Sitting of 9 March 1897

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  MIDLAND AND GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAYS JOINT COMMITTEE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  MR. HARRY FOSTERproposed to leave out the word
  272
  "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months." He said that he had occasion to bring this matter before the House a few days ago on a question of noncompliance with the Standing Orders; but, by the advice of the Chairman of Committees, he withdrew his Motion, because he was then precluded from discussing, and indeed did not intend to discuss, the merits of the Bill. The point he brought before the House was, that the main feature of the Bill was the construction of a line from Great Yarmouth to Lowestoft, and that a large part of the line—two miles—traversed what were known as the Gunton and Lowestoft Denes to the north of Lowestoft, which were a public recreation ground, on which were rights of common and other rights which had been enjoyed from time immemorial. The point he raised the other day was, that where common lands were to be taken for public work, the Standing Orders required that certain notices should be given by advertisements, the depositing of plans, and otherwise so that the public, and all persons whose rights were interfered with, should have ample notice of the intention. The Chairman of Committees on that occasion stated that the promoters denied that these were common lands. He did not propose to go into that question to-day. He would only say that he thought that if the Chairman of Committees had had in his possession the evidence which he (Mr. Foster) possessed he would not have ventured to make such a statement. ["Hear, hear!"] It was, of course, merely the statement of the promoters. The Bill had been described by the Chairman of Committees as an Omnibus Bill, and if it were an Omnibus Bill in the ordinary sense it would manifestly be unfair to reject the whole Bill because some part, of it was unsatisfactory; the more proper course would be to allow it to be dealt with and amended, if necessary, by the Committee upstairs. The Bill, without doubt, did authorise other work at King's Lynn and at Yarmouth, but the main feature was the construction of the line from Great Yarmouth to Lowestoft. Apart from the question of the interference with common lands, he had to object that this was a proposal for the construction of a single line of railway only. Down

  273
  in the Eastern Counties they had had sad experience of the extreme danger of such lines, whatever precautions might be taken. They had had two or three very terrible accidents—one of them in his own constituency on a Christmas Eve, some three years ago, where, notwithstanding the precautions of the staff system, one of the trains went, in a fog, past a double siding and came into collision with a train coining in the opposite direction, with loss of life and serious injury to survivors. On public grounds, and apart from any local interest, these single line railways were objectionable, and it was clear that. Parliament should not sanction the making of a single line where a double line was practicable. He might say that the majority of the inhabitants of Lowestoft were not opposed to the making of a new line in itself. Provided the conditions were satisfactory, they were not opposed to the advent of any number of competing lines to Lowestoft. They would welcome the Midland, the Great Northern, or any other system. But they did object to certain of the conditions in this case. With regard to the fact that this was to be a single line, he might point out that there was a Bill before the House, which had passed its Second Reading, promoted by the Great Eastern Railway Company, which would give Lowestoft better facilities and more direct communication with Great Yarmouth by a double, not a single, line, and which would not interfere with the Denes or any public right thereon. This proposed line would pass for a distance of something like two miles over the Denes, which were not only a healthy recreation ground, but a very beautiful piece of landscape highly prized by the inhabitants and by visitors. They also furnished the only available ground at Lowestoft for the fishermen to dry their nets, and for this purpose they had been used from time immemorial. The more important to remember for Lowestoft in respect to the magnitude of its fishing industry, was second only to Great Grimsby, and in respect to the value of the fish brought in was second only to London. ["Hear, hear!"] In addition to the public advantages of the Denes which he had enumerated, they were a useful and attractive camping ground for the Volunteers, of whom 7,000 were welcomed by the people of Lowestoft last year alone
  274
  during their summer outing. A large part of the Denes were required by the Corporation for the benefit of the public. Mr. Colman, who resided in the neighbourhood, subscribed £750 towards the purchase money on the understanding that these Denes should be reserved to the use of the public for ever. The Local Government Board, after an inquiry, sanctioned a loan to enable the purchase to be completed, and one of the grounds on which that loan Was sanctioned were that the Denes should be purchased for the use of the public for ever. ["Hear, hear!"] A public fleeting at Lowestoft, attended by some 600 people, had, on the 12th February, with only six dissentients, condemned this Bill, and requested the Corporation to petition for its rejection. Under all circumstances, he hoped that Parliament would reject the Bill at this stage, and that the people of Lowestoft would not be put to the expense of opposing the Bill in Committee. In view of the fact that the double line of the Great Eastern was almost sure to be sanctioned, he thought it possible that even if the Bill now under discussion were passed, the line it was to authorise would not be made, for how could a single line compete against a double line? ["Hear, hear!"] There were other portions of the Bill, with which he had no concern, and which certainly he did not desire to oppose but they were but a small part of the Bill. If the promoters would intimate that they did not intend to proceed with the objectionable part of the Bill he should withdraw any opposition to it and allow it to go to the Committee upstairs. He begged to move the rejection of the Bill.
  MAJOR RASCHseconded the Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN or WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,)observed that he did not on the former occasion, neither did he now, speak on behalf of the promoters of the Bill. He had no authority to do so and was not in the least concerned whether the Bill went through or not, except so far as he was responsible for the good conduct of the private Bills that came before that House. The hon. Member for Lowestoft had stated that his constituents took an objection to a certain portion of the Bill. He thought it only fair to remind the House that this was an

  275
  Omnibus Bill. He was perfectly prepared to admit that the chief point of the Bill related to the construction of a railway, but there were other parts which were important, such as the construction of a dock at Gorleston, the widening of the line at King's Lynn, and other works. All these were works which the hon. Member said were unobjectionable, but all these would be destroyed if the hon. Gentleman were successful in throwing out the Bill on the Second Reading. He submitted that the hon. Member had shown no good reason why the Bill should not go in the ordinary course to a, Committee upstairs, so that its merits might be inquired into. The hon. Member's constituents had presented a petition against the Bill, and so had the Corporation of Lowestoft, and all concerned would be entitled to be heard before the Committee. If the grounds upon which the hon. Member raised his objections, when the evidence was examined before the Committee, turned out to be good grounds, he had very little doubt the Committee would reject the Bill. On the other hand, if it appeared that the general benefit which would be derived by Lowestoft from this fresh railway communication outweighed any injury which might be inflicted by the bi-section of this portion of the Denes, then he thought the Committee would probably pass the preamble of the Bill. It might perhaps modify the action of the hon. Member if he stated that if the Bill were read a Second time he would be prepared to support an Instruction which stood in the name of the Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Price) to the following effect:—
  "That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to inquire and report whether any commons or common lands are proposed to be taken under the Bill."
  ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR JOHN COLOMBas representing a constituency with which the Bill dealt, hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his opposition. It was proposed by the Bill that docks should be constructed at Yarmouth, which were greatly needed at that port, and were very desirable in its interest. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would allow the Bill to be Read a Second time, so that it might be sent to a Committee upstairs.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESalso appealed to the hon. Member to withdraw his opposition. He was surprised to see the hon. Member set himself against the increase of railway facilities in that part of the country. The hon. Gentleman did not ask that the petition should be looked into, and the good parts of the Bill left whilst the bad parts were taken away, but the present Motion was that the whole Bill should be rejected. He could not help remarking that the Bill proposed the construction of a dock at Yarmouth, and that dock might possibly compete with Lowestoft. He did not know whether that was the reason for the hon. Member's action.
  MR. HARRY FOSTER: No; it is not.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESwould assume it was not, and confidently expected that the hon. Member would give way to the appeal which had been made to him. This was eminently a case for consideration by a Committee upstairs. It was quite different from the Bill of the London County Council. It was a case in, which the railways would spend their own money, take their own responsibility, and if there was injustice, to be done the Committee upstairs, which acted in a judicial way, would undoubtedly see that right was done.
  MR. HARRY FOSTERremarked that after the statement of the Chairman of Committees, that he would support the Instruction standing in the name of Mr. Price, he would ask leave to withdraw his own Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill read a Second time.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

  FOOD SUPPLIES (UNITED KINGDOM).
  MR. SETON-KARR: To call attention to the wholly inadequate production of Food Supplies within the area of the United Kingdom in relation to its large and increasing population; and to move, that, in the opinion of this House, the dependence of the United Kingdom on Foreign Imports for the necessaries of life, and the consequences

  277
  that would arise therefrom in the event of war, demand the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government.—[Tuesday, 6th April.]

  CLERICAL INCOME (TAXATION).
  COLONEL MILWARD: To call attention to the Taxation of Clerical Incomes; and to move a Resolution.—[Tuesday, 6th April.]
QUESTIONS.

  NEW FOREST (COMMONERS' PIGS).
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods and Forests, will he explain on what grounds the pigs belonging to commoners of the New Forest, turned out in accordance with immemorial custom to run in the, open wastes of the forest, and properly ringed to prevent damage to the pasture, have recently been impounded by order of the deputy surveyor, and only released on payment of large and arbitrarily fixed sums of money; whether he is aware of the hardship of thus compelling the commoners either to submit to an infringement of what they believe to be their rights, or to engage in expensive litigation with a Government Department; and whether he can give the House an assurance that there will be no further interference of this kind with a class of small stock-keepers and farmers, who have maintained themselves in independence throughout the agricultural depression, and in whose welfare Parliament has frequently shown an interest?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. W. R. HANIRTRY,): The Register of the Decision of claims of right of common and other rights in and over the New Forest pursuant to 17&18 Vic., cap. 49, declares that—
  "Every right of common of mast is to be exercised only in time of pannage, that is to say, on and from the twenty-fifth day of September up to and on the twenty-second day of November yearly, in all the open and unenclosed woods and woody lands of our Lady the Queen in the said Forest, for all their hogs and pigs ringed, levant, and couchant, in and upon the
  278
  lands in respect of which the allowance is made, upon pigment, sinless otherwise expressed, yearly, to or for the use of our Lady the Queen, for every hog or pig exceeding the age of one year, fourpence, and for every hog or pig under that age, twopence."
  The right to turn out pigs is thus expressly limited to the period commencing 25th September and ending 22nd November, and there has been no interference on the part of the Crown Officers in the forest with that right. Two herds of pigs found by a forest keeper in the open forest after the pannage season had ended, were recently impounded. In such cases the usual fines are 2s. 6d. for each sow, and 1s. 3d. for each "shoot" or half-grown pig, and 1s. additional for each pig not properly rung. These fines rest on ancient custom. The keepers had been instructed by the deputy surveyor to levy "the double fine" when they found the pigs unrung, that is, the 2s. 6d. or 1s. 3d., as the case may be, and, in addition, the is for the want of the ring. The keeper who seized the two herds referred to, misunderstanding the deputy surveyor's directions, demanded twice the amount of the ordinary fines, namely, 5s. for each sow, and 2s. 6d. for each shoot, and, in addition, 1s. each for 10 that were not rung, but on this mistake being brought to the deputy surveyor's notice, it was rectified. There has been no new departure from any custom, and none is contemplated.
  SIR J. BRUNNER: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that this is not a new move on the part of a "new broom?" These fines have not been inflicted for a long time.
  MR. HANBURY: There has been tin new departure whatever. It is simply following an old custom.
  MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU (Hants,): Arising out of this, I can assure the hon. Baronet that these questions are dealt with—[Cries of "Order!" and laughter.]

INDIAN FAMINE.
SIR ANDREW SCOBLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is able to give the House any information as to the estimated quantity of food grains in local stocks in India in January 1897; the quantity of food grains imported into

279
British India during the past six months, and the actual or expected out-turn of the rabi or cold weather crops in India during the present season?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The further famine papers which will, I hope, shortly be distributed to hon. Members, give the latest information on the topics of my hon. Friend's Questions. Meanwhile I may state—(1) During last month the Government of India reported that visible supplies of food were sufficient for daily requirements throughout India. If failure of stocks was anticipated prices would rise; but they have not risen. It is not possible to ascertain correctly the amount of food stocks in each famine tract; but at present apprehension regarding the sufficiency of food stocks is not felt by the Government of India or the Local Governments, except in isolated areas of North-East Behar, where the local Government has been authorised to take special measures to aid private trade. I have further consulted some of the leading traders in food grains, and they endorse the Government forecast. (2) The latest import figures that have reached me are for last December. During the last three months of 1896 the foreign importations of grain into India were 27,179 tons, as compared with 1,567 tons in the corresponding quarter of 1895. These figures do not include importations from Burma, which has tins season an exportable surplus of over 1,600,000 tons of rice. Up to the middle of February 80,000 tons of the Burma surplus had been shipped to India, and tonnage had been engaged for 20,000 or 30,000 more. Knowledge of the Burma supplies was said to be keeping down prices of food in Bengal. (3) Fair spring crops are expected in parts of the Punjab, North-West Provinces, and Oudh. In the Central Provinces the yield of the spring harvest is poor.
SIR J. KENNAWAYasked whether the noble Lord could give any information as to the price of food in the various famine districts at the present time.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Seeing that the country over which the famine extends covers an area over three times as great as that of England, Scotland,
280
and Ireland, it would be impossible for me to give information of the kind. But if my hon. Friend would give me due notice I would be able to indicate what the price of food is. For the information of the House I may say that the practice of the Indian Government in famine operations is to pay in money sums sufficient to provide what is known as a sustenance wage, and if the price of food is high the amount paid is in proportion.
MR. T. R. LEUTY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that people in India are admittedly dying of hunger in unknown numbers, and that such a state of things necessarily indicates considerable sufferings on the part of others not actually brought to death, he will take immediate steps to make more effective the work of famine relief?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The Question of the hon. Gentleman implies that the system of famine relief now in operation in India is ineffective and insufficient. No evidence, either official or unofficial, has reached me justifying this allegation. ["Hear, hear!"] In the middle of last month the Government of India telegraphed that "in all provinces relief arrangements were reported to be adequate and working well." Subsequent telegrams from the Government and unofficial information have confirmed that report. I am not at present aware of any steps that can be taken to make the work of relief more effective; if any such measures can be suggested they will be welcomed. I believe that the executive in India, their officers, and the large numbers of non-official workers now engaged in relief operations are doing all that can be done to mitigate distress, and the whole administrative and financial resources of the Government are behind them. A calamity so intense and widespread as that now afflicting India cannot be repelled without casualties and great privation; but never before in a scarcity of these dimensions have the general operations against famine been so successful as those being now carried on by Lord Elgin and his coadjutors.[Cheers.]
MR. LEUTYasked whether lie correctly understood the noble Lord the other day that three months would be required to find out how many had died

281
from famine, and whether he was right in inferring that people were dying in unknown numbers?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that a calamity of these dimensions could pass over India without raising the mortality-above the level which obtains in normal times he stands alone in that opinion. What I pointed out was, it was impossible to obtain in less than three months reliable information as to the mortality that has occurred: and I think it is better the officials administering relief should try and preserve the lives of those living than be burdened by collecting statistics of those who have died. ["Hear!"]
Mr. LEUTY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what relief is being given in the famine districts of India in the matter of payment of the land revenue; and what steps are being taken to preserve the cattle belonging to the suffering people in view of their future needs?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: My latest information shows that (1) the Government of India expect their land revenue for the year ending on the 31st of this month to be Rx.2,300,000 short by reason of suspensions and remissions due to famine. These suspensions are apart from other losses of revenue and from the large sums spent on relief operations and on loans to landholders. (2) The Government forest reserves are being, or have been, opened for grazing wherever such a step was required for the cattle of famine-stricken tracts. In one province, a forest officer of experience has been deputed to help private dealers in making the best use of fodder available in the Government forests. Water from Government irrigation works is being made available, as far as practicable, for the production of fodder crops, and, generally, the Governments and the local officers are doing what is in their power to help in saving the people's cattle.

CUSTOMS (ASSISTANTS AND OUTDOOR OFFICERS).
SIR JOHN STIRLING-MAXWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received a Memorial presented to
282
the Board of Customs by the assistants and outdoor officers of customs for transmission to the Treasury on 22nd November 1896; whether, seeing that the grievances cited in the said Memorial have been considered by their Lordships On two previous occasions, and that as a consequence the concessions asked for have been granted to future entrants, he is prepared to press for a readjustment of the salaries of the said officers at present serving in the Department, so that at the end of their eighth year of service, they may, like future entrants, receive a salary of £105 per annum and whether, in the event of their demand being conceded, the readjustment of the said officers' salaries will date from 1st January 1896?
Mr. HANBURY: The decision of the Treasury on the Memorial in question has been communicated to the Board of Customs, and certain concessions have been sanctioned in the case of officers who have been appointed since 1891, and whose position has been prejudicially affected by the abolition of classification. But the Treasury see no reason for granting to all officers indiscriminately a salary of £105 at the end of the eighth year of service.

ROYAL HORSE ARTILLERY (6-CWT. GUN).
CAPTAIN JESSEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether all the Royal Horse Artillery batteries in the United Kingdom have been supplied with the new 6-cwt. gun; and, if not, whether he can give information as to how soon the re-armament will be completed?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE For WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): In consequence of the contractor having failed to complete his contract by the specified time, four batteries are still without the new gull. I may explain that the guns have been delivered, but that the manufacturer has hitherto failed to produce wheels of the uniformly high quality required, such as are made ill the Royal Arsenal. A proposal has been made to the contractor to complete the, wheels in the Arsenal at his expense. If this is agreed to, delivery can take place in a few weeks.

ALLOTMENTS (NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL).
MR. H. H. COZENS-HARDY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the Binham Parish Council, being unable to hire by agreement suitable land for allotments, applied to the Norfolk County Council to make a compulsory order to enable them to hire 70 acres required for allotments; that the Norfolk County Council refused to make a compulsory order on the ground that labourers desiring allotments might deal separately with their employers; and that a large majority of the labourers have declined to hire land except from the Parish Council; and whether, under the circumstances, it is possible for the Parish Council to obtain compulsory powers to provide the land required for allotments?
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Parish Council of Binham informed the Local Government Board that they had failed to hire land by agreement for allotments, and that the County Council had refused to take action on the requisition of the Parish Council for compulsory powers, and they asked the Board to intervene in the matter. The Board communicated with the County Council, and were informed that the Allotments Committee were satisfied that the Parish Council had had opportunities of acquiring land at a reasonable rate, of which they had declined to avail themselves, and the Committee, therefore, thought they could take no further action in the matter. The Board then wrote to the Parish Council stating that if they were desirous that the Board should intervene, with a view to overruling the decision of the County Council, they should formally petition the Board accordingly. The Board at the same time pointed out that some expense might be entailed on the parish by the proceedings consequent upon such a petition, and that under Section 10 (1) of the Local Government Act 1894, it was only when the Parish Council were satisfied that allotments were required, and were unable to hire by agreement on reasonable terms suitable land, that they were entitled to represent the case to the County
284
Council. It was added that on the information then before the Board it was not clear that the above conditions were fulfilled. Subsequently, in September last the Parish Council withdrew their application to the Board, adding that they did so without prejudice to any future application they might wish to make. The Board have not since received any application from the Parish Council in the matter.

MONEY ORDERS (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES).
MR. S. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has considered the hardship inflicted on members of Friendly Societies, consequent on the alteration recently made in the commission charged on money orders under 20s. in value; and whether, with a view of relieving this hardship, he is prepared to consider the advisability of reverting to the old system, viz., commission of 2d. on orders under 20s. in value.
MR. HANBURY: The affiliated societies I understand do not make any large use of money orders for the transmission of their remittances. The Hearts of Oak, which does do so, has for some reason directed its Members to remit small sums of 2s. 6d. and 1s., which could be remitted to them for 1d. and ½d. by postal orders crossed, or otherwise by money order costing even at 2d. twice or four times as much. If the case of this Society stood alone, the Postmaster General would not feel justified ill reverting to the original charge of 2d., as all these Orders actually cost the Department 3d. But no doubt many persons of small means who transmit their wages or other sums to their families complain of the increased rate, and the Postmaster General is considering whether by reducing the cost to the Post Office lie can reduce the commission on Orders for £1 and under to 2d., but legislation may be required to enable him to do so.

ENLISTMENT (ROYAL MUNSTER FUSILIERS).
MR M. J. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a boy named William O'Dell has recently enlisted in

285
the Royal Munster Fusiliers at Tralee; and whether, in view of the fact that he is under the age of 18, and that no adequate inquiries were made by the police authorities of the family of the soldier as to his assistance being necessary for the support of the family, consisting of six people, as also of the permanent disablement of the soldier's father, his discharge will be ordered by the War Office authorities?
MR. BRODRICK: As William O'Dell was up to the standard of enlistment, his retention or discharge rests with the general officer commanding the district. That officer, after making full inquiries, decided to retain him in the Army. It appears that his father is well able to work, and one of his sons is in good employment.
MR. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the prescribed age for recruits joining the Army?
MR. BRODRICK: Eighteen. But if a young man is under 18, and is found to be well up to the standard, lie is not then entitled to be discharged from the Army.
MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hen. Gentleman aware that the birth certificate of this soldier has been sent to the War Office, showing that he is under 18 years of age?
MR. BRODRICK: Yes; I have been so informed. He is under 18, but he is up to the standard of 18, and he is not entitled to be discharged.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is there any limit as to age?
MR. BRODRICKwas understood to say that if a youth was under 17, it was usual to discharge him on discovering his age.

