merely a difference between "tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum." [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and laughter.] The words in the Bill were such as the Education Department

  1663
  thought best for the purpose of helping the necessitous schools, and at the same time of increasing their efficiency. The matter came within charge of the Department, and it must be acknowledged that hitherto they had acted impartially—["hear, hear!"]—and knew, at least as much as hon. Members opposite, what were the best means of promoting the efficiency of the schools. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought it would be much better if the Committee passed on to the consideration of some more substantial Amendment, and left a matter of comparative detail of this kind to the Education Department. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR H. FOWLERsaid there was a great difference between the statements of the Government last year and this year as to what they regarded as essential for the improvement and efficiency of education in the schools. Last year, in justifying the grant of 4s. per head, they promised over and over again that the money was to be applied exclusively for the improvement of education. ["Hear, hear!"] That was said in the House; but what was said out of doors? In shoals of letters to certain papers grave dissatisfaction was expressed with the Government because no relief was offered to the schools. What those people wanted was not an increase of educational efficiency, but an increase of relief to the schools. [Cheers.] The Government had brought in a short Bill, as they said, and it was urged that the matter was only a question of drafting. It was not a question of drafting; it was a question of meaning. [Cheers.] The keynote of last year's Bill had been left out, and general words had been inserted in this Bill which might mean anything or nothing. Nobody had justified this alteration of the action of the Government. The hon. Member for Nottingham had suggested a much shorter form of words, which conveyed, though not so fully, the meaning of the provision of the Bill of last year, but the Government would have none of that. Let the Committee distinctly understand what they were going to vote upon. The Opposition were voting for this money to be spent in the improvement of the teaching staff, and in improving the efficiency of the schools. [Cheers.] Those who supported the Government would be voting against those objects. [Cheers.]
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST, Cambridge University),who was received with Ministerial cheers and loud ironical cheers from the Opposition Benches, said that he had risen to put the right hon. Gentleman right on a matter of fact—[laughter]—and to save him from making an unintentional misrepresentation. In the Bill of last year, it was quite true, the purposes for which the special aid grant was to be spent were specifically set out. But last year the distribution of the specific aid grant was intrusted, not to the Education Department, but to a new education authority which was created by the Bill, and which had no previous educational experience. [Opposition cheers and laughter.] Such an authority would have stood much in need of Parliamentary guidance. [Opposition cheers and laughter.] But in the Bill of this year the distribution of the special aid grant was intrusted, not to a new education authority, but to a very old and experienced education authority—the Committee of Council. [Opposition cheers and laughter.] Therefore this year the Bill very rightly laid down in general terms that the grant was to be distributed by the Education Department in such a manner as the Department thought best for increasing the efficiency of the schools. [Cheers and cries of "No!"] He supposed that there was no authority in the country which was better fitted to judge of the due order in which the various methods of expenditure should be placed—to say in one particular case that the payment of the teachers should come first and that in another case the provision of apparatus should come first. He thought that the Committee and the Government might properly, in a matter of that kind, having given a direction that the money was to be spent in increasing the efficiency of the schools, leave the particular manner in which it was to be spent to the discretion of the Education Department. [Cheers.]
  *MR. ROBERT CAMERONsaid that he was glad to find that on this Amendment, which was by far the most important on the Paper, both sides were in practical agreement on principles, though differing in details. The phrase "for increasing the efficiency of the schools" was a very

