Sitting of 18 March 1897

QUESTIONS.

  POLICE PROTECTION (COUNTY CAVAN).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state the reasons which induced the Government to grant police protection to Mr. Maxwell Boyle, J.P., County Cavan?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The local police authorities, in the exercise of their discretion, and for reasons which appeared to them to be sufficient, afforded protection by patrol to Mr. Boyle for a brief interval. No directions were given by Government in the matter.
  MR. FARRELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman could state the reasons?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to say that he had already stated the reasons.

  PRISON VISITING COMMITTEES (ANNUAL CONFERENCE).
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the promise made by the Prison Commissioners in July 1895, that, if he should concur, they would take steps to bring about, if possible, a revival of the old annual conferences of the Visiting Committees of Prisons and of Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies; whether he has discouraged this project; and what steps, if any, have been taken in the matter; and whether there is a prospect of such a conference being held?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): The suggestion of the Commissioners to which the hon. Member refers has certainly not been discouraged by me; on the contrary, it is one which I heartily approve. But, as the printed observations of the Commissioners and the recent report of Mr. Merrick, both of which have been laid on the Table of the House, have no doubt made the hon. Member aware, certain important questions have been and are under discussion with regard to the duties of Visiting Committees and the organisation of Prisoners' Aid Societies. When these are settled, the contemplated conferences will, I hope, be held again.

  PRISON WARDERS (PUNISHMENT).
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in any English prison the practice obtains of punishing warders for offences against discipline by placing them on what is called special probation, namely, requiring them to be on duty seven days a week for three months consecutively, without any time off even on Sundays?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: In the event of serious misconduct an officer may be placed on special probation for a period varying from one to three months according to the gravity of the offence; and during that period he forfeits all privileges in the way of leave, with the one exception that he is allowed an alternate Sunday off duty.

  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS COMMISSION.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the inconveniences arising out of the existing system under which the publications of the Historical Manuscripts Commission are issued, he will consider what, if any, improvements may be made, and, if necessary, appoint a Departmental Committee to report on the subject?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): I agree with my hon. Friend as to the inconvenience caused by the irregular periods at which these reports are issued and the difficulty of placing the sets in any intelligible order in a library, the appendix to a report being sometimes issued a year or two before the report itself. The cost is at present largely increased by the gratis delivery to the two Houses of these valuable reports, and that expense again is due to the fact that they have to be treated as being technically the reports of a Royal Commission. As, however, that Commission seldom, if ever, meets, and the work is likely to be permanent and is practically in the hands of the Record Office, it is quite possible that it might be to the public advantage to formally recognise these facts and deal with these historical records, whether private or public, upon one system. The suggestion of my hon. Friend as to the appointment of a small departmental committee seems to be a good one.

  VOLUNTEER OFFICERS' EXAMINATION.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state approximately the number of Volunteer officers who could have entered in 1896 for the examination in tactics, field fortification, military topography, organisation and equipment, and military law, in accordance with paragraph 356 in the Volunteer Regulations, 1896, of which only three officers passed that year; whether, in future, he will give instructions that the Return of Volunteer officers who pass this examination shall each year appear in the Army

  917
  Orders; and whether, according to the Regulations referred to, a Volunteer officer who has passed in all the subjects of the examination named in 1896, but has failed in any one of the subjects on a previous occasion, is disqualified from holding the distinction conferred upon him by such merit; and, if so, whether, in view of the desirability of encouraging Volunteer officers to become efficient, he will advise the Amendment of the paragraph in the Regulations which imposes this disability?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The examination under paragraph 356 is open to all officers of Volunteers. As the names of Army officers who pass are not published in Army Orders, there does not seem to be any sufficient reason for publishing those of Volunteer officers. With regard to the point raised in the last paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, a proposal somewhat to the same effect is now under consideration.

  GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (RATING).
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is the intention of the Government to concede the principle that all Government property shall for the payment of rates, be placed on the same footing as other property; and, if so, whether they would be willing that the assessment committee of a union should appoint a valuer to meet the Government valuer, and confer together as to a basis of valuation?
  MR. HANBURY: The principle which the Treasury valuer has recently been instructed strictly to observe, is to treat Government property for rating purposes on precisely the same basis as private property, with the result of a very large increase in the contributions paid by Government; and he always confers directly with the local assessment committees.