QUEEN'S REIGN (CRIMEAN AND INDIAN MUTINY VETERANS).
SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the practicability of associating the Crimean and Indian Mutiny veterans with the celebrations in honour of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee by selecting a detachment to form a guard to the children's stand in Hyde Park, or elsewhere, providing cacti man with a suitable uniform, and giving each a moderate gratuity on the day of the celebration?
MR. BRODRICK: The suggestion in the hon. Member's Question will, with many others, be considered; but the selection of men to form such a detachment would present great difficulties, and it is impossible at this stage to give any undertaking in the matter.

LAND VALUATION.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) can he state to the House the nature of the instructions issued to Revising Officers of Valuation in Ireland; (2) whether they are empowered to value or revalue land; (3) whether, seeing that the last valuation of Ireland was made in 1854, when the value of agricultural products was much higher than it is to-day, the Government intend to have a valuation of the land of the Three Kingdoms, as was promised last Session; (4) and, if so, when?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Revising Officers of the Valuation Department are instructed to revise the value of all rate-able tenements and hereditaments which have been legally brought under the notice of the Department by the local rating authorities, or the ratepayers, in the manner prescribed by and in accordance with the provisions of the several Valuation Acts. The Acts provide that, whilst the value of all other rateable property may be altered, the total value of land in any townland cannot be changed. An adjustment, therefore, where the boundaries of holdings are altered, is all that is possible in land revision cases. I am not aware of any promise made by- me as referred to in the last paragraph, but the question of a general revaluation of land in Ireland is, in my judgment, well worthy of consideration.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (FORCE FUND).
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state whether the Irish Government exercise any control over the management of the Constabulary Force Fund, and are the accounts of the Fund subject to audit; and is he

287
aware that grave dissatisfaction exists as to its management?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Constabulary Force Fund is administered by the Inspector-General under the direct control of the Lord Lieutenant, by whom all payments are authorised before they can be made. The Fund has been audited from the outset of its career by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I am not aware that grave or indeed any dissatisfaction exists as to the management of the Fund.

LAND SUB-COMMISSIONERS (CONNAUGHT).
MR J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there are but two legal assistant Land Sub-Commissioners in charge of the five counties of Connaught; how long is it since cases from Tubbercurry Union were beard; and when and where it is proposed to have another sitting to dispose of long standing cases listed from that Union?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Two legal assistant Commissioners are employed in Connaught as circumstances require; the number of such Commissioners at work in the several provinces is not, however, regulated by the number of counties in each province, but by the number of fair-rent applications received from each Poor Law Union. A Sub-Commission Court for the bearing of cases from the Tubbercurry Union sat on the 8th October last and disposed of all cases listed for hearing by that Sub-Commission. The hearing of a further list from this Union commences to-day at Manorhamilton.

EVICTED FALMS (MEETING AT CAHIR).
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Rev. Mr. O'Hara, P.P., a member of the Congested Districts Board, attended and was on the platform at a meeting recently held at Cahir, County Mayo, at which Mr. W. O'Brien strongly advocated boycotting landgrabbers, and that the Rev. Mr. O'Hara addressed the meeting, and said the speech of William O'Brien reminded him of the good old times; and
288
whether the Governement propose taking any further steps to prevent such intimidation?
The HON. MEMBER also asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that since the meeting held recently at Cahir, County Mayo, at which landgrabbers were denounced, the two persons denounced as landgrabbers, on whose farms the meeting was held, have been boycotted, and refused provisions in the locality; (2) whether he is aware that the attendance of children at the national school in the neighbourhood has largely fallen off owing to the presence of the landgrabbers' children; and (3) whether, seeing that it has been found necessary to draft a large number of police to the district on Sundays to protect these men going to and returning from mass, he will state what steps the Government intend to take to prevent and punish this mode of intimidation?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In answer to the first Question, it is a fact that the Rev. Mr. O'Hara was on the platform with Mr. O'Brien on the occasion referred to, and addressed the meeting; but, save for the report in the Freeman's Journal newspaper, we have no evidence that he used the language attributed to him. The Government have given directions that a shorthand writer should in future attend any meetings of a similar character that may be held in this district—[cries of."Oh"!]—and, should sufficient evidence be forthcoming, the Government will not hesitate to enforce the law against any person violating it.[Ironical Irish cheers.]In reply to the second Question, it does not appear from the report appearing in the Freeman's Journal that any persons were denounced by name, but it is the fact that the two persons in occupation of evicted farms, on one of which the meeting was held, have been boycotted and refused provisions in the locality. The facts are also substantially as stated in the second and third paragraphs. Police protection of the most ample character is being given to the boycotted persons, and all further steps that may appear necessary will be taken to prevent and punish injury and outrage of any kind.[Ironical Irish cheers.]
MR. JOHN MORLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman

289
tell us when was the last occasion that a shorthand writer was sent to take notes of a public meeting in Ireland?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think it has happened since I have had the honour of holding my present office.
MR JOHN DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly inform us, in connection with the sending of shorthand writers to meetings in Ireland, whether the abominable system is to be reintroduced of surrounding them in the midst of the meetings with bodies of police with deadly weapons in their hands?[Ministerial laughter.]
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is necessary that a shorthand writer sent to attend a meeting should receive adequate protection.
MR. T. M. HEALY: With reference to the statement that no person was denounced by name in the speech, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether I was not very largely denounced in that speech? [Laughter.]
MR. DILLON: As the practice is now being recognised of sending shorthand writers to meetings in Ireland, I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give us any assurance that they will not be forced into the middle of the crowd surrounded by police?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Whatever provisions may be necessary to enable the shorthand writer to take his notes will of course he made. ["Hear, hear."] I may say in connection with what has fallen from the hon. Member that, while we have directed that a shorthand writer should attend meetings of a similar description to that addressed by Mr. O'Brien in this district, at present, at all events, and I hope in the future, it will not be necessary to extend it beyond that.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that he will not introduce to these meetings his old friends the constabulary notetakers.
[No answer was given.]

LAND TAX.
MR. G. H. MORRELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Land Tax re-
290
deemed but not exonerated, and therefore continued on the assessment, comes within the operation of Section 31 of the Finance Act 1896; whether the occupier of land on which this is charged can be called upon to pay more than 1s. in the pound on the annual value of the land; and whether provision for compensation to the redemptioner upon a diminution taking place, in consequence of the above 1s. limitation is still contemplated in the direction of his receiving back the difference from the receiving officer or a proportionate amount of the capital stock originally transferred for redemption?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,)said: Properties on which the Land Tax has been redeemed but not exonerated continue subject to assessment at the same rate as other unexonerated properties in the same parish, and may or may not be affected by the provisions of Section 31 of the Finance Act of 1896. In any parish where a portion of the quota is remitted under this section properties on which the tax has been redeemed but not exonerated will share in the remission. The purchaser of the tax, however, is entitled to receive the full amount of the tax redeemed in the contract under which he claims, and this right is not affected by the Finance Act of 1896.

M'MATH ESTATE (CO. MONAGHAN).
MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that a solicitor, named Mr. Giffard, representing the M'Math Estate (which is in Chancery), County Monaghan, agreed with the tenants to sell them their holdings through the Irish Land Commissioners, and that, having arranged to meet the tenants from the townlands of Formill and Killkit at Ballybay on the 26th September 1896, for the purpose of carrying out the sale, Mr. Giffard did not attend while the tenants did; (2) whether he can state if it is the Irish Land Commissioners or the representatives of the M'Math Estate that are to blame fur the delay in carrying out the sale to the tenants; and (3) whether he will stay any proceedings for rent against the tenants

291
mentioned pending the completion of the sale.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No applications for advances have been received by the Land Commission in respect of this property. A petition for the sale of the land is, however, pending in the Land Judge's Court, but neither that Court nor the Land Commission is cognisant of any dealings with the tenants such as alleged in the Question. I have no power to act in the manner suggested in the last paragraph.

GRANGEGORMAN PRISON.
MR. J. L. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that the officers of the Grangegorman Prison, who were refused fuel had to be on duty in the halls and corridors from 6 to 10 p.m., the coldest period of the day, whereas none of the officers who were allowed fuel had to perform this duty; (2) what is the legal status of the superintendent; (3) whether, though it is contrary to law (7 George 4, c. 74), for a female to be the keeper of any prison, she is looked to as the officer in charge; and (4) whether though in compliance with the statute she is not permitted to hear and determine reports against prisoners for breaches of discipline, yet she determines complaints against officers, male or female, even to inflicting fines?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts are as stated in the first paragraph, though it is to be observed that the prison is heated in the cells and corridors, and that two of the three matrons who are allowed fuel in their bedrooms do not usually perform the particular duty referred to. Grangegorman is primarily a convict prison, and as such is free from the disability pointed out in the Question—the Act quoted not being applicable to convict prisons. The present superintendent holds the appointment under the same conditions as her predecessor, and is looked to as the officer in charge of the whole prison, though disciplinary punishments on local prisoners are inflicted by the chief warder. She hears and determines reports against convicts, and in the exercise of the disciplinary authority delegated to her by the Prisons Board as regards prison
292
officers serving under her orders, sire determines complaints against officers, male and female, and inflicts fines upon them.

BLACKSHADE'S RAILWAY AND CANAL BRIDGE (CO. NEATH).
MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the wing walls of Blackshade's Railway and Canal Bridge on the road between Clonard and Trim, County Meath, are in a very dilapidated and dangerous condition; that there is a breach in the northwest wall level with the road from which there is a drop of 20 feet; (2) whether he is aware that the secretary to the Grand Jury of the county called the attention of the Railway Company to the state of the bridge two years ago, but they have done nothing up to the present; (3) and whether he will ascertain who is responsible for the repairs, and direct them to be executed?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts, I understand, are accurately stated in the first paragraph, but I have no official knowledge of any communications that may have passed between the Secretary to the Grand Jury and the Railway Company in the matter. The question of responsibility for the execution of repairs is not one in which I can express an opinion, nor have I any means of ascertaining upon whom the responsibility rests, but I have directed that a copy of the hon. Member's Question be referred to the Secretary to the Grand Jury.

BRIGADE OF GUARDS (RECRUITING STANDARD).
CAPTAIN GREVILLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the present minimum standard of height for recruits for the brigade of Guards; and whether it is intended, in view of the addition of two new battalions and the institution of new conditions as regards liability to foreign service, to alter or reduce the present standard; if so, will he state tire intended minimum standard?
BRODRICK: The standard minimum height for the brigade of Guards is 5 ft. 8½ ins., and there is no present intention of altering or reducing it.

SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT AND SCOTCH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
MR. C. B. RENSHAW: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether any decision has yet been arrived at as to the future relations of the Science and Art Department and the Scotch Education Department; and, if so, whether he can state what the arrangement is?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): A Departmental Committee has lately been considering the question of the grants from the Science and Art Department, and it was thought better to defer the question of the relations between that Department and the Scotch Education Department until the Committee had reported. I understand that it will report shortly, and the matter, which has not been lost sight of, will then receive further consideration.

COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES ACT.
MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the advisability of introducing a Bill, at as early a date as possible, with a view to carrying out the recommendations made by the Committee appointed to inquire into the working of the Cotton Cloth Factories Act 1889, etc., for the preservation of the health of the workpeople employed in the textile industries, or whether the Government will be prepared to support such a Bill, if introduced by a private Member?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): There has not been sufficient time as yet for the full and proper consideration of the Committee's recommendations; but they are being carefully considered at the present moment, and, of course, I shall be glad to consider at the same time any suggestions which hon. Members may desire to make.

BURMAH.
SIR ANDREW SCOBLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is intended to constitute a Lieutenant Governorship for the province of Burmah, and to establish Legislative
294
Councils in the Panjab and Buramah; and whether he is able to give the House any information as to the constitution and powers of those Councils?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It has been decided that local Legislative Councils shall be established both for Punjab and for Burmah, and as soon as the formal proclamations have issued the Chief Commissioner of the latter province will be appointed to be a Lieutenant Governor. There will be nine members of council for each Legislature—four of whom will be non-officials. For the present they will all be nominated. The powers to be given to these councils will be gradually extended, as we gain experience of their working; but it is not proposed in the first instance to give them the larger powers which, under the Act of 1892 may be conferred by rule or regulation.

LUNACY COMMISSIONERS' REPORT.
MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the Supplement of the 50th Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy (No. 304 I.), which contains 11 elaborate plans, about three feet by two feet each, in great detail, of five lunatic asylums now being erected; by what authority it was printed; and whether he could state the cost of producing this volume with these expensive plans?
MR. HANBURY: The printing of Returns is by a fiction supposed to rest with the House, but such discretion as is employed is, in fact, usually exercised by the Librarian. The discretion of the the Librarian is, however, itself limited by the fact that annual reports, such as that of the Lunacy Commissioners, are frequently laid on the Table in dummy. His discretion has taken the place of that of the Printing Committee of the House, which, however, never expressed any opinion during the last 20 years of its existence. In this instance the Librarian advised the printing of the original Report of the Lunacy Commissioners because it was the annual custom to do so, and the order to print the ordinary Report was supposed to include this special and additional Report. The Stationery Office can control the amount of illustration in Command Papers, but

295
has no authority over those printed by Order of the House. 750 copies of the Supplement were printed, of which, 200 were sent to the Vote Office for delivery to Members. A further 350 were subsequently printed for the use of the Lunacy Commissioners. Though the selling price is stated on the cover to be 5s. 7½d., I am informed by the Stationery Office that the total cost was only £59 Os. 9d., which I do not understand, if copies are sold at about cost price. That a good deal is printed as a matter of routine, which is of little use to anybody, appears very probable, but that is a matter for the House, and not the Treasury, to deal with.
MR. BARTLEY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether some steps will be taken to prevent this waste of public money in the future?
MR. HANRURY: It is entirely in the discretion of the House.

BURMAH-SIAM-CHINA RAILWAY.
MR. C. E. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what action the Government of India has taken, in fulfilment of the promises given by the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Home and Indian. Governments, to the deputation of the Associated Chambers of Commerce in June last, and subsequent memorial of the Chambers, to carry out at State expense the necessary surveys, levels, and estimates for the section of the projected Burmah Siam-China Railway leading from the Burmese seaport of Mouhmien to the Siamese frontier, in order to enable some powerful and solvent company to undertake and execute this section of the line?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The statement made by the Prime Minister to the deputation from the Associated Chambers of Commerce on June 12 last, was to the effect that if a powerful and solvent company were formed for the suggested Burmah-Siam-China Railway such assistance as was deemed possible by Government would be given towards the construction of that portion of the line which lay in British Indian territory. In pursuance of this undertaking the views of the Chambers of Commerce in support of the, project were transmitted to the Government of India in August last for an expression of their opinion. That
296
Government have recently replied deprecating any expenditure from Indian revenues which might commit them to the execution of this project until the manner in which such a line is to be financed has been discussed and determined.
MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the new Burmah Frontier Treaty provides for the retrocession by China to the British of the Shan State of Kiang Hung, and for the extension of the projected Burmah-Siam-China Railway and other railways from our Burmese dominions into the neighbouring provinces of China; and, when the Treaty will be laid upon the Table of the House?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): Under the Burmah Frontier Convention, as revised, certain territorial compensations, including the State of Kokang, are made to Great Britain for the violation by the Chinese Government of that portion of the original agreement that related to Kiang Hung. It is further agreed that, if railways be constructed in Yun-nan, they shall be connected with any Burmese lines that may have been laid to the frontier. I cannot at present answer the third question, as the Treaty has not yet reached our hands.

LOUGH SWILLY RAILWAY COMPANY.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin, St. Patrick (Mr. W. FIELD), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that, although the Lough Swilly Railway Company has got a sufficient grant of about £90,000 for making extensions of line from Buncrana to Cardonagh, the Company propose to ask the Grand Jury of Donegal on Friday the 12th instant for an additional guarantee of £2,000 per annum as a perpetual tax; (2) whether he is aware that some time 6nce this Company was prepared to make the line for £60,000 and a guarantee of £15,000: and (3) whether the Government sanction the action of the Company in asking for a guarantee from a poor and congested district, as there is sufficient money for making the line?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The statements in the first part of the Question

297
are not accurate. The amount of the grant will depend upon the amount of the tender, but in any case the Lough Swilly Railway Company will provide the rolling stock up to a maximum cost of 115,000. Moreover, the interest payable on the County Guarantee will not exceed £250 per annum, and may not even amount to £200. If a railway is to be built at all, the County must give a guarantee, and in this case the amount has been fixed with reference to the necessity of satisfying the provision of the Act of 1896 that the locality should give reasonable assistance to the undertaking. I am not aware of the facts stated in the second paragraph.

DAUNT'S ROCK LIGHTSHIP.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: 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 where the Puffin inquiry will be held, and what is the date fixed; and, whether the same solicitor is to act for the Board of Trade and the Irish Lights Board?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The Inquiry in the ease of the Puffin is fixed for hearing at the Four Courts, Dublin, on the 16th instant, at noon. The solicitor conducting the Inquiry on behalf of the Board of Trade will not represent the Irish Lights Commissioners.
MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as most of the witnesses come from Cork and Queenstown, it would not be wise to hold the Inquiry at Cork?
MR. RITCHIE: I am not aware of the places from which the witnesses are most likely to come, but it has been decided that Dublin is the best place to hold the Inquiry.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: Who came to that decision?
MR. RITCHIE: The Irish Lights Commissioners.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: Are they not practically the accused in this case?
MR. RITCHIE: I do not think it is suggested that they wish for anything but a perfectly fair and open Inquiry.
MR. AUSTIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the witnesses from Cork and Limerick have to go to Dublin at their own expense?

METROPOLITAN POOR LAW SCHOOLS.
MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, inasmuch as the priority given to the Education Bill has deprived the House of an opportunity which had been obtained for the discussion of his draft Order relating to Metropolitan Poor Law Schools, he will postpone the final issue of the Order until the House has been enabled to consider the matter, either on the Vote for the Local Government Board or on some other occasion?
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The President of the Local Government Board sees no sufficient reason for deferring a decision with regard to this matter, and he cannot give any such assurance as is suggested.
MR PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, inasmuch as the priority given to the Education Bill has deprived the House of an opportunity which had been obtained for the discussion of the draft Order of the President of the Local Government Board respecting Metropolitan Poor Law Schools, he will bring on the Vote for the Local Government Board on an early date, so that an opportunity may thus be afforded for considering the matter of the order?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I cannot give any pledge as to when the Vote of the Local Government Board will come on. But I think it comes generally within the statement I made on a previous occasion—namely, that important Votes put off till the end of last Session should have some advantage in point of priority in the course of the present Session.

NAZIM PASHA.
MR. J. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Nazim Pasha, the Minister of Police during the massacres at Constantinople, has been appointed Governor General of the Province of Beyrout; and whether this appointment has been made under the system of reformed administration guaranteed by the Ottoman Porte?
MR. CURZON: We have received no official information of the appointment.

FIRST ARMY CORPS (DIVISIONAL ARTILLERY).
MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any batteries, with a complement of four guns, are comprised in the Corps or Divisional Artillery of the First Army Corps?
MR. BRODRICK: Twelve field batteries are kept on the full establishment of six guns horsed. The number of these comprised in the First Army Corps is at present six. The batteries with four guns horsed would be raised to six at once on mobilisation. All the guns for 45 batteries are kept constantly ready with the authorised Reserve.

MILITARY CADETS.
MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Gentlemen Cadets who left the Royal Academy, Woolwich, in December last, have yet received their commissions; and, if not, when they will do so?
MR. BRODRICK: The Gentlemen Cadets referred to will be commissioned from the 23rd of the present month.