  1665
  general and vague phrase, which might cover much or little. He wished to see it converted into definite propositions. Only last week the Secretary of the Voluntary School Teachers' Association in his neighbourhood waited on him to urge that the main part of this money should be earmarked for the teachers' salaries and the providing of school apparatus. They feared that the money would be devoted to other purposes, He had had nine years' experience as Chairman of one of the largest School Boards in the country: and he had noted that when that Board advertised for teachers they received scores of applications from the masters of Voluntary Schools. He often asked them privately why they wished to make the change, and their answer was that under a School Board they were freer, had better pay, and better security for the future. The Bill should contain specific provisions for securing efficiency, and efficiency meant, as well as good management, well-trained and well-paid teachers, with an assured and independent position. Without those conditions the profession of the schoolmaster would never rank as it was worthy to rank. The country had spent millions on education, and had a right to see that value was given to it for this additional grant.
  MR. ACLANDsaid the Vice President of the Council, whose intervention in the discussion in Committee for the first time they welcomed—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, the second time"]—he had previously only made a remark and not a speech—stated that the reason why the words of last year defining the object for which this grant should be given were not now needed was that the bodies who were to do the work under the Bill required less guidance than the authorities contemplated by the Measure of last year. Let him read one or two words of the Bill which came a little after those the right hon. Gentleman read, because they bore on the local authorities of this year:—
  "The share so allotted to each association shall be distributed as aforesaid by the Education Department after consulting the governing body of the association."
  What were the instructions which the governing body of the association were to follow? What were they to do when they considered the recommendations which they were about to make to the
  1666
  Education Department as to the distribution of the grant? What was the guidance which the Bill gave them as to the particular direction in which this grant was to be given? They were to distribute the grant "as aforesaid." Why should not the words "as aforesaid" guide this new body, which required as much guidance as the authority under the Bill of last year—["hear, hear!"]—perhaps more—[cheers]—which would be as new to this kind of work as the County Councils; why should they not find, when they looked upwards in the Bill from the words "as aforesaid," the detailed words of last year's Bill, telling them what their duties really were? It seemed to him that if the Vice President's words earned force they had a much stronger application to the Amendment as it was laid before the Committee now than they could have had last year. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. HAROLD RECKITTasked the Committee for that indulgence which was always extended to a Member when addressing it for the first time. He wished to intervene in the Debate, because the constituency he had the honour to represent was almost entirely served by Voluntary Schools. His experience was, that the people in agricultural districts suffered very materially from the fact that the salaries of the teachers in the Voluntary Schools were insufficient. From that cause alone Voluntary Schools in the agricultural districts were very often unable to gain that amount of Imperial aid, in the shape of grants, which they would otherwise obtain. ["Hear, hear!"] He was one of those who supported this Amendment, in order that the efficiency of teaching in our agricultural districts should be increased. In more than one Voluntary School with which he was personally connected the teachers suffered from the fact that they had to teach four and five standards in the same day in various classes and under various circumstances. They were put into competition with the town schools, where the staff was sufficient to give one teacher for each standard. The grants which were earned by each set of schools during the year were calculated upon the same basis of examination; and it was

  1667
  not surprising that, under those circumstances, it was much less in the agricultural districts than in the towns. Care should be taken that this additional aid grant should be devoted to increasing the salaries of the teachers, increasing the general efficiency, and improving the apparatus of country schools, and not used for making up a diminution of subscriptions. The First Lord of the Treasury had stated that it was the purpose of the Bill that more money should go to the towns than to the country. From his own experience, he should say that the standard of education in the country at the present time required more raising than it did in the towns. ["Hear, hear!"] Personally he thought that 5s. per head per child in the agricultural districts was absolutely insufficient to raise the standard of education to anything like that which it had attained in the towns at the present time. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. CHARLES MORLEYsaid that, under the clause as it stood at present, money might be applied to the Voluntary Schools for two purposes; it might be applied for helping necessitous schools, and it might also be applied for increasing their efficiency. He wanted to know whether, under the clause, the money might be voted or used or applied for extending or increasing the existing buildings of a school, or for liquidating existing debts.
  MR. J. A. PEASEasked the Vice President of the Council why, if he recommended the general terms of the Bill, he promised to the House only 10 days ago that any Amendment which really tended to the promotion and improvement of education would be welcomed by the Government? He, at any rate, considered that the use of those words committed the Government to accepting any Amendment which promoted efficiency. Those who were in favour of putting into practical effect the efficiency of education in our schools would vote for the Amendment, and those who were in favour of the relief of voluntary subscribers would vote with the Government.
  Question put, "That the words 'and in such manner' stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 259: Noes, 119.—(Division List—No. 71.)
  The announcement of the figures was received with opposition cheers.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The next Amendment not out of order stands in the name of the hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan (Mr. Samuel Evans). I confess that I do not quite understand what the Amendment means. [Laughter.] If it means that the Education Department is to have no discretion as to the mode in allotting the amounts, but is to allot the 5s. grant all round, it is out of order. [Laughter.] But if it has any other meaning, then it may be in order, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain it. [Laughter.]
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSmoved in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "and amounts." He said that he was proposing to leave out those words for the purpose of having some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council as to what the words meant. [Laughter.] The meaning of the words as they stood appeared to be that the Department would have the ultimate decision as to what amounts were to be given to any individual school. In Sub-section (4) it was said that the grant should be distributed by the Department after consulting with the governing body or the association. If the association was to decide the proportion to be given to individual schools, he did not quite see the meaning of the words in the present sub-section, as he did not understand how the Department was to exercise a discretion in the matter if it had to obey the dictates of the association. On the other hand, if the Department were to have a discretion, he failed to see what the functions of the association were to be. If, however, the Committee had had from the Government any definition of what a necessitous school was he would probably not have moved the Amendment. It must be obvious to the Committee that it was necessary to have some kind of definition or explanation of that term.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid he failed to see the relevancy of the hon. Member's remarks.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANScontended that the words "and amounts" must be governed by the words "for the purpose," and the purpose expressed in the