  AUGHNACLOY BURGESS LIST.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland how many voters are on the burgess roll of Aughnacloy; when was
  918
  this roll last revised, and by whom; how many names then on the roll were disqualified and struck off, and how many claimants were admitted to the municipal franchise; where did the revising officer hold his court, and was any public notice given of the date of its sitting; and when will the next court for the revision of this burgess roll be held?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): There are 72 names on the list of voters for Aughnacloy. The list was revised on the 24th September last by the town clerk. Nine names were struck off at the revision and twelve claimants admitted. The revision was conducted in the office of the town commissioners. No notice of the date of revision was given, as none is required by statute. The next revision will be held in September 1897.

  EDUCATION CODE.
  MR. W. E. T. SHARPE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether in view of the fact that, exclusive of the two subjects of mechanics for boys and domestic economy for girls, only eight per cent. (or 11,824) out of the 134,855 children in Board Schools who during the five years 1889–94 commenced the study of the other specific subjects of the Code continued it to the third stage, the Department would be prepared to exclude these latter 13 subjects: algebra, Euclid, mensuration, Latin, French or German, animal physiology, botany, chemistry, agriculture, sound, light and heat, magnetism and electricity, shorthand, etc., from the Free Elementary Day Schools Code?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): No, Sir.
  MR. SHARPE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he would be prepared to reconsider the regulation, Art. 101 b, on page 21 of the New Code, by which the higher grant for discipline and organisation, i.e., for good conduct, good manners and language, cleanliness, and neatness to be withheld in future unless provision is made in the time table for instruction in Swedish or other drill, or in suitable physical exercises?
  SIR J. GORST: The Committee of Council do not propose to reconsider this regulation, which has been in the Code since 1895.

  BOARD SCHOOLS (LONDON).
  MR. SHARPE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education with reference to the statements in the Report for 1895 of the Chief Inspector of Schools for the Metropolitan Division, that (page 9) out of 485,060 children in London Board Schools only seven per cent., or 33,172, were above the fifth standard, and that (page 7) out of the total number of children at ten years of age in the London Board Schools only 25 per cent. continue there until 12 years of age, what would be the corresponding figures for England and Wales in 1896 under both those heads?
  SIR J. GORST: The Committee of Council have no information as to standards. As regards the question of the age at which children leave school, I am unable to find in the report of the Chief Inspector the statement attributed to him. The latest official records show that, in the whole of England and Wales, about 82 per cent. of the children of ten years of age stay till twelve, and in the London Board Schools about 92 per cent.

  FAIR RENT APPLICATIONS (IRELAND).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the attention of the Land Commissioners has been directed to the action of Mr. Johnstone, agent for the Countess of Morley, whose tenants in the parish of Killinagh, County Cavan, had made application to have fair rents fixed; (2) whether he is aware that the tenants were compelled to withdraw their applications by pressure for arrears and costs due to the landlord; and that James M'Govern, of Corlispannon, who got a fair rent fixed at £5 5s. per annum, was compelled to forego his rights under the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1881, and accept a lease at £8 15s. instead, by reason of similar pressure; have any of these tenants been given the benefit of the evicted tenants' clauses of the Act of 1896;
  920
  and (3) whether under that Act the Commissioners will take steps to see that the power of the landlord to enforce payment of impossible arrears is curtailed?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Four tenants on the estate mentioned have served applications to have fair rents fixed. So far as I am aware these applications have not been withdrawn. As to the case of James M'Govern, his rent was fixed by the county court judge at £5 15s. (not £5 5s.) per annum, but on appeal to the Land Commission was fixed at £8 15s. on the written consent of both parties. It does not appear, therefore, that he was compelled to forego his rights under the Act of 1881 and to accept a lease.
  MR. FARRELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman would answer the third paragraph of the Question?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he had not any information on the point.
  MR. E. CARSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in several cases when the Irish Land Commission have purported to fix fair rents, copies of the schedule required by the Land Act of 1896 have not been supplied or obtainable by the parties until after the time limited for appealing; and whether there is any difficulty in arranging that the details required to be inserted in the schedule should be announced at the same time that the fair rent as fixed is declared?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Commissioners are not aware that in any cases, as suggested by the Question, copies of the schedules referred to have not been obtainable to enable parties to appeal. To announce in Court details of the schedule, would, in the opinion of the Commissioners, be both impracticable and useless.
  MR. CARSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Land Commissioners report that the particulars in the schedule "are procurable" at the same time as the announcement of the fair rent?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have not been informed of that fact. It may be so, but I am not sure.
  MR. CARSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if he can now state in