CRETE.
Mr. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Collective Note of the Great Powers was presented to the Porte on the 4th instant, and the Supplementary Note, respecting the progressive reduction of the Ottoman forces, on the 5th instant; on what date was the Identic Note presented to the Greek Government; and if he can say why the Collective Notes were, not presented simultaneously to the Porte and to the Greek Government?
MR. CURZON: The hon. Member will see by reference to the papers that the Collective Note to the Porte and the Identic Note, to the, Greek Government were not presented on different days, but on the same day—viz., the 2nd instant. The Supplementary Note to the Porte was presented on the 5th instant, not having received the sanction of all the Powers at the date of the presentation of the original Note.
SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign
300
Affairs whether he can now state the replies of the Turkish and Greek Governments to the Notes of the Great Powers?
MR. CURZON: The reply of the Porte was received on the 7th instant, and that of the Greek Government this morning. The substance of both replies has appeared in the newspapers.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us generally a summary of the reply of the Porte? I have not seen it in the newspapers.[Cries of "Oh, oh!" and laughter.]
SIR W. HARCOURT: Will the text of the Notes be laid on the Table?
MR. CURZON: I am not aware that there will be any objection to do so; but if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me I will ask.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I asked the right hon. Gentleman a Question. Will he answer? Has the Porte accepted the Note of the Powers?
MR. CURZON: Yes, Sir, it has. As to the general character of the reply, I should hesitate to give from memory even a general summary.
MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government, in arranging with the other Great Powers for the temporary occupation of the Island of Crete by Turkish soldiers and civil servants, will see that proper guarantees are given for their fair, reasonable, and regular payment?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not admit that the phrase "temporary occupation of the Island of Crete by Turkish soldiers," represents accurately the policy of the Powers. Of course we are fully alive to the, necessity of securing that the new gendarmerie shall be a well-ordered and disciplined force.
MR. BAYLEY: And well paid?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: You cannot have a well-ordered and disciplined force, unless they are well paid. [Laughter.]
MR. MACNEILL: I wish to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private notice, and of which I have taken the precaution to keep a copy. [Laughter.]I wish to ask whether Lord

301
Salisbury will give an assurance analogous to that given yesterday by the French Prime Minister—[cheer]—that no action of a hostile or coercive character will be taken against Greece by the Naval or Military forces of the Crown without the full approval of the Imperial Parliament?[Cheer.]
MR. CURZON: With all respect to the hon. Gentleman and to the House, I must hold myself excused from answering questions of which hon. Gentlemen affect to give private notice, although their private notice seldom or never reaches me before I have taken my seat on this Bench.[Cheers.] Private notice ought also to be adequate notice.[Cheers.]
MR. MACNEILL: As a matter of explanation, I may say that I sent the notice before one o'clock to the right hon. Gentleman. Would it be for his convenience if I put the Question down for Thursday? As it is it question of urgency, will he communicate with Lord Salisbury?
MR. CURZON: The hon. Gentleman can put down any question he pleases. It is not within my province to advise him.[Cheers.]
MR. H. LABOUCHERE: Will the First Lord of the Treasury answer the Question, of which I have not been able to give him private notice? [Laughter.] It is whether he has seen a statement by M. Méline, the French Prime Minister, in the Chamber yesterday, that he will communicate to the Chamber the intentions of the Powers on Wednesday or Thursday; and whether we can hope for a similar communication at the same time in this House?[Cheers.]
SIR W. HARCOURT: I quite understand the difficulty which the Government may have in answering the Question at this moment; but I propose myself to ask a question of the Government on the Motion for Adjournment to-night.[Cheers.]
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary or the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any news to communicate to the house with regard to the forces landed to rescue the loyal garrison?
MR. CURZON: I do not know whether the First Lord of the Admiralty has any
302
news, but I am sorry to say that the Foreign Office has received none.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he was aware that there was no detailed map of Crete in the Library, and whether he would get the Admiralty chart of Crete and have it hung up in the tea-room?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): That is a question which must be addressed to the Foreign Office.

ESTATES RETURN (IRELAND).
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the first Return of estates to which Section 40 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1851 is to be first applied, as directed by the rules under that section (namely, a Return of estates over which a. Receiver was appointed in or prior to the year 1881) has yet been prepared; and, if not, when it is likely to be ready?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): The Registrar of the Land Judges Court states that the Return in question has been prepared, and that Communications; are now passing between the Land Court and Land Commission in reference to it. It will, I hope be completed in a few days.
MR. MAURICE HEALSMay I ask whether the Return, when it is prepare I, will be printed, and whether, in view of its general interest, we will have it laid on the Table of the House?
THE ATTRONEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: Yes, Sir.

IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask tile Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any step has been, or will be, taken in connection with the improved mail service between England and Ireland to introduce an improved method of transhipping the mails at Kingstown and Holyhead?
MR. HANBURY: No step has been taken to introduce an unproved method of transhipping, the mails at Kingstown and Holyhead in connection with the improved service between England and Ireland, which is to commence on the

303
1st prox. The matter has been considered from time to time for many years past, but no plans have, up to the present, been proposed which meet with the concurrence of all parties concerned. The question is full of difficulty; but the Post Office is prepared to consider favourably any fresh plans on which the railway company and the packet company may be in agreement.

DANISH TRAWLERS IN SCOTTISH WATERS.
CAPTAIN PIRIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Danish trawler Dania has been constantly fishing for the last few weeks in the Moray Firth, and that the Secretary for Scotland has given instructions to prevent the landing or sale in Scotland of the fish caught by this vessel within the area prohibited by the Scotch Fishery bye-laws; and (2) whether the Board of Trade will issue instructions to prevent the fish so caught from being landed or sold in English ports, and thus effectively avoid the evasion of the Scotch Fishery bye-laws and the consequent serious injury to British fishing interests?
MR. RITCHIE: I have no information as to the circumstances referred to in the first part of the Question. I have no power to prevent the landing or sale in English ports of the fish which the Dania may have taken.
CAPTAIN PIRIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any steps can be taken to stop foreign trawlers fishing in these waters to the detriment of British industries?
MR. RITCHIE: The Lord Advocate answered yesterday, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, that, so far as he was concerned he had no power to stop the sale of the fish in Scottish ports, and I have no power in the case of the English ports.
CAPTAIN PIRIE: The Lord Advocate did not answer me yesterday. He attempted to answer three Questions in one reply, but he did not succeed. I will call attention to this matter again.

FAIR RENTS (IRELAND).
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin University (Mr. E. CARSON), I beg to ask the Chief
304
Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Land Commission in Ireland have purported to fix fair rents in a number of cases without specifying the details required by the schedule enacted in the Act of last year; and, if so, in how many cases this has occurred; (2) whether Her Majesty's Court of Appeal has decided that such details are necessary, and that the omission of them invalidates the orders; (3) what course the Land Commission intend to take with reference to cases in which such omission has occurred; and (4) whether there is any power of awarding costs against the Land Commission in appeals taken to rectify such omissions; if not, how the costs are borne?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The cases referred to in the first paragraph were cases in which fair rents had been fixed prior to the passing of the Act of 1896, and in which, consequently, no schedules had been recorded. The Land Commission cannot state in how many cases this occurred without examining the files in every appeal disposed of since the passing of the Act of 1896, and such an examination would occupy a considerable time. The Court of Appeal on February 1, upon a case stated by the Land Commission, decided that the Commission were bound to record a schedule of particulars under the Act of 1896, in cases in which the rents had been fixed before the passing of the said Act, and which came before the Land Commission on rehearing or appeal subsequent to the passing of the Act. The Land Commission in every case subsequently heard by them have recorded a schedule of particulars. The Court of Appeal did not, in the case referred to, decide any question other than that already mentioned. The third paragraph of the question refers to matters which may come before the Land Commission in a judicial capacity, and they cannot express any opinion upon them until they have come before them for their determination. In the cases referred to the Land Commission were acting judicially, and there is no more power of awarding costs against them than there is of awarding costs against the Queen's Bench Division or any other Court whose decisions are reversed by the Court of Appeal.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when the Land Commission make an admitted blunder, which puts both landlords and tenants to enormous expense, the Treasury would provide the costs, seeing that the mistake arose through the erroneous conception of the Land Commission?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In that respect the Land Commission stand in the same position as any other Law Court in the country.
MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, does any other Court in the hind initiate proceedings?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

ADULTERATION (FOOD PRODUCTS).
MR. HUDSON KEARLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have come to any decision as to the introduction this Session of a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee on Food Products Adulteration?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think the hon. Member for North Galway asked a question on this subject not many days ago, of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture. My right hon. Friend answered that the introduction of the Bill referred to must depend upon the progress of public business. I am afraid I cannot anything to that answer at the present time.
MR. KEARLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a representation from the President of the Board of Agriculture in regard to a deputation that waited on him?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The answer given by my right hon. Friend was not on the Minutes of Legislation on Food Products Adulteration, but on the condition of the House of Commons, of which I fear, WC are better informed than the deputation.

ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND.
MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what steps are being taken by the Government to provide for a full administration of the surplus assets controlled by the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund, and to reform the Commission, in accordance with
306
the recommendations of the Select Committtee as reported in August last?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The grant of a revised Commission, by which it is proposed to carry into effect the recommendation of the Select Committee, is at present under consideration, and will shortly he issued.

RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION BILL.
Second Reading deferred from Tomorrow rill Wednesday, 17th March.
LONDON WATER COMPANIES AMALGAMATION BILL
Second Reading deferred from Tomorrow till Wednesday, 17th March.
MOTIONS
  BAKEHOUSES.
  Bill to restrict the hours of labour in Bakehouses to forty-eight hours per week, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Woods, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Lough. Mr. Holborn, Mr. Samuel, and Mr. Arch; presented, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Tuesday, 23rd March, and to be printed.—[Bill 152.]
  TITHE REDEMPTION.
  Bill for the purposes of Tithe Redemption, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeffreys. Mr. Cripps, Sir John. Dorington, Mr. Channing, Mr. Hobhouse, and Mr. Lambert; presented, and Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 17th March, and to be printed.—[Bill 153.]
  COTTON, CLOTH, AND OTHER FACTORIES.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Cotton. Cloth, and other Textile Factories, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ascroft and Mr. Kemp; presented, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Wednesday. 26th may,and to be printed.—[Bill 154.]
  MARKET OARDENERS' COMPENSATION (SCOTLAND ).
  Bill to amend the provisions of The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1883, so far as they relate to Market Gardens, ordered to be brought in by Sir Thomas Gilison-Carmichael, Mr. Haldane. Earl of Dalkeith, Sir John Kin-loch, Mr. APKillop, Mr. Munro Ferguson, and Sir Lewis M'Iyer; presented, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Tuesday, 23rd March, and to be printed,—[Bill 155.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [The CHAIRMAN Of WAYS and MEANS, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]
  (PROGRESS, 8TH MARCH.—SIXTH DAY.]
  Clause 1,—

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS BILL.

    AID GRANT TO VOLUNTARY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
    "(1) For aiding Voluntary Schools there shall be annually paid out of moneys provided by Parliament an aid grant, not exceeding in the aggregate 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.
    "(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."
    Amendment proposed [8th March] in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions," in order to insert the words—
    "provided that no school shall be so helped the voluntary subscriptions in support of which fall short of the average of the past three years."—(Mr. Lambert.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. T. W. NUSSEYsaid that the principle of Mr. Forster was to stimulate, and not to discourage, local effort. His idea was that of the school expenditure, one-third should be contributed by fees, one-third by local subscriptions, and one-third by the Government grant. The Act of 1870 made an advance on that principle, by making it possible that the Imperial grant should rise to one-half of the expenditure. In 1876 the principle of Voluntary Schools was entirely abandoned, and since then fees had come to be reckoned as voluntary subscriptions. The result had been that subscriptions had fallen in proportion to the expenditure to a great extent. In 1870 they amounted to 62 per cent., and now they had fallen to 26 per cent. of the whole expenditure. In 1870 the Government grant was 38 per cent. of the whole expenditure, and it had risen steadily until now it was 74 per cent. This clause would have a two-fold effect. It would lead to a large decrease in the annual contributions, and in all local effort. The present Archbishop of Canterbury had said:—
    "If the ratio borne by the grant to subscriptions were increased, a very large amount of money would be immediately absorbed in the shrinking of local subscriptions without any effect on education at all."
    Another effect of the Bill would be a large increase in the number of those Voluntary Schools which were entirely

    309
    carried on by the aid of the Imperial funds. There ought to be a difference between the amount paid by the State, and the amount necessary for carrying on the schools properly. If the school had for its management a popularly elected body, the difference could be properly made up by the rates. But if the management were entirely private, the managers ought to prove that the school was wanted by the parents, and that they were in touch with local feeling. The difference to which he had alluded ought to be made up by local subscriptions, and the Government ought to put in the more definite words to secure this object. One of the evils of a too highly centralised educational system was, in the first place, a very great waste by the local authority. The fact that the local authority were spending State money and not ratepayers' money would gradually but surely lead them into waste. No supervision by the central authority would prevent this. Again, if they had a too highly centralised system, there must be a certain tyranny on the part of the central authority. It naturally tried to frame rules to guard the trust placed in its hands, and while those rules were doubtless good for the mass, they must press hardly on individual schools, and the Department dare not make relaxations to meet such cases. Voluntary Schools were maintained, not on account of any legal obligation whatsoever, because the State was willing to provide, and did provide, a sufficient education. There were two classes who supported the Voluntary Schools. First, there was the parsimonious class—those who were animated, not by religious zeal, but by fear of the expense which a School Board might entail. Secondly, there were those who wanted something which the State did not supply. They wanted denominational teaching, and they also wanted control of the management. Surely Parliament would not be asking too much if it insisted that there should be some modicum of subscriptions to show that the supporters of Voluntary Schools were ready to make some sacrifice for the faith which they professed. For these and other reasons he supported the Amendment.
    MR. R.W.PERKSsaid he was one of those who was not un-willing to see the voluntary subscriptions
    310
    dwindle away to a vanishing point, so that the day might be hastened when sectarian schols would be forced into submitting to some measure of public control. But the Committee had passed those clauses which required them to aid the Voluntary Schools, and so he felt bound to endeavour so to frame the Bill as to insure the revenues being maintained, and therefore he supported the Amendment. They had had a singular exhibition on the Treasury Bench of the facility with which sometimes the Government accepted the advice of their clerical advisers and sometimes rejected it altogether. When they were dealing with federated associations, which was the invention of the Clerical Party, they accepted it with avidity, and apparently dared not suggest the slightest modification but when they came to those provisions now under discussion, which the high authorities of the Church of England had not only distinctly recommended but offered to put in as protective clauses, they rejected in toto the advice given by their clerical advisers. They had had no definitions of any clear nature accepted in connection with the phraseology of the Bill. What was the meaning of the slovenly clause which said "due regard" must be had to the voluntary subscriptions? Was it suggested that the Department might give undue regard to certain schools? They were told yesterday that they need be under no fear of voluntary subscriptions falling away, and the right hon. Gentleman said that was not the effect in 1876. But how was that? It was because in 1876 proper provisions were inserted in the Bill, whereas now they wiped away the 17s. 6d. limit; old therefore removed the stimulus arising from that protection. But twilling could be more confusing to managers of schools than this absolute uncertainty as to the principles on which they were to conduct the finance of their schools. How was the manager of a new school that might be started under this Bill to know how to frame his scheme if there was to be this absolute uncertainty as to income? There was a great deal of uncertainty in other ways about these subscriptions. He knew a case in the county of Kent, where, a few years ago, an American, who was supposed to be wealthy, took the house of a Kentish

    311
    landed proprietor on agreement, and at once set an example to the parishioners by promising a considerable subscription to the parish school. Due regard was paid to the parish school. "Due regard" was paid to him in the parish magazine, and he was held up as a pattern to the neighbouring farmers who subscribed their shillings and noble landowners who subscribed their pounds. But suddenly, and at night, this American subscriber departed for the Far West; the parish saw him no more, and the school never received the subscription. There was no certainty at all in this source of revenue. They were asked the other day why they thought that, from a public point of view, there should be some guarantee that a fair proportion of the school revenue should come from the Church of England. It was for the reason that these schools were used for a variety of parochial; and church purposes outside the provision of education, and it was reasonable to call upon those for support who derived the chief share of the advantages. It seemed to him on this ground only fair to insist on some proper provision in this extremely misty, nebulous Measure for maintaining a proper proportion of voluntary subscriptions.
    MR. T. G. ASHTUN (Beds,)supported the Amendment, though he did not care for its wording. But if subscriptions to Voluntary Schools were to be maintained at all it would be absolutely essential that some provision of the sort should be inserted. Without some such Amendment in the Bill subscriptions were bound to fall off, and the time would come when they would absolutely disappear. What, then, would be the result? There would be a large number of these so-called Voluntary Schools in the country supported entirely by the taxpayers. That would be well enough for hon. Gentlemen opposite while a Conservative Government was in power; but when there came into office a Government which believed that the taxpayers paying the money ought to have the control, then the grant would be accompanied with local control. But that was not the object of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They were desirous that this should be an Act for the endowment of sectarian education at the expense of the public, and it was very far from their desire to
    312
    see these schools under public control. Without some such provision it would not be possible to keep up subscriptions, nor would it be fair to expect it. You could not compel subscriptions. You could not decide what proportion of a man's income should be disposed of in charitable donations, and how much of this proportion for educational purposes. Suppose voluntary subscribers turned obdurate, and refused subscriptions? The First Lord of the Treasury drew a picture of two parishes side by side; the one the necessitous school grant would be given, and in the other, where the parishioners were richer and could afford to subscribe, the money would not be given. But suppose the money was not given, what would happen to the schools? The school at once, if the money was not given and the subscriptions were withdrawn, became a necessitous school; and how did it differ from the school in the neighbouring parish? Merely in this, that while in the one case subscribers has been generous in the past, in the other men had been mean and stingy; and it was proposed, because they had been mean and stingy in the past in the one parish and generous in the other, to perpetuate the inequality. There would be School Boards forced on the parishes, which certainly was not the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Last night the First Lord of the Treasury said he liked to have concrete instances, and he would give one or two from Ids experience. The first was the instance of a school supported by one subscriber. It was not improbable that, after the passing of this Act, this man would say that, as he was a taxpayer, called upon to contribute to this 5s. aid grant, he did not see why he should continue to subscribe to the Voluntary School; and he would be right. He could not be compelled to subscribe; and, as a result, the school would decay, and the alternative would be between giving the grant or setting up a School Board in the parish. In another instance, an excellent school was supported by a voluntary rate, and after the passing of this Act the subscribers might think it was hard that they should be taxed to keep up other schools for which no such rate was voluntarily paid, and they might refuse to continue their subscriptions. How could the grant be refused to the