  1669
  clause was that of helping necessitous schools. He would ask the Vice President or the First Lord of the Treasury to explain how it came to be necessary that the Department should have any discretion at all in fixing the amount to be given to necessitous schools.
  MR. JOHN DILLONcalled attention to what he considered a serious contradiction in the Bill. In this subsection the Department was given, what seemed to him, a very proper discretion to distribute the grant in proportion to the necessities of the schools, and there was no limitation placed on that discretion. But in a later portion of the clause a very serious limitation was placed on the discretion of the Department, a limitation which prevented them from discriminating between association and association. He would like to know whether the Department would have an absolute discretion between school and school all over the country, or whether they would be compelled to give without any discretion, 5s. per head to all associations without reference to the question whether the schools in one association were more necessitous than the schools in another.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he understood the question of the hon. Member who had just sat down, but he did not understand the Amendment. There would be no discretion in the Department as between association and association; that was to say, they would have to give 5s. per scholar to every association in respect of all the schools in the association. The hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan would, he thought, see that nothing was to be gained by omitting the words.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was not very clear. It was obvious that gross inequality would be created between district and district as well as between denomination and denomination.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSagain pressed for an explanation as to the meaning of the words, and contended that there would not be much danger if they were omitted from the clause.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The meaning is that the Education Department is to settle the amount to be given to the schools.
  MR. PAULTONasked whether the words "and amounts" related to the amount to be paid to the schools or the associations?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The schools.
  MR. REES DAVIESpressed for further explanation as to the meaning of the words.
  Question put, "That the words 'and amounts' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 260; Noes, 100.—(Division List, No. 72.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGErose to move an Amendment, notice of which did rot appear on the Paper—[Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!"]—namely, in Sub-section (2) to omit the words "as the Department think best," in order to insert instead thereof the words "as provided by scheme to be formulated by the Department, and laid before Parliament." The words in the Bill to which he objected were perfectly inconsistent with the 3rd and 4th sub-sections. The 2nd sub-section provided that the grant
  "shall be distributed by the Education Deprartment to such Voluntary Schools, and in such manner and amounts as the Department think best."
  This gave absolute discretion to the Department as to the manner and amount in distribution, but the next sub-section limited the authority just given, and declared that as between association and association there should be absolutely no discretion at all. As a matter of order he submitted that either the 3rd sub-section was out of order, or these words were out of order. He did not, however, press that, but contended, as matter of argument, the words were inconsistent because so far from the Department having absolute power to distribute as it might think best, the 3rd sub-section provided that each association was to receive the full amount granted, on the basis of 5s. for every child attending the schools, thus taking away all the discretion of the Department as between one association and another. Then the 4th sub-section modified and limited the authority of the Department as between one school and another, for the scheme which would determine the amount each school was to

  1671
  receive was to be prepared not by the Department but by the association. If the phraseology of the 2nd sub-section meant anything it conferred an absolutely despotic authority on the Department in the distribution of the money. It was followed by the 3rd sub-section limiting that authority as between associations, and then the 4th sub-section further cut down the discretion of the Department as between schools. This was to make absolute nonsense of an Act of Parliament. The words he proposed to substitute for the unlimited power to be conferred on the Education Department, provided that the Department should formulate a scheme for the purpose of making the distribution, submit the regulations to the House of Commons, and lay them upon the Table of the House so that the House should have an opportunity of discussing them, if necessary modifying them, and, if not satisfied with them as a whole, of rejecting them. He said that this was the first time such powers had ever been attempted to be conferred on any Government Department. Under the Act of 1870 grants of public money were made to schools for educational purposes, and, although the schools had only to receive the grant on conditions which would have regard to the merit and efficiency of the schools alone, still the House of Commons was so jealous of any power being conferred upon a Government Department with regard to the expenditure of public money, that it insisted on the regulations governing the expenditure of that money being laid on the Table of the House for one month before they came into operation. He said that this precedent ought to be followed in the present case. By Section 97 of the Act of 1870, the conditions required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in order to obtain the annual Parliamentary grant were to be those contained in the Minute of the Education Department in force for the time being. First of all the Section went to the extent of laying down principles with regard to what should be contained in the Minute, and then it provided that no Minute should be deemed to be in force until it had lain for not less than a month on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. He asked the Government why they had departed from that precedent in this particular case? If ever there was a case when such
  1672
  a precedent should have been rigidly adhered to, it was the present. He said this was a dangerous power to confer upon any Government Department, and it was the first time in the history of Parliament that that course had been adopted. There was another point with regard to the Act of 1870. Section 97 dealt with necessitous schools, and there was a provision that money should be given to necessitous Board Schools. [Cries of "Oh!"] He knew hon. Members opposite did not care to hear much about necessitous Board Schools, and he was not at all surprised to hear them grunting. [Ministerial cries of "Withdraw!"]
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That is not a Parliamentary expression, and I must call upon the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked to be allowed to withdraw the expression.
  It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

MILITARY WORKS (MONEY) BILL.
Committee deferred till Monday next.
PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [5th February] further adjourned till Monday next.
LAW OF EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL CASES) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Committee deferred till Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
Committee deferred till Monday next.
METROPOLITAN AND OTHER POLICE COURTS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
SUPPLY.
Committee deferred till To-morrow.
WAYS AND MEANS.
Committee deferred till To-morrow.
REGISTRATION OF PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 16th March.
STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Standing Committee on Trade, etc. [17th February] further adjourned till Monday, 15th March.
PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Friday, 19th March.
RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 21st April.
SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Friday, 7th May.
RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
LICENCES (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
CEMETERIES RATING BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
ALIENS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 17th March.
SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
SHOPS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 17th March.
JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (COUNTY COUNCIL CLERKS) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
PRISON MADE GOODS (IMPORTATION) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 31st March.
ARCHDEACONRY OF LONDON (ADDITIONAL ENDOWMENTS) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [24th February] further adjourned till To-morrow.
LABOURERS' COTTAGES (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday, 29th March.
SOLICITORS (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 17th March.
APPOINTMENT OF HIGH SHERIFFS (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 17th March.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
ESTATES TAIL BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Friday, 12th March.

JURIES DETENTION BILL.
MR. LLOYD MORGANin moving the Second Reading of this Bill, explained that its object was to prevent juries from being locked up all night in cases of felony.
Bill read a Second time, and committed for Monday next.

LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
MOTIONS.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (UNDERMANNING).
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,)asked for leave to introduce a Bill to
  1676
  amend the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, with respect to the power of detention for undermanning.
  MR. T. LOUGHsaid the House ought to be given some explanation of the objects of those Bills.
  MR. RITCHIE: I do not think it is usual in cases of this kind to give an explanation. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course, on the Second Reading the Bills will be fully explained.
  Leave given; Bill presented accordingly, amid cheers, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 149.]

  FOREIGN PRISON MADE GOODS.
  Bill to prohibit the importation of Foreign Prison Made Goods, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Secretary Chamberlain; presented, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Thursday next and to be printed.—[Bill 150.]
  SOLICITORS (MAGISTRACY).
  Bill to enable Solicitors of the High Court to act as County Justices, ordered to be brought in by Sir Albert Rollit, Sir Henry Fowler, Sir Robert Reid, Mr. Fry, Mr. McArthur, Mr. Warr, and Mr. Skewes-Cox; presented, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 151.]

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES RESOLUTION).
  Ordered, that Mr. Jackson and Mr. Parker Smith be discharged from the Select Committee on Government Contracts (Fair Wages Resolution).
  Ordered, that Mr. Aird and Sir William Arrol be added to the Committee.—(Sir William Walrond.)