    313
    school which thus would be reduced to a necessitous state? While it was impossible, without this provision, to maintain the subscription list, it was proposed to penalise those who had been generous in the past for the advantage of those who had been niggardly. It had taken at long time for the State to accept its proper position in regard to Voluntary Schools, and voluntary subscribers had in the past spent large sums in and maintaining these schools, mid these were the very men now, when the State at last recognised the duty of helping these schools, whom it was proposed to penalise by adding to their subscriptions taxation for the support of other schools. The Government had directly perpetrated a grave injustice on one large body of subscribers—namely, the Board School ratepayers—under this Bill; they, wider this clause, were proposing a still further injustice on subscribers to the schools to which money was proposed to be given under the Bill. It seemed as though the taxpayers were going to be plundered according to the rule of might, instead of being dealt with according, to the rule of right. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid that he himself objected to the words in the clause, "due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions," but he did so from an altogether different point of view from that suggested by the hon. Gentlemen on the opposition side of the House. In his opinion the words were somewhat vague. In the old days, when the duty of providing education was discharged almost exclusively by the different religious denominations, the only way of obtaining the necessary funds was by means of voluntary subscriptions. The schools so maintained were called "charity schools, "and those of them that were unendowed were kept up entirely by voluntary or charitable subscriptions. But those days had passed away, and we had now recognised the necessity for compulsory education, and that it was our duty to take care that every child should be properly taught. In these altered circumstances he could not see why we should keep up the idea that charitable subscriptions should remain part and parcel of our educational system. He himself thought that the
    314
    State should pay the whole cost of the secular education of the country. ["Hear, hear!"from the Opposition Benches.]He could only regret that this Bill did not go to that extent, leaving the cost of providing religious teaching, and of other matters not directly connected with secular teaching, to be defrayed by funds derived film voluntary subscriptions. He thought that the present system of relying upon voluntary subscriptions for meeting the cost of secular education in the denominational schools was all evil one. Where Parliament had imposed other duties, such, for instance, as vaccination, upon State Departments, it was not usual for such departments to accept the acid of voluntary subscriptions in performing them. Then why should such subscriptions be accepted in the matter of education? In the next place he wished to point out that the system of voluntary subscriptions acted very hardly upon the denominational schools in the poorer districts where there were no rich people to find the money for maintaining them in a state of efficiency. Let them take the Roman Catholic schools for instance. It was well known that they suffered great hardships in consequence of the small amount of their voluntary subscriptions; and this was also true of the Church schools in many of the poorer districts, and such schools required as just as much as, if not more than the Roman Catholic schools did. In his opinion, therefore, the keeping up I If the system of voluntary subscriptions as a charitable element of education was altogether wrong, and was indeed injurious to the cause of education. He, however could not support the Amendment, which appeared to him to be altogether wrong ill principle. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. A. J. MUNDELLAsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down objected to the words in the clause, "due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions," but for entirely different reasons from those which animated hon. Members who sat on the Opposition side of the House. He said that the State ought not to require any voluntary subscriptions whatever for the purpose of aiding education.
    MR. BARTLEY: I said not for secular teaching.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid that a large portion of the cost of education was defrayed by voluntary subscriptions. When the hon. Gentleman told them that charity should no longer form part and parcel of our system of secular education, was he willing to give a pledge that voluntary bodies should defray the entire cost of religious teaching?
    MR. BARTLEY: Yes.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid that in that case the hon. Member was bound to vote for the Amendment before the House.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid that he was afraid that lie must judge for himself how far he ought to go in the matter.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid that the fact was that one-sixth of the cost of education was incurred for religious teaching, and the hon. Member admitted that that cost ought to be defrayed by means of voluntary subscriptions. But surely the hon. Member did not mean that the State was to pay the cost of secular education in denominational schools, without either the ratepayers or the taxpayers or the parents of the children who were compelled to attend them having a voice in the manner in which the money was to be spent, or in the management and control of the schools. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had said that this Amendment involved one of the most important questions that could be raised upon the Bill, namely that voluntary subscriptions should be maintained in order to relieve the State grant from the demands that would otherwise be made upon it. He should like to ask the Law Officers of the Crown to give the House some explanation of what was meant by the words "Due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions." Was there any force in those words? The House had already voted the sum of £620,000 per annum as an additional grant to the Voluntary Schools, and that was equivalent to a capital sum of £20,000,000. The result would be that next year the Voluntary Schools would be in the receipt of grants amounting; to a total sum of £4,000,000 of money, which was to be placed in the hands of the irresponsible managers of these schools for distribution them, without any kind of representation on the management of the ratepayers, the taxpayers, or the parents. In his view this Amendment was an extremely
    316
    moderate one. It was of the first importance that voluntary subscriptions should be, paid, and that they should be kept up to their present amount, because without them it was impossible that the Voluntary Schools could be maintained in a state of efficiency. If the subscriptions were to fall off it would be the greatest blow that the Voluntary Schools had ever received. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, speaking on the previous night, had said that the grant would relieve the subscriptions. But in that case what would become of thee subscriptions? It appeared to him that this Bill was a complete reversal of the policy of the Act of 1870. ["No!"from the ATTORNEY GENERAL.] He hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would get up and deny that that was the ease. In 1870 it was proposed that the income of Voluntary Schools should consist of one-third subscriptions, one-third fees, and one-third grant, and finally a large concession was made to Voluntary Schools, and it was agreed that one-half should be provided by the Government grant and one-half from local sources. These words were used by Mr. Gladstone in the Debates on the Education Bill of 1870:—
    "We shall take care that under no circumstances shall public grants be allowed so to operate as entirely to supply, together with school pence, the sum necessary to support those schools, and that there shall always remain a void which must be filled up by free private contributions, and without which, failing other sources of assistance, those schools could no longer deserve the character of voluntary."
    This Mr. Gladstone repeated over and over again when the Act of 1876 was under consideration, and Mr. AV. E. Forster, speaking on the seine Act, said:—
    "Hon. Members might say why should there be subscriptions? Simply because if they kept up subscriptions additional money would be raised, and the school would be a better school than it would be without them. What the Committee had to consider was, whether they ought to intrust the management of these schools to persons who really gave nothing but their time… The noble Lord's (Lord Sandon) proposition really meant that any diminution of voluntary zeal should be supplied by a, State grant. Now the Government of 1870 never supposed it to be the duty of Parliament to supplement by a State grant any want of voluntary zeal.… If the result

    317
    of the rate-supported schools were less voluntary zeal, it was no part of the State to supply the deficiency."
    For the last 40 years the whole contention of the friends of Voluntary Schools had been that the only claim they had upon the management of their schools was that they supplied a large part of the funds for their maintenance. ["Hear, hear."] He remembered the discussions that took place in 1876, and he could appeal with confidence to men who were in the House at that time. Every Liberal Unionist now in the House, who was in the House at that time, opposed that Bill at every stage, because it increased the grant above the one-half agreed to in 1870. Not only that, there were at least half a dozen Members of the Government who were foremost in their opposition to the Act of 1870, and the present First lord of the Admiralty went so far as to raise a Debate on the Third Reading and declared his intention to divide the House, which lie did, as a protest against any more grants being given to schools not under public control.[Cheers.] Yet out of all these gentlemen there was only one or perhaps two who had been faithful to those pledges. He would like to know how it was that When the Government were anxious to render great service to Voluntary Schools they quoted the views of the elergy, but when they were asked to do anything of this sort, they passed them by. No man had been more consistent on this question than the present Archbishop of Canterbury. ["Hear, hear!"] The Archbishop expressed himself thus on this very point so recently as June 9 of last year:—
    "Churchmen often urge that they have to pay school subscriptions besides, and ask why they should bear this extra burden. And the answer is that it is the price of keening the invaluable privilege of appointing the teachers without any interference. In no other way could they have kept this privilege, and in no other way can they permanently keep it."
    [Cheers.]In these circumstances he asked why it was that the Government refused to consider this Amendment in any shape or form. There was no other way of maintaining voluntary subscriptions except by fixing some statutory limit. Unless that was done they might be quite sure that these grants instead of going to increase the efficiency of the
    318
    schools would go to relieve voluntary subscriptions, and the last state of these schools would be worse than the first. ["Hear, hear!"] Voluntary subscriptions had been steadily diminishing from year to year since 1876, and they had been, what was worse, much more fictitious than they were. ["Hear, hear!"] In the present state of the education of the country, of which the Committee had heard very little during these Debates, nothing could be more important than an increase of staff and the improvement of schools. A Return had been published within the last few days, and it showed that in more than half the unions of this country the fourth standard was the standard of total exemption, and that, in many municipal boroughs the same low standard prevailed.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSreminded the right hon. Gentleman that his remarks were hardly relvant to the Amendment.
    MR. MUNDELLASaid he was only referring to it in order to show how necessary it was that the subscriptions should be kept up, because if these schools were not efficient and such a low standard continued, they would be giving four millions of money to the continuance of a State of things which was distressful to the country. ["Hear, hear!"]
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose that this Bill involved a reversal of policy of the Act of 1870; but he would point out that it provided that the grant should be distributed with a due regard to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was no intention to reverse the policy of the Act of 1870, and that the Government were as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman himself could be that the subscriptions should be adequately maintained. In the view of the Government it was essential that the subscriptions should be kept up, and, if possible, in some cases increased. But it was not desirable to lay down on the subject a cast-iron rule such as the Amendment proposed. The more elastic Machinery of the Bill was preferable. The statement that subscriptions to Voluntary Schools were often unreal, supplied an argument against this proposal

    319
    to adopt as a standard the average of subscriptions for such a period as three years. It was well known that the subscriptions fluctuated very much. A great effort was made in one year and with the amount then raised schools were carried on successfully for the next two or three years, during which the subscriptions were much less. Therefore if the average of the last three years was adopted as the standard, that standard would be sometimes unduly high and sometimes unduly low. [Mr. MUNDELLA: "Take an average of five years then."] Any attempt to set up a cast-iron rule like that proposed must break down. Moreover, such a rule would not meet all the necessities of the case. For example, in a district which was increasing largely in numbers and wealth, it would be perfectly fair to expect that the school subscriptions would increase also, and the Department would be entitled to take that into account.
    SIR FRANK LOCKWOODhad hoped that the hon. and learned Member would melee some attempt to define the meaning of the words "due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions." But the hon. and learned Member had contented himself with reading out the words. The Committee, however, did not want lessons in reading or pronunciation. [Laughter.]What they did want to hear was the opinion of the. Law Officers of the Crown as to the way in which the Law Courts would interpret these words. The oracles, however, were dumb. [Laughter.]His own view was that the words were absolutely useless, and that if they should ever be quoted in a Court of Law the judges would once more be heard saving that they never elsewhere read such nonsense as they found in Acts of Parliament. What the Opposition were contending for was the maintenance of subscriptions at their present level. That was said by the Government to be the principle of the Bill, but there was nothing in the Measure to insure that that principle would be adhered to. This Amendment, like all its predecessors, had been met by a blank negative. ["Hear, hear!"] He remembered the sufferings of the present Attorney General when a Bill for the reform of Irish municipal government passed through the Grand Committee on taw without amendment. He should never
    320
    forget his hon. and learned Friend's horror—[laughter]—at this result of what he considered to be a terrible and reckless use of a majority. But the case now before them was a much worse one. He supposed that these Amendments were rejected so that the Government might escape a stage of discussion at a later date. That was not the proper spirit in which to approach Amendments. If the Government objected specially to adopt an average of three years, why should they not suggest some other term?
    SIR W. HART DIKEsaid it was true that on the Second Reading he had argued that it would be well to proceed by adopting the method of average. But he had since reconsidered the point, and had come to the conclusion that there would be great difficulties in carrying out any such plan as the Amendment proposed. He was not ashamed to say that he had changed his opinion upon the point.[Laughter and cheers.]When they remembered the uncertain and variable financial position of Voluntary Schools, they would see that grievous hardship must be inflicted in some cases if the hard-and-fast proposal of the hon. Member opposite were established as law. In the case of a sudden withdrawal of his contributions by a large landowner, it would surely be very hard if, before the managers had had time to recover their position, the Department should swoop down upon them and say, "Because you have lost this considerable sum of money you are to be mulcted of the grant." The words in the Bill he interpreted to mean that in no possible case ought the Department to hand over the grant without making due inquiry and having due regard to the state of the subscription list, not on a particular day, nor for a particular year, but during, the time that the school had existed. That was no hard task for the Department. They had a return which showed each year, and month by month, what the subscriptions were; and, having that knowledge, the Department could, if it chose, apply the screw on the managers. It might be said that this principle would operate differently under different Governments, that the same pressure would not be put on schools when a Unionist Government was in power as would be the case when their opponents were in power.

    321
    But he thought it would work evenly as it affected the Department, because it should be remembered that the Department would be dealing with a single lump sum yearly. The effect of pressure on the Department by necessitous schools would be to lead them on all occasions to make the most of this sum, and to induce them to bring pressure to bear in the case of any school where the subscriptions were not adequate. It was constantly being urged that subscriptions were dwindling year by year, and that the actual subscriptions paid per child were not the same to-day as in 1870. But hon. Members should take the gross amount paid. The gross sum paid by subscribers to Voluntary Schools in 1875 was£673,000; in 1895 it was £834,000.[Cheers.]If the Amendment was carried it would in many instances inflict grievous injury on Voluntary Schools.
    MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid that many hon. Members would be disposed to think that the first opinion of the right hon. Gentleman was more satisfactory than his present opinion. Who ever heard that the words of any particular statute should be put under the guidance of any particular Department? [The ATTORNEY GENERAI:"Constantly."]The right hon. Gentleman said that the words "due regard" meant "due regard after due inquiry." That, at any rate, was some news. But they asked the question of the Government, "What do you mean by due regard?" Supposing the subscriptions had gone up or down; if they hail gone up the schools would not need so much money, and if they had gone down they did not deserve as much. The Solicitor General's version of the words was that in certain circumstances they would insist on the subscriptions being raised. If that was the case, then was "maintenance" the right word, where it meant, not maintenance, but the raising of voluntary subscriptions? How could they maintain voluntary subscriptions in schools where there were no subscriptions at all? There were over 1,000 of these schools; what, then, was the construction placed by the Government on those words with reference to those schools, or with reference to schools not yet in existence, but which they were going to assist? They knew what voluntary subscriptions meant. They were the price paid by certain monopolists for
    322
    teaching their religious creed under the pretence of teaching education. There were 3,797 schools in which the average subscription was under 5s. Some words ought to be introduced providing that where the subscriptions up to now amount to less than 5s., three years should be given to those schools to raise them up to 5s. per head. That was a fair and equitable scheme. There were two classes of subscribers whom the Bill would relieve—the poor clergymen and the Roman Catholics. It would inflict a great hardship on the taxpayers to make them pay taxes in order to relieve either necessitous clergymen or Roman Catholics, or any other necessitous class of people, while Voluntary Schools were under private control and management.
    LORD HUGH CECILintervenced in the Debate because he did not think the particular point of view from which he regarded the Amendment had been set before the Committee in any of the speeches. He agreed with many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, but the case he stated ought, he thought, to be stated very much more strongly. The hon. Member said he wished to see the charity element removed from education. He should say he wished to see blackmailing, removed from education—the element of using the religious convictions of part of the community as a means of extorting money. What, after all, was the voluntary system? He thought if they were not accustomed to it and did not know all its incidents so well, they should be more shocked at it than they were. The State said to a certain number of its members that they were persons belonging to a religious faith, that they attached the greatest possible importance to those beliefs, that they were anxious to extend their benefits to other people and to children who, through no fault of their own, and would be deprived of a religious education such as their parents would desire. "Well," said the State,
    "since you are more religious and more unselfish than your neighbours you must pay for your eccentricity. You must pay because you cannot bear that the children of poor people are to be deprived of all you consider most valuable, and, it you do not pay, contemplate with all the tranquillity your conscience will enable you the religious belief of these children left to the chance mercy of a School Board or

    323
    the accidental beliefs of a particular teacher, and pay inure liberally in aid of our educational system."
    That appeared to be a true statement of the effect of the attitude of the State towards voluntary subscribers, and when they had regard to the poverty of many of the subscribers and the immense wealth of the State, it was not merely unjust in itself, but also in the highest degree shameful to the country which carried it out. ["Hear, hear! "] It might be said that if he thought the subscriptions were so unjust he ought to vote against the words relating to them remaining in the Bill, but he proposed not to do so for a very obvious and simple reason. The aid grant in the Bill was so inadequate to the needs of the Voluntary Schools that, even with the whole aid that subscribers now gave, and would, he hoped, continue to give in future, the schools would not be in a perfectly satisfactory position or in one of security. It followed, therefore, that if he voted for the excision of these words as to subscriptions from the Bill he should be aiding in destroying some of the resources on which Voluntary Schools must rely. It had always been the point of view of Churchmen that, great as were the grievances of voluntary subscribers, those grievances were a secondary matter compared with the welfare of the schools. Religious education was indeed being held to the ransom of the State. But it had always been accounted a work of piety to contribute to the ransom of a captive. It was far better that subscribers should go on for a little time longer suffering the injustices they endured than that the schools and the religious education dependent upon them should run any danger whatever, and therefore he proposed to vote against the Amendment. ["Hear, hear! "] He did not share the opinion that the provision in the Bill could be used for the benefit of voluntary subscribers or that it ought to be so used. He did not think it ought to be so used, because that would endanger the interests of the schools, and he did not think it could be so used, because the existing pressure was so great that, with all the help the schools would get they would have more than enough to do. ["Hear, hear! "] The pressure which had already put them in great danger would continue to force
    324
    them to collect all the money they were able out of voluntary subscriptions. The First Lord of the Treasury thought Voluntary Schools would cease to exist if voluntary subscriptions ceased. That did not appear to him easily reconciled with what the right hon. Gentleman said in the earlier stages of the Bill—namely, that the denominational principle was so strong that the country would never acquiesce in its extinction.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I never said denominational schools would cease to exist; I said Voluntary Schools.
    LORD HUGH CECILagreed it was true Voluntary Schools would cease to exist if voluntary support were withdrawn, though that was not a matter which any Churchman would regard with any regret whatever. They had more than enough to do with their money without subsidising the State to pay its educational expenditure. ["Hear, hear!"] He should rejoice if the voluntary system came to an end at once, so long as the denominational system was preserved.[Opposition cheers.] He was confident they were not very far off that result, and he acquiesced, therefore, all the more cheerfully in the decision the Committee was bound to come to. ["Hear, hear! "]
    MR. JOHN BRIGGsupported the Amendment, which he said was very much on the same lines as one he had on the Paper, except that he proposed five years as the period to lie taken instead of three. He contended that the definition of the words "due regard" was one which was open to a very large amount of doubt, and he asked the Solicitor General to give them a definition in some legal terms which could be understood. There was apparently no intention on the part of the Government to abolish voluntary subscriptions, and why then should there be any objection to some kind of definition as to the form in which they should continue, so as to insure that voluntary subscriptions should go on? It was quite clear that the feeling in the country was one of alarm as to what would be the consequences if this Act came into operation at once. There would be difficulty when it was found that the amounts to which they were entitled would vary

    325
    as between different schools, there being no power to control the associations which would have to recommend what the amount should be. Schools having high subscriptions at the present time would compare themselves with other schools in the same neighbourhood having very low subscriptions. The former school would know that the reason they had high subscriptions was because they took an interest in the school, which was well managed, under good control, and, therefore, obtained grants and subscriptions in aid for successful work. But they would now learn that if they allowed the school would know that the reason they had high subscriptions was because they took an interest in the them to obtain contributions from the new grant to Voluntary Schools. If the Education Department was in consequence to give more where the subscriptions fell off and less where the subscriptions rose, it was necessary it should have an average on which to base its opinion. He hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would consider the suggestions now made for the disposal of the money to be granted under the Bill. To snatch divisions and apply the Closure might assist the supporters of the Bill in a Parliamentary sense, but it was not good government for the country.
    MR. EMERSON BAINBRIDGEstated that he was wishful to bring before the notice of the Leader of the House an illustration which had a very important bearing upon this important Amendment. Nearly every hon. Member in the House who was connected with industrial undertakings was in the position, like himself, of being a considerable subscriber to Voluntary Schools. In his own case he was a supporter of nine Voluntary Schools, and when the time arrived for the appropriation of the money in this Bill, he would be a claimant for the aid grant of 5s. per child, or (in view of the rejection of the Amendment for the exclusion of the word "necessitous" 10s. per child, which was the probable amount per child provided by this Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] When he had received this amount of aid—and not till then—he would, like many other subscribers, responding to the ordinary instincts of human nature, be much
    326
    disposed not to withdraw, but to reduce his voluntary subscription, say, 10 or per cent. It was because this Amendment would have the effect of preventing him and others from having the power to reduce such voluntary subscription, excepting at the risk of losing the aid grant, that he would support the Amendment. The clause, as it stood, was vague and ineffective, and he hoped the Government would see their way to make it clear and definite. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. A. H. DYKE ACLANDreminded the Committee that the average grant to Voluntary Schools was being increased, and the First Lord of the Treasury was in favour of voluntary subscriptions being kept up. Should there not be, as there formerly was,a quid pro quo for the increased grant from the Imperial Exchequer? The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich looked upon the keeping up of voluntary subscriptions as doubtful with reference to its ultimate advantage to denominational schools. He treated voluntary subscriptions not as a charity element in the support of schools, but as a blackmail element, and he considered those who were making, voluntary contributions were treated in a way that was in the highest degree harmful to the country. That was not the view of the bulk of the leaders of the Anglican Church. The Bishop of Salisbury held a totally different view. If five hours' religious instruction were given per week during a master's attendance of 30 hours, the Bishop suggested the extra cost of religious teaching should be regarded as equivalent to one-sixth of the master's salary, and that this extra cost should be borne by the Voluntary Schools. He himself asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether there was not some method by which what all appeared to desire could be carried out without grave injustice? It might be provided that, in all schools where the subscription was at present above 5s. per head, that at least should be maintained, and in all schools where that sum had not been reached the aid grant should be decreased. Everybody seemed to desire that a certain amount of voluntary subscription, apart from money put into buildings and the like, should be a condition of the receipt of the aid grant. There were a good many schools where the subscriptions hardly averaged 1s. per child including all the

    327
    various sources of contribution. If the Education Department, in a case of that kind, provided that within a reasonable time the subscriptions should come up to 5s., as a condition of receiving the aid grant, he thought it would only be reasonable. He asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether by some moderate Amendment more might not be done than the vague words in the Bill would accomplish to realise the desire so many had in view.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he had given a great deal of thought to the question, and he held distinctly that there were cases in which it would, from one reason or another, be impossible to expect an increase or perpetual maintenance of existing subscriptions. In view of this, he did not think the introduction of rigid words would meet the necessities of the case. He thought the words he had chosen were, on the whole, the best suited to meet those necessities, and he hoped the, Committee would adhere to them.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts,)said the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich showed there was a distinct line of cleavage on this subject among the supporters of the Government. Both the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Islington had frankly expressed the opinion that the State should exact nothing from subscribers for the maintenance of Voluntary Schools. He was glad they had been so candid, because their speeches furnished them on the Opposition side of the House with additional reasons why the Amendment should be pressed. On the other hand, the First Lord of the Treasury on Monday, and the Solicitor General to-day, had distinctly declared that they thought it essential that voluntary subscriptions should be maintained, and even increased. If the Government held that view, let this Bill be so framed that the Education Department would be strengthened in the efforts they would have to make to give effect to that principle. Besides the 1,061 schools where there were no subscriptions whatever, there were 674 schools where the average rate of subscription was only 1s. per child per annum. There would be two cardinal difficulties when this Bill became law—the question of the necessitous schools, and that of the amount of their subscriptions. The
    328
    head of the Education Department would have to face the entire Roman Catholic Church, and those who were represented by the hon. Members for Islington and Greenwich, and probably a larger number of individuals who would be ready to find every excuse for, at any rate, reducing the amount of their subscriptions. He wished to strengthen the hands of the Education Department. They were told that it was absolutely impossible for Parliament to settle these questions; how, then, could the Department settle them? He was in favour of the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions, because they represented interest and influence. If the result of their legislation was that voluntary subscriptions ceased, the result would be that they would have the one-man system of management in an intensified form. In the interests of education and of justice, the principle of this Amendment ought, in some form or other, to be embodied in the Bill.
    Several hon. Members rose to continue the discussion, when
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYSURY claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the. Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 283; Noes, 131.—(Division List, No. 85.)
    Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 285; Noes, 130.—(Division List, No. 86.)
    SIR CHARLES DILKEmoved in Sub-section (2) after the word "subscriptions" to insert the words "paid bonâ fide by private individuals. "He said that the Amendment raised a new point—what were the subscriptions to which due regard was to be paid? There was a pious hope in the Committee that the "private" subscriptions would be continued, but whenever voluntary subscriptions had been spoken of, the term was found to include other things besides private subscriptions—some that the Committee would desire to include, and some that it would not desire to include in the contributions to which

    329
    "due regard" was to be find. There was no desire to cut off these other sources income, but they should not be included in this connection. Endowments, the gifts of public departments and the receipts for letting school rooms ought not rank with private subscriptions, or with a voluntary rate. The Amendment which he moved had been suggested by the managers of the best Voluntary Schools in his own constituency. They desired that in those schools where no subscriptions were collected, a serious effort should be made ill the future. He had the accounts of various schools which he could show to hon. Members. In one case the amount received by the school from various departments of the Government, including the Parliamentary grants, the Science and Art Department's grant, and a gift from the commissioners of Woods and Forests, amounted to £286 a year, and the income from all other sources varied from £13 to £14 1s. a year. Yet that school was able to pay £45 to a capital account in a single year. In another school the Government Departments found over 1422 a year, and all other sources of income amounted to £15 odd a year. There were no subscriptions and no voluntary rate. In another case, the Departments contributed £418 a year, £10 was received from charity, and all other sources of income produced £4 in one year, and in another year nothing at all. If unguarded words about "due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions" were put into the Bill, all these extraneous forms of income might be included. He knew a case where the managers of a Voluntary School had informed the friends that in future they hoped not to have to make any further application. He begged to move.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. Whether a distinction ought to be drawn between private subscriptions and subscriptions from public bodies or not, it was certainly desirable that both classes of subscriptions should be maintained; and he did not see why a distinction should be drawn. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned the case of a school which received a contribution from the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. Probably that was because the Commissioners were
    330
    the principal owners in the district, tuna he should not like to see any words in an Act of Parliament which prevented such contributions. But the right hon. Gentleman's words would go much further, and prevent railway companies and colleges from subscribing to Voluntary Schools, to which a serious injury might thus be done.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that the difficulty again was one of definition. What did the term "subscription" cover? Would it cover endowments? The public subscriptions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred would not be affected by the Amendment.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid that he did not think the word "subscription" could include endowments.
    MR. REGINALD McKENNApointed out that the Amendment could not possibly prevent any public body from subscribing. It was only a question of whether regard was to be had to such subscriptions in calculating the grant. When the Education Department were having "due regard" to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions, what were they to have in their mind as the meaning of "voluntary subscriptions?" No provision was made as to the exercise of that "due regard." All that this Amendment asked was that at any rate they should know what they meant by the use of the terms they had, already sanctioned. They were not yet quite clear what "voluntary subscriptions" did mean. For some purposes endowments were now held to be voluntary subscriptions, and he imagined that under this Measure endowments would still be held to be voluntary subscriptions. That was to say, the Education Department would, in looking at the condition of a school, only inquire if it had got sources of revenue outside the Parliamentary funds, and if it had got sources of revenue outside Parliamentary funds in the shape of endowments, the Education Department would not feel incline to allow this Parliamentary grant. That would be a nationalisation of parochial charities, which he thought they were entitled to object to. Unless they had a clear definition of what was the meaning of "voluntary subscriptions "they would never know what it was they were voting for or what it was they were asking the

    331
    Education Department to undertake. The Amendment thoroughly satisfied that reasonable definition and he should support it.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid that far from simplifying the Bill, this Amendment would introduce another element of doubt and difficulty, because they would have to say what was a "private individual" in this Bill. Why should schools which received subscriptions from colleges or a public body be placed in a different class to schools which received subscriptions from private individuals?
    MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENwas understood to support the Amendment.
    MR. T. LOUGHsaid he could not support the Amendment in its present form. It would not only shut out the subscriptions of public bodies, but what was a private individual? Should they not take a subscription from a public individual, if there was a public individual. Some definition was required. At the end of the Bill they had a definition of a Voluntary School, but there was no definition of what was a voluntary subscription. He thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite might put a stop to the discussion on the Amendment if he would promise that at the end of the Bill there should be inserted a definition of what a voluntary subscription was. This seemed to him all the more necessary because the associations might make grants in particular cases, and this might make the matter even more complicated than it was at present.
    MR. F. A. CHANNINGsaid he could not support the Amendment. He was no friend to Voluntary Schools, but it seemed to hint that, it they had Voluntary Schools at all, they should recognise the help given by various societies and public bodies to those schools just as much as they recognised the help given by individuals.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid there was considerable difficulty about the wording of this Amendment. The First Lord of the Treasury asked whether amounts which were sources of income to these Voluntary Schools, and which could not in any degree or sense he classed as voluntary subscriptions, were to be taken into account by the Government in making this grant.
    332
    So far as he could see, in the tables of the Department, everything was allowed to be classed under the head of voluntary subscriptions except the Government grant. What his right hon. Friend complained of was that the figures which were here set down in these tables as "endowments" and "miscellaneous receipts," should be regarded by the Education Department as voluntary subscriptions, and would be included in this term "voluntary subscriptions" which had to be had regard to acording to the Bill. He confessed he did not like the wording of the Amendment.
    SIR C. DILKEsaid the Amendment did not stand in the form of which he gave notice, and he was quite conscious that it was very difficult to frame an Amendment to carry out the intention which he desired to carry out. He thought perhaps it would be better to introduce it by way of a provision at the end of Sub-section 6, and he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment (at the present occasion.
    Amendment negatived.
    SIR ALBERT ROLL1Tmoved, in Sub-section (2), after the word "subscriptions" to insert the words, "as a, reason for granting such aid." He said that, while many of them were not disposed to go the full length of the suggestion that securities ought to be taken for the maintenance of these voluntary subscriptions, they thought there should at any rate be some general indication in the Bill that the maintenance of subscriptions was to be regarded as the intention of the Bill. There was no such distinct indication in the Measure at present. The words "due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions "might be held either to favour the maintenance of those subscriptions, or they might be justifiably construed by the Education Department as indicating that due regard should be had to the maintenance of those subscriptions as a reason for giving help to the necessitous schools. In other words, if the subscriptions were large, there was no need for the aid grant; if, on the other hand, the voluntary subscriptions failed, then the grant was more greatly needed than before. He thought the latter would be a more reasonable construction,

    333
    and probably the one which any Department might be advised to take. The phrase in the section was ambiguous. He did not think the duty of Parliament was fulfilled if it allowed a vague clause to be arbitrarily construed by a Department without some clear indication of what the intention of Parliament was. If one effect of the Bill should be to materially decrease the subscriptions, he did not hesitate to say that the Bill would ultimately lead to the deterioration and absorption of the Voluntary Schools.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I do not quite follow how the hon. Member makes his line of remark relevant to the present Amendment. He seems to be discussing the last Amendment. I should like the hon. Member to explain what the meaning of his Amendment is.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid the words of the clause, as they stood, might be construed by the Department in either of two ways; "due regard" might be if the subscriptions were increased, or if they fell off The clause should give a clear, not a vague, indication of the will of Parliament.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: If that is so, the hon. Member is seeking to upset the decision to which the Committee has just come.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLITsubmitted that, unless some stimulus was contained in the Bill that Parliament intended that one condition should be the maintenance of the subscriptions, then the permanence of the Voluntary Schools, instead of being promoted, would be endangered.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid that, although a school was necessitous, it might be a reason for withholding the grant if the subscriptions were improperly withheld, and that was perfectly well indicated by the words "due regard." The hon. Member's Amendment instead of making the clause clearer made it less clear. The maintenance of voluntary subscriptions was not a reason for giving the aid grant; it was the fact of the school being a necessitous school.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLITasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Leave being refused on the Opposition side of the House,
    The Committee divided on the Question, "That those words be there inserted." Ayes, 84; Noes, 205.—(Division List, No. 87.)
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The second Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Griffith), towards the top of page 19 of the Amendment Paper, is in order, but it ought to come at the end of the clause.
    MR. J. A. PEASEpointed out that he had an Amendment on page 18.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That is the same as the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Monmouthshire, winch has been disposed of.
    MR. J. A. PEASEsubmitted most respectfully that there had been discussion as to the definition of "necessitous."
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: If the Amendment is intended to be a definition of the word "necessitous" it clearly ought to come in the definition clause. The first and third Amendments of the hon. Member for Anglesey, standing on the top of page 20, are in order, but ought to come at the end of the clause.
    MR. ACLAND: May I ask you, Sir, where the second Amendment of the hon. Member for Anglesey is out of order?
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I think it is beyond the scope the Bill altogether. The Amendment of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire (Mr. Channing) is in order, but it ought to come up as a new, clause. The next Amendment in order is at the top of page 22, Mr. Lloyd-George.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked whether the Chairman would give the reason which induced him to rule out of order the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Carmarthen (Mr. Lloyd Morgan), which provided that no school should receive the aid grant where the education was not free.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The hon. Member will remember that the subject was discussed on Clause 1, page 1, line 5, where an hon. Member for one of the divisions of Lincolnshire moved to insert the words, "in

    335
    which no charge for school fees is made." He will remember that I several times pointed out it was not the proper place to discuss the Amendment, or, indeed, to move it. What the hon. Member intended was to move it on the Second sub-section, but as he moved it on, the first sub-section and took a division the Committee are precluded from re-opening the question. ["Hear, hear! "]
    MR. ACLANDrespectfully pointed out that when he was speaking on the question of fee-paying schools, and how far they were really free or not, the Chairman called him to order, and he desisted at once, because he understood they would be allowed to have an opportunity of discussing whether the new grant ought to be distributed to a school which was a free school or not.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That was not my fault, but the fault of the hon. Member, who chose to move his Amendment in the wrong place.
    MR. F. A. CHANNINGsaid that the purpose of the Amendment which stood in his name was, in respect to associations, to suggest the procedure which was adopted in the case of the Act of 1870. He submitted that if he could not move the Amendment until the third sub-section was dealt with he would be precluded from, suggesting an alternative scheme.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: If the hon. Member's Amendment is intended to provide an alternative to the scheme of the Government, it is quite clear the Government are entitled to have their scheme placed before the Committee first.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANS: There are several Amendments down in my name before we come to—
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! It is extremely unusual to cross-examine the Chairman in the way that is now being done.[Ministerial cheers.]I think it will not be my duty to reply any further. I may say, however, that I have taken a great deal of trouble—["hear, hear! "]—to understand the Amendments, and I do not think it would conduce to the order of business if I were cross-examined as to my reasons.[Cheers.]
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon)moved to leave out Sub-section
    336
    (3). He said his Amendment challenged directly the principle of the proposal of the Government as to associations and the machinery connected with them. This was the first time a proposal of this kind had been incorporated in a Government Bill and made compulsory, and the issue raised by the Amendment was not whether they would permit Voluntary Schools to form associations for the purpose of increasing their educational efficiency, but whether they were going to bring pressure to bear on the schools to combine or associate. He maintained that the proposition of the Government was unfair to Voluntary Schools themselves. It was unfair to the better-class Voluntary Schools, to the schools the subscribers to which were doing their duty, because a certain amount of partiality and favouritism was shown to the schools the subscribers to which grossly neglected their duty. Let them take the cases of Liverpool, Manchester, and Preston. In Liverpool there were 48 Church schools, but only 12 of them received the average amount of subscriptions paid throughout the country. This was how the matter stood. According to the scheme of the Bill the poor schools which required support would not get it, and the schools which were well off would get support. It was true that the Government might say that was a matter for the Education Department, but after all, no Government Department could exercise the control that was necessary in this case. And here he came to the point of the Roman Catholic Schools. In Liverpool they represented a much poorer class of the population than in Manchester, and the Roman Catholics subscribed far more liberally to their schools than Churchmen. They were in fact going to penalise those who were doing their work well for the benefit of those who neglected to do their work well. The fact was that Lord Peurhyn was making £1,800 per annum out of his unselfishness, and that was the case of ninny other rich landowners. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, in referring to this subject, the other day, said that the question was whether they were going to punish those landowners who had done their duty for the benefit of those landowners who had not done their duty. He could not see how these associations were going to

    337
    work as between one parish and another, in the cases of necessitous schools. If the income of a school was inadequate to its expenditure was it a necessitous school? For instance, in one parish they might have schools where the subscriptions amounted to 30s. per child, whilst in the next parish there might be a school where the subscriptions only amounted to 2s. per child. Were they going to give 10s. per head of this grant to the poorer school and nothing to the richer school. In such a case the House might depend upon it that the subscriptions would fall off, which would work badly for the Voluntary Schools as a whole, and consequently for the interests of the children who were being educated in them. He should like to know upon what principle the representation of the schools upon the associations was to be based—was it to be based upon the number of children in each school or upon the population of the district. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury should take the House into his confidence upon this subject. In his view, the money ought to be distributed in accordance with the discretion of the Education Department, and, therefore, it was that he begged to move the Amendment that stood upon the Paper in his name.
    On the return of the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, after the usual interval,
    MR. McKENNAsaid that he had not any such rooted objection to the principle of associations as was entertained by certain members of the clerical party whose speeches he had read. He did not see why there should be greater objection to the existence of an irresponsible and non-representative association than there was to irresponsible and non-representative managers. As a matter of fact the associations were to be more responsible than the school managers from whose ranks they were to be formed. Of the principle of association, therefore, he did not complain. Indeed, were the Bill exactly in the form in which the Solicitor General described it as being in his speech on the Second Reading, he would not be able to oppose the formation of associations. The hon. and learned Gentleman said,
    "All the Bill had to do was to encourage the formation of associations by saying that the schools forming them should have two privileges."
    338
    If that really were the limit he would not object. But there was a very serious objection—namely, the financial objection hinted at by the hon. Member for East Mayo in the course of the speech of the Vice President of the Council on the Second Reading. The hon. Member for East Mayo asked,
    "Is there no power in the Bill to discriminate between associations in proportion to the necessities of the schools forming them?"
    and the right hon. Gentleman replied,
    " No, there is not, and therefore the larger the association the more likely you are to get the average level. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman can suggest any improvement by which such a power of discrimination could be exercised, but I do not see any possibility of it."
    The framers of the Bill proposed to Bill proposed schools that refrained from joining associations, and the Department had to administer the funds as they thought best for the purpose of helping necessitous schools. With those words before them it was essential that the Education Department should lay down for itself some outline as to what they meant by the word "necessitous." On a communication of that outline to the various associations they could inform the Department of the number of schools they had in their body and which could reasonably be described as necessitous. The Education Department would know at once the amount of money to be allotted to a particular association, and if the allotment was not made by the association on the number of necessitous schools in the association a serious danger might result. When the association was formed there would be a strong inducement to the managers of that association to invite rich schools which otherwise would not receive a grant direct from the Department to join the association merely for the purpose of becoming 5s. grant earners. The inducement to the managers to offer a bribe of some portion of the 5s, to a rich school in order to induce it to join the association would be overwhelming. The Vice President had alluded to the fact that the associations must be limited in their area in order to give personal knowledge of management to the schools under their control. Taking the Diocesan area they found that the wealth or the poverty of the Voluntary Schools varied

    339
    very considerably in the different areas. In the southern areas they would have in the associations a number of more or less well-to-do schools; in the north they would have almost exclusively poor schools; yet, under the association system, the schools of the north and south, would earn the same amount, with the result that they would be putting unnecessary money into the southern lap, while the north would have to be satisfied with its dole of 5s. per head. Again, the Roman Catholic schools were almost entirely in School Board areas, and in their case it was a question of bonâ fide conscience in every instance, while the same could not be said for the Church of England. [Cries of "Why not?"] The Roman Catholic would not send his child to a Board School at all; the Roman Catholics had made sacrifices out of all proportion to the sacrifices made by the Church of England. But the Church of England parent did not make it a matter of conscience whether or not he should send his child to a Board School or to a Voluntary School. Besides, the Roman Catholic schools were all poor schools without exception, and any association which was created of Roman Catholic schools would in all probability be composed of one body. In that case they would have all these poor Roman Catholic schools in an association, without any rich schools among them, and whose only function would be that of earning a subscription for the association. The result would be that the Roman Catholic schools would never earn anything more than the 5s. He, therefore, supported the Amendment for three reasons. First of all, the Government offered a bribe to association managers to waste their money on the rich schools in order to induce them to come into the associations; second, there was no distinction made between the well-to-do and comparatively poor associations in the amount of money they were to receive; third, in the case of Roman Catholic schools, upon which so much argument had been based, they could not receive anything but the most moderate allowance from the system of associations.
    MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid that, though great differences of opinion had been developed in the course of the Debate, he thought there would be general agreement on this point—that the task which had been imposed
    340
    on the Education Department by the provisions of the Bill was a most difficult and burdensome one. On that side of the House they would be glad to welcome any device or machinery by which that hard-working, Department could be aided in performing properly this extremely difficult task. They had constituted the Education Department the final arbiter in the distribution of the aid grant. Surely they all saw the necessity of constituting between the Education Department on the one hand and the £14 or £15 schools among which this aid grant had been distributed, some link of a local character which might fulfil the homely duties of a buffer. He did not think they ought to throw the whole responsibility of discriminating between the needs of this large number of schools either on the Department itself or its inspectors. Personally, he confessed a preference for a proposal such as that which was included in the Bill of last year for a local authority between the Education Department and the schools. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen might cheer that observation now, but it was due to their vehement opposition to the principle of the Bill of last year that there was no longer the option of having a local authority. ["Hear, hear!"] In the absence of a local authority representing the taxpayers he welcomed a body like an association which would represent the various Voluntary Schools proposed to be aided. There was nothing new in the idea of association. In his own diocese there had been constituted a very useful and successful association of Church day schools on the basis of rural deaneries, managers of schools in each rural deanery appointing a certain body of representatives, who met frequently to help each other's schools, who discussed each other's needs, and from their number they selected an executive committee for the whole diocese. It had proved an extremely good plan in the interest of Voluntary Schools. Whether the area of association under the Bill be that of the diocese or smaller, such as the archdeaconry—he was considering the matter from the Church schools' point of view—he thought mattered comparatively little. It was left elastic under the scheme, and so long as it was of sufficien size to include a considerable number of schools to allow of proper distri-