MERCHANDISE MARKS ACTS.
Return ordered,
"setting forth all prosecutions which have been instituted by the Board of Trade under the Merchandise Marks Act since January 1888 to the end of 1896, showing the name of the prosecutor; name and calling of the defendant; the place of hearing; the nature of the goods and alleged bad marking; the section of the Acts under which action was taken; the decision of the Court; the fine (if any) inflicted, and, if carried to appeal, the result of the appeal."—(Sir Albert Rollit.)
House adjourned at a Quarter after Twelve o'clock.

LORD FARNHAM (CLAIM TO VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND).
Ordered and directed, That a Certificate be sent by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, stating that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom has reported to the House of Lords that the right of the Lord Farnham to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of him the said Lord Chancellor; and that the House of Lords has ordered such Report to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland; and it is hereby also ordered, That the said Report of the said Lord Chancellor be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
The Viscount Gough sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
THOMPSON'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived: Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

RETIREMENT OF VESTRYMEN AND AUDITORS (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
LORD MONKSWELL, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said the Measure passed their Lordships' House last year, but was not equally fortunate in the other House. It was based on the principle that there might be too much of a good tiling. No doubt it was a good thing for the ratepayers of London to have occasionally an opportunity of recording their votes, but most people thought that at present there were too many opportunities of that kind given to the ratepayers. There were elections for
1566
the London County Council, the School Board, the Board of Guardians and the Vestry. The suggestion of the Bill was that the law with regard to Vestry elections should be assimilated to that now in force in respect of the election of Guardians. At present one-third of the vestrymen went out every year, and the consequence was that every year there was the election of a certain number of vestrymen. Guardians, however, had been empowered to petition the County Council to be allowed to have their elections triennially instead of annually, and every Board throughout the metropolis had availed themselves of the permission, and now Guardians were elected once in three years instead of annually. The Bill proposed that any Vestry might petition the London County Council that their elections should be held triennially, that the members should all go out together every three years instead of one-third of them annually. No doubt the London County Council would be perfectly ready to grant any request of that kind that might be made to them. He begged to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
LORD HARRISsaid the Bill was practically in the same form in which it left their Lordships' House last year, and the Local Government Board had no objection to its proceeding.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

LAND TRANSFER BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HALSBURY), in moving "That this Bill be now read a Second time," said: This Bill is in substance the same as those which have so frequently passed this House. Substantially the same Bill has been read a Second time in the other House without a Division. The only point which seems to require explanation at this stage is why the Bill is not word for word the same as on previous occasions. It may be remembered that the late Government, after passing the Bill through this House, and reading it a Second time in the other House without a Division, referred it to a Select Committee in order (at the

1567
request of the solicitors) to take evidence on the subject. The solicitors' evidence was taken; and events afterwards happened which stayed all further proceedings. I have thought it desirable to meet at once the criticisms to which my learned Friend's Bill was subjected by the solicitors before the Select Committee, and I think it will be found that every defect which was pointed out in the existing Land Transfer Act has been removed. The Bill now stands in this position. There is one quarter, and one only, from which opposition to the Measure has been experienced. I have taken the most prompt and unreserved steps to disarm that opposition as far as the system to which the Bill applies is concerned. Only one point remains—namely, the principle of compulsion; not compulsion any longer for a system open to objection, but for a system amended so as to have the approval of the objectors. On that point also I have gone as far as possible. The scheme proposed by the Bill is to proceed by the most gradual steps, and to act in a limited area to begin with, and only to proceed by the light of experience, and after full notice to any district likely to be affected. I cannot but hope that my endeavours to reconcile the only objectors to this Measure will be met in a similar spirit, and that we may not be reduced in another Session to deal with the subject in a controversial manner. We are sometimes charged with want of speed as law reformers, but, in truth, such of us as desire reforms of this kind are often surprised that we cannot obtain more assistance in passing our Measures from the lay classes who are oppressed by the unreformed procedure. I ought not to conclude without calling attention to the Report on the system of land transfer in other countries, which was laid on the Table last Session, and which shows with what ease and success the registration of title is made use of in a large part of the world. At this stage I have no more to say than that the matters contained in the Bill are practically set forth in the memorandum prefixed to the Bill, and to ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Beading.
*LORD TURINGsaid it was now more than 40 years since he was first engaged in land transfer. This Bill would complete the edifice, it would make land
1568
transfer easy and feasible, and he trusted the House would read it a Second time. He could not imagine any objection to the Measure. With respect to compulsion, he admitted that some 20 years ago the late Lord Cairns and himself, when preparing a Bill, thought compulsion was not necessary, because they believed that the common sense of landowners would lead them to register. He was aware it was often asked of lawyers why they did not carry land transfer into practical effect, but he assured those who put such a question that no effort had been spared, especially by successive Lord Chancellors, to make the system of land transfer complete and satisfactory. He hoped their Lordships would pass the Bill, which, he was confident, would do more to relieve depressed landlords than those ambitious schemes which were so much talked about and pressed forward. ["Hear, hear!"]
LORD HERSCHELLsaid that this was substantially the same Bill that had been introduced on several occasions. He had so often expressed his views upon the subject that he would not do more now than, express the hope that the Bill would ultimately pass into law. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid he was profoundly convinced that there was perhaps nothing more required by owners of land than an efficient system of land transfer. Those who would look at the reports which had come from other countries would find that not only was there a cheap, efficient, and speedy system there, but also that it had been found that no danger had arisen from the Acts. In these circumstances he most sincerely hoped that this Bill, or, at all events, some other efficient Bill, would pass through Parliament.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IRISH MAILS.
*THE EARL OF BELMORErose to ask the Postmaster General whether, when the accelerated mail service to Ireland should have come into operation, whereby the mails then, due at Dundalk about 8 a.m., were expected to be due there before 7.30 a.m., provision would be made for forwarding the mails for Enniskillen, Cavan,