    341
    bution among schools of varying degrees of necessity, it mattered little it a million, a half-million, or a quarter of a million of people were included in it. These associations had been spoken of gas compulsory associations, and for this reason the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherham had tried to draw a strong distinction between associations under the Bill and existing associations of Church schools. But though called compulsory, they were so in a very modified sense. No associations need be formed under the Bill, and no association would be formed if the prevailing opinion of the bodies having interest in Voluntary Schools was against it. All the Bill said was, that if associations were formed, if a majority of Voluntary Schools formed an association, then power would be given to the Education Department to require the minority of the schools to enter into associations belonging to their own denominations. It was very desirable that some such power should exist if associations were to be satisfactory in their working, otherwise a minority of rich schools night stand out, in the certainty or good hope of receiving the whole of the 5s., while the poor schools were collected into association. Only to that extent was association compulsory. If the proposal were to force schools of all denominations into association against the will of the managers, or the great body of managers and subscribers, that would be a proposal not acceptable to the representatives of voluntary Schools as a whole, but that was not the proposal in the Bill; and when the Committee came to discuss the compulsory power it would be found to be of a very different character. He could see no reason why association should I not work perfectly well for the object of the Bill. What would be done actually would be, that schools in the association would be called upon to submit to the governing body their balance sheets, including their expenditure, the salaries paid to teachers, and, on the other hand, a statement of resources; and, if they were well advised, they would include a statement of the rateable value of the parish to which the school belonged, for consideration of the possible resources. There would be no difficulty, for persons
    342
    with local knowledge of the varying circumstances of schools, in assessing the variety of resources, and in drawing up some simple rules for distribution; but this would be extremely difficult if left entirely to the officers of a central Department. Call into play, side by side with the officials of the Department, and subordinate to that Department, this local organisation, and, as a rule, it would be constituted on a local basis, and local knowledge would aid the enlightened and impartial judgment of the central Department. It had been said that the setting up of a new organisation would be objectionable, on the score of expense, but there would be no necessity for any great expenditure. Voluntary action would be called into play, and men would be found ready to perform these, as they performed other local duties. It was to be observed that not a penny of the aid grant would go to the association; till would go straight to the schools. There was no reason to anticipate that there would be a large number of appeals to the Education Department, because managers of schools would know that their cases had been fully and adequately discussed by their neighbours and equals, and they would be more likely to accept decisions thus arrived at with contentment than the decisions of a central and distant Department. For these reasons he considered that these associations would be of double benefit to the Department and to the schools; and he looked upon the proposal as the nucleus of a movement which would have great influence on the position of isolated events of the voluntary system. There was no reason why a portion of the grant should not be devoted to the needs of small village schools, and a special fund might be formed for the supply of special visiting teachers to go round and instruct the pupils in groups of schools. The production of accounts by managers would tend to check any abuses that exist; and he had very little doubt that, if the aid grant were properly administered through the associations, it would stimulate, rather that discourage, subscriptions, would encourage collective action where at present action was isolated, and would strengthen ill future that voluntary system he desired to see continuous and flourishing. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. HENRY BROADHURSTsaid the hon. Member had explained away much of the action of the proposed machinery, had shown how it might or might not be put into operation, and he said that, in many cases, it would not be availed of. If that should be so, then the administration would come back to the central office in London, bringing an increase of work for which the Department had been admitted to be unequal. This important Amendment had been moved in a most lucid and able speech by the hon. Member for Carnarvon, and he was surprised that no reply had been made by a Member of the Government. Certainly no Member of the Government could deny that it was an unprecedented thing in legislation to hand over a large sum of public money to irresponsible bodies, which, as the hon. Member had just said, might or might not come into existence, and the composition of which was as vet unknown. If these bodies were elected by the people he would have some confidence in their capacity and freedom from prejudice in administration. It was admitted that the governing bodies of these associated schools would be composed of gentlemen who had spent nearly the whole of their lives in rural districts, not many of them having had experience of the administration of large sums of public money. It was a Member of the Conservative Party who referred to the reverend gentlemen, who would no doubt have much influence in the administration of these large sums of money, as bigots. He did not adopt that language by any means, and he only quoted it to show the views held by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. And yet it was in the names of these people they were going to intrust this annual grant of between £600,000 and £700,000—a sum which hon. Members opposite said would assuredly grow as the years went by. The case against the machinery, therefore, was all the stronger. He had stated that there was no precedent for handing over public money of this large amount to a body who would be responsible only to themselves, who would be responsible only to themselves, who would be responsible only to themselves, who would form their own construction, who would, in the main, elect themselves and control the whole of the business of the respective districts they would form their associations for.
    344
    Durng the last ten years the House had created vast machinery for the administration of the county and village affairs of this country—namely, by the Acts of 1888 and 1894. But in the case of both those Acts the local authorities so created were in the main dealing with their own rates and their own domestic affairs, and when, subsequently, the £700,000 was distributed among the County Councils for the promotion of technical education, they received instructions from the central Government as to the object for which this money was to be expended. If the Government could see their way to have two-thirds of the governing bodies set up by this Bill, elected in the ordinary way by the people of the respective divisions, then a good deal of the objection to the machinery would be removed. At present nobody seemed able to explain the machinery. One hon. Member said it need not come into existence at once, the Government representatives said it would, but they did not quite know how, when, or by whom the authorities would be constituted. Surely the two Law Officers of the Crown, whom he saw opposite, must recognise that it was a very large order to expect Members of the Opposition side of the House to agree to a proposal which was absolutely indefinite, and which gave them no assurance whatever as to what these bodies were to be composed of. He felt certain, if they had the Attorney General and Solicitor General on his side of the House, they would so riddle and pulverise this Bill in half an hour that there would not be a shred of it left to be Debated. He would vote for any proposal that was designed to make this machinery representative, intelligent, and easy to be understood, and if this could not be accomplished, then he would vote for utterly destroying what the last speaker on the other side of the House had admitted to be partly, at any rate, a, sham and a delusion—["No, no!"]—because, he said, it need not come into existence.
    MR. CHANNINGdesired to say a few words on this Amendment, as he had put one on the Paper to the same effect. The only question really was—whether the machinery adumbrated by this extraordinary Bill was a machinery likely to carry out the object in view? His hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, had said that he would prefer something like

    345
    the machinery of the Bill of last year, which provided a local authority for the distribution of the aid grant. The hon. Gentleman complained that hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House were the cause of this local authority not existing now, and said that, therefore, they ought to swallow at the point of the bayonet this system of association, as the only substitute for the local government which they had rejected. The hon. Member for Somersetshire rightly insisted on the localisation of this administrative control. But the reason the Opposition resisted the Government proposals of last year was because they were not local representative proposals. The whole effect of the Bill of last year would have been to hand over the management of the schools, not to the sort of authority which his hon. Friend contemplated, but to private managers. The whole question was whether this matter of the classification of schools, and the application of the principle of a differential grant was to be accomplished well or badly. He thought there ought to be differential grants, but there should be proper machinery to carry that principle into effect. He ventured to say that the principle of association—and compulsory association—contained in the Bill, was being very largely repudiated by the clergy of the country—especially those in the rural districts and almost universally by the teachers. During the last few days mangers of deputations of Voluntary School teachers from their respective districts had waited upon hon. Members, and the tone of those deputations had been absolutely unanimous against this form of federation himself, in a previous Debate, had quoted t he opinion of Canon Barker, and he might quote the opinion also of Bury, of Northamptonshire, who wrote to him privately a short time ago, saying that the clergy were practically mad not to accept the principle of representative management and of something like local authority in the district to manage the schools, insisting, as a quid pro quo, in some form of religious teaching, accompanying that surrender of their schools to local authority. A most interesting, inquiry had been initiated in the county of Worcester by one of the county papers, and he would refer to the opinions of the clergy which had been thus elicited, with
    346
    respect to the question of association. Many of the clergy expressed the gravest apprehension as to the difficulty of forming these associations. One of them remarked that the Education Department was far more impartial than any such body as that proposed could be. Another was of opinion that the federation of schools would engender local strifes and bickerings. A third said that it would work very unevenly, produce much friction, and lead to endless contention and discontent. A fourth clergyman asked why the distribution of the aid grant could not be left to the Education Department in the same way as the rest of the grant, and inquired
    "What is the object of making this invidious distinction? Favouritism is intended by this proposal. This is manifest."
    Another comment made by several of the clergy, including Canon Coventry, was, that the association would lead to expensive charges for printing, advertisements, secretary, and official staff for inspections, examinations, and so on, so that the 5s. grant would be very seriously lessened before it reached the schools, whilst one clergyman complained that there was likely to be favouritism told unfair treatment of one school as opposed to another. There had been a most important contribution to this discussion in a report drawn up by the Lincoln Diocesan Board of Education. This paper deserves the careful consideration of every Member of the House. It stated that these associations, if formed at all, should be formed in such a way that they would not exclude the possibility of definite local educational authorities being ultimately formed. That was a very important point to consider in view of Amendments which might be offered later as to the constitution and limits of these associations another very important criticism offered was that the areas were altogether too large. That opinion hail been expressed by another educational authority, an important ecclesiastic, Canon Nunn. The Lincoln Board insisted that the area should not be larger than the Poor Law Union, and that these associations would be only useful if local. He would like to draw special atttention to a paragraph in their communication as to the possible formation of associations in the area of the

    347
    present Poor Law Unions. It stated that "the ideal association would be one composed of all classes of elementary schools, Board and Voluntary, within the area and under one governing body. But the country was not yet ripe for this, although we were nearer to it than many supposed." That was a suggestion somewhat on the lines of the Bill of last year, but on wiser and more educational lines. The second form of association insisted upon an association of all Voluntary Schools within the area, irrespective of denomination; and the third form was an association according to denomination, Church Schools with Church Schools, Wesleyan with Wesleyan, and so on. This proposal was not popular with the clergy, not with the teachers of the country. The National Union of Elementary Teachers had passed a resolution regretting the introduction in the Bill of compulsory federation of schools "Believing it to be unnecessary, calculated to diminish local effort on the part of individual schools, and likely to create a class of officials inimical to true educational elasticity." The proposal of the Bill Was also unworkable. The argument which had most weight in this House against last year's Bill was the absolute impossibility from difficulties of time and space for the County Committees suggested in that Bill to do their work. If that was true of the County Committees it would be a fortiori true of a Diocesan Board dealing with perhaps a million of population spread over two or three counties. In an interesting article in The Time(evidently contributed by one of our great educational experts) the Diocesan Boards of Education were taken more or less as the type of the association which would be formed. But what was the cost of working such Boards? Last year the income of the London Diocesan Board of Education was £4,413, and the amount distributed as grants to necessitous schools was not more than Salaries and cost of inspection amounted to £1,104, and other items brought up the cost of administration to over £2,000. It was a serious question how the associations were to be worked. Did the Government expect these important duties of the Education Department to be handed over to nondescript bodies, who, all over the country, would be com-
    348
    pelled to raise considerable sums by voluntary subscription sufficient to pay the heavy expenses of the associations, and providing the staff to work them effectively and efficiently? The income of the Church Education Society of Northamptonshire was last year £520. Of that, only £40 was given in grants to necessitous schools, or £1 out of every ten, the whole of the rest went in expenditure for salaries, inspection of schools, cost of examinations, etc. Therefore it would be seen that the Government were imposing a serious task on the proposed associations, a task he did not think could be effectively carried out, and the Government provided no rational machinery by which they could expect reasonable results to be obtained. He thought the common sense of the House and the country would reject the machinery proposed. It was essentially unrepresentative as well as unworkable machinery. The spirit which underlay the Bill was that of withdrawing a large sphere of popular education from the control of the representatives of the people, and from the whole some influence of public opinion. In parishes with which they were familiar, local opinion had a strong effect in dealing with the evils of the "one man" system, but there could be no control of local public opinion over these mysterious bodies now proposed to be set up. They had no representative character whatever, and their proceedings could not be checked in any way by any existing body. These associations would be absolutely irresponsible, they would act in secret, they would not regard local opinion, but would be the instruments of a gigantic sacerdotal organisation to carry out a policy which one of his clerical friends had rightly characterised as a deliberate attempt to unProtestantise the English people, and place the control of the education of the children under the absolute power of the extremists of the High Church Party.[Ministerial cries of "No !"] The action of our voluntary associations, whether he took their effect in preserving Voluntary Schools and preventing their extinction, their action towards teachers, or the amount they had distributed from central funds towards preserving our Voluntary Schools, had been of great importance as regarded our voluntary and

    349
    denominational system. As the Bill was framed the associations had no control of any sort over the local management of our Voluntary and denominational Schools, and the only power they had was to advise the Education Department in connection with the distribution of the 5s. grant. The whole responsibility for that distribution, it was perfectly clear, rested entirely with the Education Department. He would ask hon. Members to look at Sub-section (4), which showed that the Department would be responsible to that House in reference to the distribution of this 5s. grant exactly to the same extent that it was at present in regard to every parliamentary grant or fee grant, which extended at present to about 30s. a head. Did any hon. Gentleman opposite really believe that these funds were to be distributed the will of an irresponsible body over which Parliament had no direct control? Directly the contrary was stated in the Bill, and these federations and associations were only advisory and consultative bodies. As soon as it was understood that these associations could not interfere with local management, and were only consultative bodies, all objection to these proposals would be done away with. As to compulsion, surely these bodies could not be called compulsory in the ordinary sense of the term. There was no compulsion whatever exercised on any school to enter into any of these associations. [An HON. MEMBER: "Section 5."] Section 5 said that if a particular school acted unreasonably in not entering into a federation or association it might lose the benefit of the 5s. grant. But was it compulsion because they were asked not to act unreasonably? ["Hear, hear!"] These associations were in the true sense of the term voluntary. As regarded the areas over which these associations were to be formed, they might be formed either on the diocesan basis or that of archdeaconries, in connection with the area of local Government, or the areas of the Inspectors of the Education Department. To his mind the Education Department was the responsible body in this case. To his mind the best areas would be the areas now formed by Inspectors under the Education Department; but that was a matter of detail. Apart from association by area, this Bill would allow association by denomination, and he
    350
    thought that was a most important element in the proposal of the Government. The Wesleyan Schools might, for instance, form one association and the Roman Catholic Schools another. Objection had also been raised to the proposal of the Bill on the score of expense. He did not see why there should be any great expense thrown on those associations. To a great extent they would have discharged the duties put upon them when they had advised the Education Department on the distribution of the grant among the necessitous Voluntary Schools, and they would have a stable system which was unlikely to be altered from time to time.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: We have now reached a portion of the Bill which I confess has most interested me, and has filled me with greater curiosity than any other part of the Measure. I had hoped for assistance in regard to it subject on which I feel myself entirely uninformed, from the able speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, but I regret to say he has given me very little light indeed. ["Hear, hear!"] He has told me a great many things that these voluntary associations are not to do, but he has not explained to me, at all events in full, what they are going to do. First of all he says there is no compulsion. We do not mean to say that there is any blockade—[Laughter]—or anything of that sort about the Measure; but we have all read about auri sacra fames—that famine which compels people to do it great many things which are better left [Laughter.]The hon. Member has told us that the main object of these associations is to distribute a large sum of money, he believes there will be very little difficulty about that. I can conceive of associations, having common objects, getting on very well together. But what I want to know is whether the object for which these gentlemen will meet is a common object upon which they are all agreed. I should think it is exactly the reverse of the case.[Cheers.] The gentlemen who meet will, each of them, have as his object the getting as touch of this money as he can for his own objects and allowing as little as possible of it to go to any one else.[Laughter and cheers.]That, I say, will be the main effort of these voluntary associations.

    351
    First of all, they are going to fight for this money. It will be like the battle we read of in our childish days of "The lion and the unicorn fighting for the crown"—the silver crown—[laughter]—and whether the lion or the unicorn will beat the other "all round the town" will be the question which will have to be decided in the arena of these voluntary associations.[Cheers and laughter.] I have endeavoured to picture to myself what these voluntary associations will do when they are gathered together. I cannot really expect any great light upon the matter either from the First Lord of the Treasury or from the Solicitor General, because they have no practical experience of what I may call English school life. They come from a country which is notoriously indifferent to pecuniary considerations. [Laughter.] I am not certain that the question whether one man or one school was to get more or less money than another would ever influence the disinterested soul of Scotchman. [Laughter.] But in England we are not all so constituted. [Laughter.] Then what is it that these associations will do when they are gathered together? We have heard from that rare authority the Vice President of the Council that he thinks population of a million would be the most convenient unit for an association. I do not know how much "parson-power" a population of a million would yield. [Laughter.] I suppose it would differ in different parts of the country. The collected clergy from a million of population in the part of the country in which I live would be gathered from a large and extensive region, whereas in that part of the country which the First, Lord represents it would be a little more condensed. Well, these rectors, vicars, and archdeacons from a million population would be gathered together, and according to the number of children in that population they would have a certain sum to scramble for. It might be in one district £5,000, in another district £10,000, and in the huge district which the First Lord represents it might be £50,000. Now I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that from my experience of English parsons, when they have got £20,000 or £50,000 to scramble for, there will be differences of opinion among
    352
    them as to how much each should acquire. Even the rectors and even the archdeacons are human. I do not go higher—[laughter] and ascribe natural frailty to Deans and Bishops, but there will only be a few of these superior spirits in this collection. And there will be managers more ecclesiastically minded, perhaps, even than the clergy themselves. What would be the first operation which would occur in this voluntary association? As I understand, the clergymen would not have any pecuniary interest in the matter, because, as the right hon. Gentleman told us last night, the clergy are not to subscribe to anything except the Thirty-nine Articles.[Cheers and laughter.] That is to be their spiritual contribution to the denominational schools. [Laughter.] But the association being met, I want the right hon. Gentleman to explain to us exactly its practical operation, because all this was passed over by the hon. and learned Member for Stroud. The Amendment is a very proper one to raise this question, because I believe that the word we are discussing is the word "if." [Laughter and cheers.] If these managers from this million of population are gathered together, what is the first thing they will do? It is quite plain that the parson of Whiteacre will come forward and say, "Here is £20,000. What am I to have? I am necessitous." [Laughter.] Of course, he will say that first of all. [Renewed laughter.] "I am the most necessitous parson taming all the parsons present, and I ought to have the largest sum. Five shillings per child is nothing. I ought to have 15s., 20s., or 25s. per head of the scholars. I have got, it is true, a great landowner in my neighbourhood. But he has large mortgages; he is subject to agricultural distress; and he gives only £5 to the school." And what will the other few hundred managers say to him? [Cheers.] They will say, If this parson gets 20s., what will be left for us? The fund will be diminished so greatly." Therefore, an amendment will be proposed—an amendment that the words "twenty shillings" do not stand part of the Resolution.[Laughter and cheers.] In fact, everyone will propose an amendment cutting down this 20s. It will be in the interests of everyone present. Even the managers of Voluntary Schools, not

    353
    from sordid motives, but from denominational zeal, will desire to get the largest sum for their own schools. ["Hear, hear!"] Each man will find it necessary to make his own case good. Another man will claim 20s., or even more, and the others will turn upon him and say, "You are very well off. You have not a necessitous peer as the owner of the land in your parish; you have a prosperous and munificent brewer." [Much laughter and cheers.] "He gives you £50, and as he becomes more prosperous he becomes more denominational." [Laughter and cheers.] "He is a great subscriber, and we cannot give you 20s. You are the happy man who owns the brewer, and we are thrown back on the necessitious peer." [Laughter.] This is the sort of discussion which will be the foundation of the scheme of the Government—[cheers]—which is to advise the Vice President of the Committee of Council. [Laughter.] This is the sagacious scheme Of distribution propounded by the Government. It is it very ingenious scheme, until you come to test it by the facts, which everyone who has real acquaintance with the subject knows must be the practical operation of this scheme.[Cheers.] I should like to know where this extraordinary scheme had its origin.[Cheers.]
    "Tell me where is fancy bred—
    Or in the heart, or in the head?"
    I think this scheme must have been bred in the heart. I am sure it has not been bred in the head. [Laughter and cheers] I cannot think that the Vice President of the Council will rise and say that he was the author of this plan. [Laughter.] that this is the process that is to be gone through. I do not know how long it will take, because it is obvious that no parson who wishes to do his duty to his parish and his school will fail to advance the largest possible claim, and to produce all the circumstances which may sustain that claim. And he will stand in the presence of his sworn foes, whose interest it will be to cut down the claim as far as possible. Then there come in the people better off; and they are to bring their 5s. into hotch-patch. But they will feel, every one of them, that they ought to have that 5s., or more. I never heard of any manager who did not think he wanted all the money he could get. ["Hear, hear!"] The wealthiest school
    354
    will want its 5s.; and the whole of this congregation will be like what one has seen sometimes in a flock of rooks, where the whole flock is combined against a sick rook.[Laughter and cheers.] I must say that this seems to me one of the most extraordinary schemes that I ever heard of. Everybody has seen what happens, too often, among relations when a wealthy relative had died. It does not produce domestic harmony always, but to gather together an enormous unnumbered body of ecclesiastics from a population of a million, and to set down before them £50,000 to be scrambled for is the most extraordinary scheme for the harmonious distribution of public money among volunteers I have ever heard of. ["Hear, hear!"] And yet this is the project of what are called voluntary associations. I am afraid that when the discussion is over there will be a good deal that is not voluntary in the transaction. [Laughter.] And before they come to their decision. I think there must be at least one division upon each school, with many amendments. Whether they will use the closure as freely as it is employed in this House—[cheers]—I cannot say; but at all events the discussion will be of a protracted character before they arrive at a conclusion on the scheme which is to enlighten time Vice President of the Committee of Council. [Laughter.] I have observed, with much regret, during these discussions a certain reserve and melancholy in the appearance of the Vice President. [Laughter.] I never understood what was the reason of it, but now I quite understand it is the prospect of this advice which he is to receive from the voluntary associations. [Laughter.] Just picture to yourselves what is to be the function and the office of the Vice President when he receives this scheme. It will be a record of the bickerings and the quarrels of all these ecclesiastics as to the sum which each is to receive. Every one of them, I imagine, will appeal to him to redress the injustice of which he has been the victim. [Laughter.] Then the Vice President, who is to have, as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite tells him, an absolute power to remould this scheme, is to encounter the ecclesiastics from a population of a million and to re-judge their acts, to redress their injustice, and to give to those who have not

    355
    received what they ought to have had, and to take away from those who have got what they ought not to have had. [Laughter.] This is to be the function of the Vice President in regard to those advisers who have been quarrelling over the £50,000. I do not wonder that, in prospect of that, the Vice President appears thoughtful. [Loud laughter.] It has often been said of advice that it is a thing that is constantly offered but which is seldom taken; and I should think, probably, with that maxim in his mind, the Vice President might pluck up his spirits—[Laughter.]—and consider that the best thing he could do with the schemes framed by the voluntary associations would be to throw them into the waste paper basket and not endeavour to examine their construction or compose the quarrels of those who have laid the schemes before him. But I would really ask, is this a practical question? They are not the ideals which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has said they are. He has told us they are not going to govern the schools. We know that very well. He has told us that, in the ordinary sense of the word, there is no compulsion. We know that very well. They have, he said, only to distribute the money. But what sort of an "only" is that? ["Hear, hear!"] It is like the "if" we have to consider in the Amendment. Applying, to it ordinary intelligence and some experience of the questions, and the districts, and the habits of the people who will have to deal with this question, unless some very different explanation can be given than any yet offered, I must pronounce it to be the most preposterous and absurd scheme that was ever submitted to the judgment of the House of Commons.[Cheers.]
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY, who was received with Ministerial cheers, said: Perhaps I am not a wholly impartial critic of the Debates we have now beat conducting for four or five nights in Committee, but we have wanted hither-to, in my judgment, two things—wisdom and liveliness. I do not say the right hon. Gentleman opposite, has contributed the wisdom—[laughter and cheers.]—will do hint the justice to say that he has given us an ample dose of liveliness, which makes up for many hours of somewhat weary discussion. Before I
    356
    meet the special arguments or the special jokes—[laughter]—for joke, and argument were so indistinguishable that I hardly know which, to call them—[laughter]—of the right hon. Gentleman, let me remind the Committee in one sentence what the problem is we have got to discuss in this sub-section. The Committee has already decided that a sum, amounting, in the present year to about £600,000 odd, is to be given to the Voluntary Schools. It has also decided that that money is not to be given to Voluntary Schools at a fixed rate of 5s. a head. It has left undetermined the machinery by which that distribution is to take place, and no one has suggested, as far as I know, that there is open to our choice any machinery except the alternative machinery of the Department unassisted by associations or the Department assisted by associations. ["Hear, hear!"] That is, at the stage at which we have arrived, the solitary problem we have to determine. The only alternative that lies before us is whether the Department, in allocating this £600,000 odd among the Voluntary Schools of the country, is to be assisted by the associations to be formed under the Bill, or is it to be left absolutely without any assistance to deal with that difficult problem alone? I think, put in that way—and that is a fair way of putting it—the Committee will come to the conclusion we have come to, that there is no alternative, but, as far as possible to call into existence associations by which the difficulties of the distribution may be met. I do not deny that the difficulty is a great difficulty. I do not deny that there may be special difficulties connected with associations. All I say is that, on the, broad issue which I venture to say is now before the Committee, there can be no doubt that the primâa facie verdict of the Committee will be that the associations should be called into existence, if it be possible to call them into existence, in order to assist the Department in the difficult task which the Bill, as already passed, lays upon them. ["Hear, hear!"] Haying thus presented the problem to the Committee, let me consider the objections which the right hon. Gentleman brought to the scheme which we have suggested. Ho starts with a preliminary presumption against the Government, because he says that my hon. and learned Friend

    357
    on my right and myself, who have been very deeply concerned with the drafting and the defence of the Bill, are both Scotchmen, and are, therefore, as he would imply, incapable of appreciating those niceties of clerical life in England, of which the right hon. Gentleman has been so happy an exponent. [Laughter.] I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that it is his good fortune to move habitually during the recess in clerical circles. [Laughter.] I gather that when he retires from the labours of this House, he goes down to his rural retreat, and there meets in happy daily converse the managers of Voluntary Schools. [Laughter.] discusses their difficulties with them, and I have no doubt largely subscribes to their schools—[laughter]—and is thoroughly acquainted with their modes of thought, and the views they entertain upon the problem of the maintenance of the Voluntary Schools. I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman's superior knowledge of English clerical life, but I cannot help thinking, though perhaps from a greater distance and under greater disadvantages, that I have formed at least as just, as I certainly have formed a far more favourable, estimate of the clergy and the power of co-operation among the clergy in all districts of England, whether rural or urban.[Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman, I believe, both by residence and by heredity, is more qualified to have an opinion upon this subject than I can pretend to have, and yet I think that, perhaps because I look at the matter in a more sympathetic spirit, my judgment is not less to be trusted than his upon that question. The right hon. Gentleman has drawn a picture of how one of these associations is to be occupied in connection with the distribution of the sum allocated to it under this Bill. It was not a flattering picture. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have called into existence a picture of—should I be violating the rules of order, Mr. Lowther, if I said 100 Harcourts?—[laughter]—all in holy orders—[more laughter]—and all scrambling—to use his own classic phrase—fur a share of this 5s. grant for their own pet particular school.[Ironical cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman is an ornament of an assembly which no doubt does, I will not say scramble, but it does engage in an internecine warfare among its various Members, is divided into a Government
    358
    and Opposition, and the Opposition at all events are very ready to bring forward any argument they can in favour of the policy they pursue. But why are we to assume, why ought we to assume, that when you bring together a set of gentlemen all concerned in keeping up the standard of Voluntary Education, all equally desirous to maintain the present system of education, that they are all going to scramble for these 5s. which are given by the State, squabbling like so many fishwives for the amount they can drag into their own net? [Cheers.] I may be sanguine, but for my part I draw a picture of a very different assemblage from that which the right hon. Gentleman has called forth from his too lively imagination. I do not disguise from the Committee, and at no stage have I attempted to disguise, that there are difficulties and dangers connected With this scheme of association. I have never concealed the fact that public spirit, patriotism, some desire for a common object as opposed to an individual and personal gain, are requisite if these associations are to work for education in general and for voluntary education in particular. But is there anything either in the character of the clergy of the Church of England or in the experience which we have of certain relatively small, and insignificant associations which have already been called into existence to help the Voluntary Schools—is there anything in either set of considerations which may lead us to believe that these associations are to be composed of isolated units which squabble for their own interests, each absolutely dead to the interests of the whole? I do not believe, and never will believe until experience demonstrates it to me, that the associations which will be, I trust, called into existence will be so selfish, so degraded, and, above all, so short-sighted a body as the right hon. Gentleman has represented. On the contrary, I think all the experience we have had—and that experience, though not large, is not insignificant—leads me to believe that there will be no material difficulty either in bringing these associations into existence or in inducing them when they have, been brought into existence to work, not each for the benefit of the particular representative or separate individual concerned, but for the common benefit of the great object for which the

    359
    association itself is called into being. ["Hear, hear !"] After all, in this country, are we not familiar with public assemblies of every sort, kind, and description, from the Houses of Parliament to county councils, town councils, parish councils, Poor Law Boards, and all the rest of it? Are we unduly proud of ourselves when we say it is a characteristic of Englishmen, when they come together, that they are capable of working together for a common and public object? [Cheers.] Are the clergy, and the clergy alone in this country, absolutely incapable of this public spirit and of joining in common effort for a common end? [Cheers.] I do not for one moment credit it, and, though I will not attempt to minimise either the difficulties or the responsibilities which will be thrown upon those associations by this Bill, I will say that I believe they will be found equal to those difficulties and responsibilities. [Cheers.] I believe that one of the great motives of the opposition to this clause of the Bill is that hon. Gentlemen know that, if these associations be worked as we think and believe they will be worked, nothing will strengthen the Voluntary School system of this country more, nothing will tend to put it on a more permanent and more stable basis, than the fact that the managers of Voluntary Schools can meet together, can discuss their common object, and can co-operate together to meet, by the help of the money given, the needs which they respectively feel. [Cheers.] These are reasons which, in my judgment, make this sub-section of Clause (1) even a more valuable part of the Bill to the Voluntary Schools than the 5s. grant, and I boldly make my confession to the Committee, subject, of course, to all the scorn and criticism that will be heaped upon me if this Bill is a failure, that at this moment my hopes for the good effects of this Measure are more largely founded upon this sub-section dealing with associations, than upon any other part of the Bill which we have the honour to present to the Committee. [Loud cheers.]
    MR. J. H. YOXALLsincerely trusted that the hopes and anticipations of the right hon. Gentleman would be fulfilled, but he doubted if that would be the case. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to certain associations that had already been in existence, but he had not specified them. Those
    360
    associations had been of two kinds. The first kind was such as that which was found in a southern diocese, where a good many thousand pounds had been raised by the donations of laymen and placed in the hands of the Council of the diocese; those subscriptions had been distributed to the necessitous schools; they had been distributed wisely, and no friction had arisen. The absence of friction, however, was due to the fact that each individual school manager, on behalf of each individual school child, had no claim and had not had a 5s. piece per child in view. Under this Bill, for every child in a Voluntary School a 5s. piece per year would be due, and, therefore, the manager, on behalf of each child, would feel, in the first place, that he must get for each child that 5s. piece, and would object most naturally to transfer that 5s. piece to any other school under any other manager; and, therefore, the example which the right hon. Gentleman gave of associations working well was not one in point. The second class of school associations had been of a smaller and less beneficial character. It had been an association, not of generous donors to the funds of schools, but of certain poor schools, and from those associations the wealthy schools had held aloof, for the reason that they had not cared to have their incomes pooled with the incomes of the smaller schools. It had been pointed out that there would be no compulsion to associate. Unless a school did associate, however, it would lose all chance of the 5s. piece per child. He imagined, therefore, that this plan was a bribe held out to all schools to associate, and as many schools as possible would be forced to associate. He perceived that this grant was a first step towards the association of schools for all purposes, and the pooling of all grants to the schools. There would be diocesan federations and diocesan councils, and they would say to every school, "You must consent to associate for the purpose of all grants; if you do not associate we will not give you any special grant at all. "If a school refused to be associate, not merely for the purpose of the 5s. grant, but of all other grants, then the 5s. grant would be withheld from it. [Cries of "Divide!"] If an

    361
    enemy of the Voluntary Schools had proposed this scheme he would not have wondered at it. The clergymen in all parts of the country were protesting against it—["Divide!"]—Voluntary School teachers in all parts of the country were protesting against it. [Renewed cries of"Divide!"] Those who knew the facts were opposed to the proposal, and those who supported the proposal would have cause to regret it in time to come. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. LOUGHsaid the Leader of the House really based his support of these associations on two arguments. He said that the representatives of the different schools would have a common object. Perhaps someone who believed in the Bill would show them where the common object came in. [Cries of "Divide!"] The right hon. Gentleman asked the Leader of the Opposition why he assumed there would be a scramble. The reason was that there would be something to scramble for. The associations had to prepare schemes which, no doubt, in nine cases out of ten, would be adopted without any correction by the Education Department. The right hon. Gentleman was not whole-hearted in support of the scheme, for he acknowledged he saw grave difficulties and dangers. If this scheme were surrounded by grave difficulties and dangers, the House of Commons ought not to lightly accept it. He thought his best friends would think that he had gone too far in support of these associations. He said that there would be no complaint of anyone to come into them. That was a rather bold statement. He thought that the hon. and learned Member was put up because he was a little more courageous than others. He had to interpret this word unreasonably. This was one of the dangerous points of the Bill which they had been criticising all along. The hon. Member had explained to them that the associations would not control the schools; but what, then, were their functions? He believed that if they were to find out the true genesis of these associations, they must not confine themselves to that Bill, but go back to the Bill of last year. Under the Bill of last year there was an elective principle under the County Council, but under the present Bill the association had no elective principle at all, He should like to have some explana-
    362
    tion of the position of these associations in London. How would the principle be carried out as to Wesleyan Schools and Catholic Schools? Would the destinies of these schools be committed to the hands of one association?
    MR. JAMES BRYCEsaid that he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had thrown much light upon the points upon which hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House desired information. The right hon. Gentleman had said nothing as to the area that these associations were to cover, or as to the manner in which the schools were to be represented upon them. The only one point that appeared to be clear in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was, that these associations would be composed of clergymen.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that the hypothesis of the right hon. Gentleman was not his.
    MR. BRYCEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman could not refer to a single precedent for a sum of money being handed over to an irresponsible body for distribution among its constituents without any check or control being exercised over that distribution. The large sum of £600,000 of public money was to be handed over to a body who would not be responsible for its expenditure to the Legislature of the country. It was all the more important, therefore, that the House should have some idea of what these associations were to be composed. They would have to determine many questions in a, way that he assumed would be in accordance with justice to the different schools. He thought that, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the House were entitled to an assurance from the Government that these associations would be fully representative in their character, would be composed of the best elements, and would do full justice to the schools among whom this money was to be divided. They had been told that the associations were to be of a diocesan character, and were to be formed upon diocesan lines, for the purpose of administering the money to be provided for technical education. That was a very different thing from the statement that the associations were to represent different areas for the purpose of administering the education grant, and in

    363
    his view that constituted an additional reason why the rules should be laid upon the Table of the House before they came into operation. It had been said that the diocesan areas were much too large, and he himself should much prefer that the area of the Poor Law Unions should be adopted. Was it certain that the Roman Catholic Schools and the Wesleyan Schools would combine with the Church of England Schools on these associations for their common benefit? If the Education Department were to address itself seriously to the question of the distribution of this grant, he thought that they could discharge the duty better than the associations, which were formed upon denominational lines could do. He suggested to the Commitee, that this was a question which ought not to be decided now. It was not a question which the Education Department ought to be allowed to consider as having been determined for in these Debates. It was a, matter which ought to come before the House when the schemes had been formed and the Department had considered them, and it would be a great misfortune if the Committee were to give a blank cheque to the Department and leave them to constitute associations which might afterwards prove not to be constituted on the best lines. ["Hear, hear!"] That was one point which suggested itself for further consideration, and he would now mention another. The Government hail promised a Bill on Secondary Education, and he hoped that promise would be fulfilled, either this Session or next. [" Hear, hear!"] In that connection there existed at present a great diversity of areas and authorities, and there was a consequent waste of money. A Secondary Education Bill ought to consolidate authorities and areas, and the question of the authorities under this Bill ought to be reserved for further consideration by the House next Session, when the Education Department had had time to prepare schemes. There was one point in which elementary schools very closely touched Secondary Education. The higher elementary schools were practically secondary schools, and it was therefore extremely important that the authority administering elementary schools should, for the future, be subject to the Secondary Education authority. ["Hear, hear!"] There was one other point to which he would like to call the
    364
    attention of the Committee. It had been represented to him, and he felt bound to say a word or two upon it, there were many Voluntary Schools which had been under the management of energetic men, keenly alive to the importance of improving the education of the country, who had raised their schools to a point of efficiency beyond what was required by the Education Department. These educational reformers were conducting educational experiments of the greatest importance, and they were afraid that the introduction of these associations might hamper them in their work, which they were now carrying on in such an enlightened spirit. ["Hear, hear!"] That, was a thing which he thought the Committee ought to guard against by taking care that, while those associations were, framed on large mid liberal lines, they should not be so powerful as to be able to override and hamper the liberty of individual managers. ["Hear, hear!"] That was a point which, he contended, ought not to be left to the Education Department to determine, but ought to be reserved for further consideration by the House. For the reasons he had given he conceived that the Amendment of his hon. Friend would be a very valuable addition to the Bill, and he would have no hesitation in voting for it. ["Cheers."]
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): It appears to me that the issue in this sub-section was an extremely simple one, but there was some danger of its being overladen with a cloud of words from the other side of the House. [Ministerial cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite are most anxious for information as to the intentions and meaning of the Government, and it is extraordinary what a length of time they take in explaining the several matters on which they want information. [Laughter.] I assume their perfect good faith. I assume their real desire to understand the intentions of the Government and their inability to understand the terms of the Bill—[Ministerial cheers and laughter]—and I do not attribute to them the slightest desire to delay a Bill with the main object of which, we have been told again and again, they have the greatest sympathy. I think I can give in a very few words the explanation they desire.

    365
    The object of the Government is to relieve necessitous schools, and for that purpose a certain amount of money is to be appropriated, and the desire of the Government is that not one single penny of that money shall go to schools which are not necessitous, and that it shall go to those schools winch are necessitous in the proportions necessary to save them from extinction. Considering that you are dealing with a vast number of schools in altogether exceptional and varying circumstances, it will be seen that that is a complicated object to attain, and I defy the wisdom of this House, even the wisdom of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, to devise any statutory provision which will secure that object without giving any discretion to somebody or other. If that is disputed, let some hon. Gentleman propose an Amendment which will secure that which I believe to be the common object of the House—let some hon. Gentleman propose a scheme which will secure in statutory terms and by statutory provisions that only necessitous schools shall get this money and only in the proportions in which they severally require it. I say there is no means of securing that result except by giving discretion to some body to deal with the circumstances of each particular case as they arise. The circumstances vary in each particular case according to the time when they have to be considered if you laid down it rule which would apply fairly to all existing schools, it would be altogether inapplicable in the course of another twelve months, because the circumstances of the schools would have changed. The Government propose to leave the sole discretion with the Education Department. It is an entire mistake, and shows a very slight conception Of the meaning and intention of the Bill, to talk, is the hon. Member for West Islington did, about leaving this power with the Associations. It is left to the Education Department, which has the best means of ascertaining the circumstances of different schools at different times through its inspectors—[Opposition cheers]—through the system which has, on the whole, worked satisfactorily in the distribution of the existing grant. The Leader of the Opposition agrees so far. [Sir W. HARCOURT assented.] Then the Government have thought that even a Government Department, and
    366
    even the Education Department, may not be perfect that even the Education Department, with its inspectors and its knowledge, cannot be aware of all the facts connected with all the schools with which it has to deal. The Government have thought, therefore, that it would be advantageous to encourage advisory Associations which might lay before the Department facts which, at any rate, it might reasonably take into consideration. That is all the section does. It encourages the formation of Associations which may submit to the Department, to be used or not at its sole discretion, facts and information which otherwise it could not know. In these few circumstances I have explained the object of the clause, and it does not appear to me to justify much further discussion. ["Hear, hear!"]
    SIR FRANK LOCK WOODI bought the Committee would feel obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his excessively patronising speech—["hear, hear!"]—in reply to a great many Members who had taken the trouble to attend the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman had looked in at about half-past 11. [Mr. J. CHAMBER-LAIN: "Five minutes past."] He was quite ready to concede to the right hon. Gentleman the advantage of the additional 20 minutes; but he thought that short time might have been put to much better use by the right hon. Gentleman, because he did not appear to have derived any real information with regard to the question under discussion. ["Hear, hear!"]The right hon. Gentleman had told them that it was a mere matter of leaving these questions to the discretion of the Education Department. They had not been enlightened, however, on this subject by the responsible Minister of the Department who was present. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. LEONARD COURTNEY, who was met with some cries of "Divide," wish to explain the grounds upon which I propose to vote. We must assume what has been done already, and take up our position at the point which has been reached by the Committee. It has been decided that a sum of £600,000 is to be distributed among necessitous schools. The only point that now remains to the Committee, according to the Leader of the House, is whether that sum should