1569
and other places in the north-west of Ire-bind, so as to do away with their detention at Dundalk which at present existed, and which would be otherwise considerably aggravated. He said he believed that in about a month's time the new accelerated mail service between tins country and Ireland would come into force, and that about an hour would be gained between London and Dublin, about 25 minutes, he understood, upon this side, and about 35 minutes in the sea passage. At present the mails going to the north of Ireland left the Dublin Station of the Great Northern Railway of Ireland at a quarter before seven, and they were carried direct to Belfast and Londonderry, and certain towns between those places and Dublin. The mails which went in the direction of the north-west went by a branch line from Dundalk, formerly called the Irish North Western Railway, which was now a branch of the main system of the Great Northern of Ireland, and were detained nearly an hour at Dundalk, and then they went on by a stopping train, called the boat train, as it was connected with the steamer from Greenore to Holyhead. Under the altered system the mails would arrive at 26 minutes after seven, instead of a little after eight. Unless some change were made by the Post Office, the mails to the north-west would be delayed between an hour and an hour and a-half. As regarded Enniskillen and Cavan, which were both about the same distance from Dundalk, the train reached the former at 11.25, and the latter about 11.20. The time left for answering letters was about half an hour, but under the new system, if the mails could be sent off at once, they would have about three hours. He had been in private communication with the manager of the Great Northern, who was an old friend, and he found it was impossible to interfere with the nine o'clock train from Dundalk, owing to its being in connection with Greenore, and necessary for the traffic from Newry and places north of Dundalk. There could be no acceleration of that train; and the only remedy was to put on an extra train. That was a question of terms with the Post Office. All the
1570
business people in that part of the country were very anxious that that should be done, and, therefore, he asked the noble Duke if he could see his way to approach the Great Northern so that the extra train might be put on?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (The DIKE of NORFOLK): The point raised by the noble Earl is only one point in a larger scheme for the acceleration of the mails which is at present engaging earnest attention, and I feel I cannot de more than read to him the answer I have prepared. The matter referred to is being considered in connection with the revision of the Irish day mail services consequent on the acceleration of the mail service between England and Ireland. I shall not fail to place before the railway company the strong desire that exists for improvement, in the hope that some arrangement may be found to be practicable. I am glad to hear that the noble Earl is on terms of friendship with the general manager of the Great Northern of Ireland, and I trust that pressure will be made use of. I trust, also, that with the efforts to give every facility, those who have influence will not be slow to point out that it will be to their own interest that the companies should do everything they can to carry out this acceleration.
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: Can the noble Duke tell us when the general scheme of acceleration will come into force?
THE DIKE OF NORFOLK: On the 1st of April.

WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to provide facilities for the acquisition by working men of their own dwellings—was presented by the Lord Norton, for the Earl Vane (M. Londonderry); Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 24.)
House adjourned at Ten minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a Quarter-past Ten o'clock,