    367
    be distributed at the discretion and according to the means of knowledge of the Education Department, or whether they should be assisted by associations called upon to advise them as to distribution. I admit that this is the exact point which we have reached. But it may well be that the Committee, considering the character of the proposed associations, will hesitate to give to them the power to advise, which will in fact prove much more than a power to advise, and should bear against it, leaving the distribution entirely to the discretion of the Education Department. According to the First Lord of the Treasury that would be a task of insuperable difficulty for the Education Department to overcome; but that is not the line taken by the Secretary for the Colonies, though I believe it to be an actual representation of the case. The effect of these two conclusions would be that, although we have advanced so far as to declare that £600,000 should be distributed among the necessitous schools, we might, on further consideration, arrive at the conclusion that the distribution is impossible, and it must be made on the lines of absolute equality among all the schools that are to benefit. In other words, we would be obliged to contribute the 5s. per scholar to schools all round. That is one of the points now remaining for discussion. If we refuse to accept the proposal of calling these associations into existence, and if, realising the result of that refusal, we should come to the conclusion that the Education Department was unable to carry out the process of distribution, of discrimination, we might at a later stage revert to the question of equal distribution; so that is yet involved in the issue before the Committee. But, for my own part, I am prepared, under certain conditions not immediately arising, to assent to the process recommended by the Government in this Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] But I do not disguise from myself that in doing this we are entering on a far-reaching and pregnant proposal. [Cheers.] This is a Bill for the assistance of denominational schools. The
    368
    House of Commons, reflecting in this the mind of the nation, has arrived at the conclusion that denominational schools have claims for assistance and support. [Cheers.] That has been admitted by hon. Members opposite; and the question conies, in what way should this support, be accorded to denominational schools frankly recognised as such? You propose to call associations into existence which will advise the Education Department. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stroud, preceding the Secretary for the Colonies, has insisted on the fact that the Education Department will exercise supreme authority and that the discretion will rest with it. Technically that is true; but can any hon. Member suppose that a scheme, having been approved by an association and submitted to the Education Department, will be open to reconsideration in detail? Shall we as Members be solicited by the managers of this or that school to go to the Education Department and press upon it the fact that this or that school has been unjustly treated by the association of which it is a member? The supposition is inconsistent with the ordinary facts and conduct of Parliamentary life. No; we are calling this association into existence, we are recognising denominational education as part of the general education of the future? What will follow? What is involved in this proposition? It is this. Will you allow the Church of England to organise itself, that is the whole question; are you going to allow the Church of England as an educational body, having connection with denominational schools, to organise itself? The proposal of the Government is to allow such a thing to be done, to accept the organisation which may be instituted, and to allow the recommendation of that organisation practically to take the place of the discretion of the Education Department.[Opposition cheers.] I do not shrink from the consequence; I am going to support the consequence on proper conditions, but hon. Members may suppose that nothing short of that is involved in this general realisation of what is the scope and what

    369
    is intended by the Bill. The noble Lord below me understands that quite well, and it is a thing which all members of the Church will understand and realise. Now, there is no difficulty as to the way in which this scheme would work in regard to one of the denominations spoken of—the Wesleyan denomination. It will probably be referred to the education department of the Wesleyan Conference; and, having regard to the democratic character which on the whole characterises that body, it will very likely happen that the associations called into existence under it will not extend beyond the Wesleyan circuit, or, at most, the county. As to the Roman Catholic body, which is the next, and which may be rightly considered as leading us a further step, I apprehend that there will be no difficulty whatever in the organisation of that body; it is already organised. But I suppose the whole of the funds going to Roman Catholic schools will not be handed over to one central body, but probably to diocesan bodies of that Church. In the same way we limy assume that the body that will be called into existence to facilitate the distribution of those funds allocated to the Church of England schools will be bodies from the diocese. You will have a diocesan body framing the scheme in each diocese for the distribution of the funds. That, if properly conducted, will be part of the inevitable machinery to be called into existence if the Church of England is to be self-governed; it must be called into existence if we recognise denominational education is in the future to be part of the national system of education. It will depend on the character of the organisation in each diocese, and here I come to the condition under which I am prepared to support the scheme. You do not know how these organisations will work, what form they will assume; you cannot tell if the clerical element will predominate, you cannot say if the lay element will be sufficiently represented, or whether there will be provision as to concurrent action of the lay
    370
    and clerical element; therefore my one safeguard in accepting this proposal as a temporary shift lies in this, the removal from the scheme of that element which puts restraint on any school to come into an organisation; take out the power to force a school into an association In, then you may allow the experiment to work, you may see how it works, you may watch it and judge its effect; schools may go in or come out of the organisation, and the organisation would prove whether it deserved permanent support and would justify itself or fail to do so. ["Hear!"] But the question now before us is, supposing we do not fall back on the principle of equal division per head, the principle before us is no none and no less than this: Are you prepared, in pursuance of the organisation of denominational education, to allow the Church of England to organise itself by dioceses? I ant prepared to try that experiment, but, by way of safeguarding my own position, I propose to support the ultimate proposal to make the Bill temporary in its operation, and to be removed if Parliament desires. Subject to that, and subject to the removal of the compulsory element, I am prepared to support the scheme now before us and to allow the Church to organise its schools.[Cheers.]
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid the Leader of the House had contributed an important speech to the discussions upon the Bill. He had put his views before the Committee in a frank and clear manner, and as to these associations and their effect, he had expressed a confident hope that they would carry out the object for which they were designed. The right hon. Gentleman also uttered a note of warning that if these associations did not carry out the object in the spirit anticipated, the result would be a serious blow to the cause of denominational education. One point should be made clear in reference to these associations and the Education Department. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies said the

    371
    only power these associations would have would be to submit schemes for approval. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin had clearly shown that their power would be much more than that. There are, under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act of 1889, powers given to governing bodies of forming and submitting schemes to the Education Department; but, as hon. Members well knew, the Department never interfered in those schemes unless they contained something contrary to the spirit of the Act or injurious to the interests affected. He could not agree with the Leader of the House in his statement of belief that the clergy of the country were unanimous in favour of these associations. He believed the reverse was the case. He had abundant evidence on that point, but he would not delay the Committee by quoting it. He believed the reason the clergymen of this country, as to class, would not welcome the formation of these associations was, because they considered that they would be dominated, so far as the Church of England associations were concerned, by the Bishops of each diocese. Canon Barker, in a letter to The Times of the 13th February, out this very point, asked for what purpose it was proposed to elect these new bodies? He went on to say that the Education Department had laid down the principle, they were already in possession of the facts as to the schools, and what information, the reverend gentleman asked, could the associations supply them with which would easily be obtained by them from the inspectors, concluding by expressing the opinion that the formation of the associations would lead to no end of friction and difficulties. That was the view of a representative clergyman, wino had taken a great interest in this question, and was devoted to the cause of denominational education. For these reasons he should strongly support the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
    VISCOUNT CBANBORNEdesired to ask a simple question arising
    372
    out of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, who had said that the association to be created under this clause would be a purely advisory body, which the Education Department would be at liberty to ignore or agree with as they thought He presumed that as long as the scheme was in operation and approved the Department would be bound by it and would not be able to ignore it.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: If the scheme is approved by the Department it will, of course, be acted upon so long as that scheme continues to be approved.[opposition laughter.]
    MR. ABEL THOMASobserved that hon. Members on that side of the House had been twitted by the Secretary of State for the Colonies with their ignorance of the meaning of the words in this clause. Four Gentlemen on the other side had addressed themselves to the question of whether the Education Department or the association was to decide how the money was to be divided. The hon. and leaned Member for the Stroud Division asserted there was no doubt that the meaning of this passage was, that the Education Department alone were the persons who were to decide how the money was to be divided. The next speech on the other side, that of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, was directed to show that the persons who were to have the power of dividing the money were not the Department, but the association only. Then they had the speech of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who threw over the First Lord of the Treasury, because he said the Department were to decide what was to be done with the money, but subject to a little advice from the association. Next they had the right hon. Member for Bodmin, who returned again to the First Lord of the Treasury, and suggested that the persons who had to divide the motley were the association and not the Department. He must say that hon. Members

    373
    opposite were as ignorant of the meaning of this passage as hon. Members on his side of the House; and he really thought the Committee ought not to divide until they had a little clearer information on the subject. The Secretary for the Colonies could not have read the passages to which he was referring Once they formed an association and was approved by the Education Department, the position was this. The Education Department could not give a single penny piece to anybody. [Cries of "Divide!"] He was quite sure that hon. Members did not understand this. [Laughter.] The words were very clear, "the shares so allotted to each association shall be distributed as aforesaid by the Education Department after they have consulted the governing body," and in accordance with their scheme they could not give a shilling piece themselves or decide to whom it was to go. The association, and that only, would decide how it was to be distributed, and the Education Department handed it over to the association decided upon. On these points the Committee ought to be enlightened from the Treasury Bench before the Division took place.
    Question put, "That the words 'if associations of schools are constituted' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 279; Noes, 116.—(Division List, No. 88.)
    And it being Midnight, the Chairman left, the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.

MOTION

  KINGSTOWN HARBOUR ROADS TRANSFER.
  Bill to transfer to the Commissioners of the township of Kingstown certain Roads and Lands now vested in the Commissioners of Kingstown
  374
  Harbour; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hanbury and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer; presented, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed.—[Bill 156.]

MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT, 1887.
The Select Committee on the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, was nominated of—Cayzer, Sir James Fergusson, Mr. Howard, Major Jameson, Mr. William Jones, Mr. Legh, Mr. McGhee, Mr. Mildmay, Mr. Mundella, Mr. Charles Murray, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Spencer, Sir Howard Vincent, Mr. Charles Wilson, and Mr. John Wilson (Govan).
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Sir Albert Rollit.)

HIGHWAYS
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
TENANT RIGHT IN TOWNS (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Beading deferred till Tomorrow.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Heading deferred till Tommorow.
MARRIED PERSONS SMALL INDUSTRIAL INCOMES (TAX RELIEF) BILL.
Second Beading deferred till Tuesday next.
COUNTY COUNCILS(QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 18th March.
LICENCES (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
MILITARY WORKS (MONEY) BILL.
Committee deferred till Thursday.
LAW OF EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL CASES) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT(ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
POOR LAW OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
JURIES DETENTION BILL.
Considered in Committee and reported, without Amendment; Bill read the Third time, and passed.

CRETE.
On the question, "That this House do now adjourn,"
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, who was received with Opposition cheers, said: Earlier in the evening I thought it might not be convenient at that time to press Her Majesty's Government to give answers to questions which I am quite sure excite the deepest interest in this House and ill the country. ["Hear,
376
hear!"] The object which I had in addressing a question to the right hon. Gentleman will be must clearly explained by reading the form of that question which I proposed to put to the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. It is this:—
"We have no desire to embarrass the Government in the negotiations which must necessarily arise upon the reply of the Greek Government to the Note of the Powers; and we feel confident that the efforts of Her Majesty's Government will be directed to bringing about an amicable settlement of the questions at issue between the Powers and Greece. At the same time we desire an assurance from Her Majesty's Government that the forces of the British Crown shall not be employed against Greece before an opportunity has been given to Parliament of expressing its judgment thereon."
[Cheers.] In that passage is contained practically what I desire to say. We hope and we believe that in the present situation of things there has arisen a position in which an amicable settlement will be arrived at, and which Her Majesty's Government, I am quite sure, will use their best efforts to bring about.["Hear, hear!"] But if those efforts should fail, and if any situation should arise in which it should be contemplated by the Powers to use military and naval force against Greece, what we request and what we desire is that before the forces of the British Crown are employed for that purpose, the policy of the Government and the reasons they have to allege in support of it shall be laid before Parliament, and that Parliament shall have an opportunity of pronouncing upon that policy. ["Hear, hear!"] Reference was made in the earlier part of the evening to the situation which the Government of France occupies with regard to this question. It is known from the information received this morning that the Government of France has given an undertaking that no procedure of this kind shall be taken by the French forces against Greece without giving an opportunity to the French Chamber of pronouncing its judgment upon it. I do not put this question upon a claim of constitutional right. In that respect no doubt

377
the Government of Great Britain stands in a different position from that of the Government of France.[Ministerial cheers] But the appeal I make to the right hon. Gentleman is one not founded upon a claim of right, but upon a claim of policy of the highest description. The Government cannot but be aware of the deep feeling that exists in this nation against the prospect of the forces of the Crown being employed in a hostile manner against Greece. ["Hear, hear!"]It is only fair, it is only just, to the country and to the House of Commons that they should have an opportunity of pronouncing their opinion upon such a procedure. I cannot believe that Her Majesty's Government should desire to avoid bringing before the House of Commons such a question as that. They possess a great majority, which will certainly he disposed to support them in any policy which they may adopt, for reasons which shall appear to them to be adequate. On the other hand, it is not in matters of such supreme importance as this that a Government with a majority should refuse to the House of Commons, and the minority, it may be, the right to have a voice in so critical and so dangerous a question as this. Therefore, Sir, what will be the position of the Government, if they think they have with them the voice of Parliament? Of course it will strengthen them in their course, and they will have no right to complain. On the other hand, we who are a minority have the right to discuss and to pronounce, through it may be with the voice of the minority, on a question which actually involves the issues of peace and of war. Therefore, I think that the demand we are making upon, the Government that before they enter upon this path—and I am not going to discuss the merits of the question to-night at all—his country shall not be plated in a worse position than the nation of France—that the voice of both sides upon such an issue as that, shall be heard; and, therefore, what I have to ask the right hon. Gentle-
378
man is, that before the determination is taken to use the forces of the British Crown against the Greeks and against Crete, that, at all events, in the House of Commons the reasons for such a proceeding may be stated, and that we on our part may be allowed our voice upon such an issue.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I desire, in the first place, to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having sent me a copy of the statement which he began by reading to the House on the present occasion, embodying the general tenour of the demand which he was going to make upon me at the rising of the House. And, Sir, let me say that the right hon. Gentleman does us no more than justice when he tells us that he and his colleagues recognise the desire which Her Majesty's Government have of bringing about an amicable settlement. But when the right hon. Gentleman goes further and asks us to give a pledge that no steps shall be taken in the East of Europe of an executive character in connection with the recent Notes delivered to Greece and Turkey without previous consultation with Parliament, I have to say that in our opinion that would not only be extremely inexpedient—[Ministerial cheers]—but it would be absolutely contrary to precedent, which, so far as know, is universal, and which beyond all question is of general weight. The right hon. Gentleman has told us he has read in the newspapers that a pledge very muck like that which he has asked from us has been given by the French Government to the French Assembly. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has rightly interpreted the exact character of the pledge given by the French Ministry, but in any case, whether he be right or whether he be wrong, we must be, and we ought to be, guided by our own constitutional practice. ["Hear, hear!"} Nor do I think it is our business to go to foreign countries to learn the practice which ought to regulate the conduct of a free people.[Cheers.] Nor do I

379
at all wish to deal with the question of precedent; but the only two precedents at all analogous to anything, which even the most pessimistic imagination can suppose as likely to occur in Eastern waters are the precedents of the bombardment of Alexandria and the blockade of Greece. The bombardment of Alexandria took place, I think, in 1882, and the blockade of Greece took place in 1886. In both cases I think the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Government—[cheers]—and in both cases I have no doubt the Government of which he was a Member acted with perfect propriety; but I cannot believe that anything stronger—I hope that nothing nearly as strong—is likely to occur at the present crisis—["hear, hear!"]—and certainly profound would be the disappointment of Her Majesty's Government if events of this character were to take place. But in neither of the cases I have mentioned was any notice given to Parliament before the event took place, nor, as far as I am aware, was any Debate permitted by the Executive of the day either on the one subject or the other until after the event had taken place. ["Hear, hear!"] But I do not wish really to dwell upon the question of particular precedents; I wish simply to confine myself to the statement why Her Majesty's Government are most anxiously desirous of an amicable settlement. They cannot so far violate the ordinary traditions which have governed the Executive in this country for unnumbered generations as to pledge themselves in a matter of this kind to take no steps whatever in Eastern waters in connection with this crisis, which may lead to action by force, without previously consulting this House. Everything the Government does is done with a consciousness that they are responsible to Parliament mid the country. ["Hear, hear!"] If Parliament and the country disapprove of what they have done the remedy is in their own hands; and if it be a punishment to be turned
380
out of office—["hear, hear!" and a laugh]—that punishment will undoubtedly fall on our heads if in this or in any other great national issue we run counter to the national will.[Cheers.] But beyond that it is impossible for us to go. Pledges inconsistent with that it is impossible for us to give. ["Hear, hear!"] We are acting under the firm belief that the policy we are pursuing is a policy of liberty in Crete and peace in Europe.[Cheers.] And neither liberty in Crete nor peace in Europe are we prepared to imperil by entering into a pledge which may hamper our freedom of action, it may be, at a critical moment. [Loud cheers.]
SIR C. DILKE: There were two pledges given, as I understand, in the French Parliament, and also in the Italian Parliament; certainly in the French Parliament. The second pledge was by the French Prime Minister yesterday, that either to-morrow or on Thursday he would state to the Assembly what steps were agreed upon by the Powers with a view to future action, so that they might have an opportunity of discussion. I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman believes that either to-morrow or on Thursday he will be able to make a similar statement as to the intention of the Powers to that which has certainly been promised in France.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I frankly admit there ought to be communication between the Great Powers upon the subject of the answer of Greece to the message of the Powers, but I cannot believe that the negotiations will be terminated either by Wednesday or Thursday.

LICENSING EXEMPTION(HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
House adjourned at Half after Twelve o'clock.

WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL [H.L.]
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYmoved the Second Reading of this Bill. He said they were very familiar with the Measure inasmuch as it had passed a Second Reading in another place on two occasions, and only in June last it passed through all stages in their Lordships' House, virtually without opposition. Under these circumstances he did not think he would be justified in trespassing upon their indulgence at any great length to-night. He reminded their Lordships that the Bill was of a purely permissive character, providing as it did that any local authority might, if they thought fit, make advances under the provisions of the Act to any workman for the purpose of buying the freehold or leasehold interest of the dwelling-house in which he resided or intended to reside. In the Bill there were ample provisions for the safeguarding of the interests of the ratepayers. The Bill was submitted in the very form in which it emerged from their Lordships' House last year, and, therefore, he did not think they would raise any objection to the Second Reading today. He had taken considerable interest in this question, and he found that in the North of England, where he resided, there was a great desire on the part of the working classes to obtain on fair and just terms the possession of the houses in which they lived. There was nothing in his opinion which conduced more to thrift and the self-control and independence of the working classes than their being enabled on fair terms to obtain possession of their houses; and some time ago he promised large audiences in the north that if no other Member of the House would introduce such a Measure as this he would gladly introduce it and do his utmost to secure its passing. Many Members of the present Government, when in Opposition, promised to support legislation of this character; indeed, he believed that the large majority which the present Government
270
possessed was largely due to the fact that right hon. Gentlemen pledged themselves to bring in social legislation of a character which would benefit the working classes of the country. He did not hesitate to say that if the Government had brought ill Measures such as this the results of the recent bye-elections would not have been so disastrous to the Unionist cause as they had been.
LORD HARRISsaid the Government offered no opposition to the Second Reading, indeed, they evinced their interest in the matter last year by suggesting Amendments to the Bill when introduced, which his noble Friend was able to accept. Last Session a Bill of a somewhat similar character was introduced in the other House, but it contained certain provisions which were not included in this Bill. For instance, it laid down roles as to the proportion of the purchase-money to be advanced, and it enabled local authorities to advance money to working men with which to build houses as well as to acquire the dwellings in which they in fact resided. The present Bill only authorised advances for the latter purpose. It was pointed out on the Second Reading of the Bill introduced into the House of Commons that the effect of such a Bill might possibly be to throw upon local ratepayers pecuniary burdens for the benefit of private individuals, and that being the case it was obviously incumbent upon the Legislature to examine very carefully the details of a Measure of the kind, and make sure that whilst they were doing their best to render more comfortable the homes of the working classes they did not do injustice to those upon whom the primary pecuniary burden was laid. His instructions were to offer no objection to the Second Reading; but of course the Local Government Board reserved to itself the right to criticise the proposals when the Bill got into Committee.
THE MARQUESS or LONDONDERRYsaid that at first sight the proposal that the money of the ratepayers should, at the discretion of the local authority, be given to workmen to enable them to obtain possession of their dwellings was open to criticism. He could not help thinking, however, that the local authority who were on the spot and capable of making every possible inquiry were

271
the persons best able to decide whether money should be advanced to honest working men for the purpose now proposed.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought the principle of the Bill was one which it was very desirable should receive the consideration of the House. He did not believe that the risk of overburdening the ratepayers would be serious, provided always that not too much was advanced upon the security of the houses. He was not very sanguine as to workmen in many places desiring to purchase their houses, and for the very reason that workmen were very migratory. They had to move from place to place in order to obtain employment, and he believed that in a large number of cases to become the owners of their dwellings would not assist them. But there was another matter which was not touched in the Bill, and that was the provision of proper dwellings. There were many places, especially in rural districts, where there were not suitable dwellings and where it was extremely desirable that such dwellings should be provided. The principle of the Bill would certainly have his support.
Read 2aa (according to Order); and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.
House adjourned at a Quarter before Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a Quarter past Ten o'clock.