  921
  how many cases the Irish Land Commission have purported to fix rents without specifying in a schedule the details required by the Land Act of 1896; (2) whether it is the intention of the Land Commission to take any steps to have these omissions rectified; and (3) whether pending such rectifications, any copies of the orders purporting to fix such fair rents will be issued?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The number of cases referred to is 295. The second and third paragraphs refer to matters which may come before the Land Commission in a judicial capacity, and they are precluded from expressing an opinion upon them until they have been submitted to the Commission for determination.
  MR. CARSON: Is the result of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that orders remain in the same condition as they have hitherto been?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That I presume is one of the points to be determined.
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: Are we to understand, as is assumed in the Question, that the Land Commissioners purport to fix fair rents, or are they supposed to actually fix fair rents?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The rents are actually fixed by the Land Commissioners?
  MR. CARSON: Yes, but they purport to be fair rents.
  DR. ROBERT AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether it is a fact that originating notices for the second statutory term are rejected if the record number of the case, as stated in the order or agreement fixing the fair rent for the first statutory term is not entered on the notice; (2) and where a second tenant not having the record number in his possession applies to the Land Commission for leave, and owing to the Land Commission not having replied the tenant's case has been dismissed by the Sub-Commission Court on the ground of insufficient information to identify Ids case, what steps can such tenant take to enable him to get his judical rent revised?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The fact is correctly stated in the first paragraph, and the reasons for the rejection were
  922
  set forth in my reply to the similar Question put to me on the 25th January by the hon. Member for South Down. The second paragraph contemplates a case, which, I am informed, cannot arise, as the Land Commission do not remit such defective applications to Sub-Commissioners for adjudication. Every possible assistance is afforded from the office of the Land Commission to the parties, or their solicitors, to enable them to fill up these applications correctly before they are served.
  MR. JOHN DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the unfortunate tenant who cannot discover his record number has any remedy?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I presume that there ought to be no difficulty. I am not aware that any case has arisen in which it is impossible to ascertain the record number.
  DR. AMBROSE: What remedy is there when a tenant has already written to the Land Commission and has received no reply?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I should think the best remedy is to write again.
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware if the Sub-Commissioners who sat at Ballybay over five weeks since have given their decisions in cases heard; and (2) whether he can state when the remaining cases from the estate of R. C. Leslie, entered last October, will be tried, and if they will be tried in Ballybay, and if not, can he state the reason?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Sub-Commission Court hopes toannounce its decisions in a number of the cases referred to in the first paragraph in the course of next week. The same Court will commence the hearing of a list of 68 cases from Carrickmacross Union on the 18th instant, and this list will be followed by one from Castleblayney Union. The latter list will include the cases to which reference is made in the second paragraph, but the date of hearing cannot he fixed at present.
  MR. DALYasked if the Sub-Commissionern4 would sit at Ballybay?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no information on that point. If the hon. Member desires information on the

  923
  subject I will make inquiry. Perhaps he would put down a question.
  MR. DALY: I will.
  MR. CARSONasked if the decisions were announced in court?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will put the question down.

  ARMY (SPECIAL CAMPAIGN PENSION).
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the Special Campaign Pension of 9d. a day for all men who joined the Army before 1860 cannot be obtained by any man absolutely in employment, no matter how old or how broken in health he may be, he will consider the advisability of having the conditions altered so as to save respectable old soldiers from the necessity of becoming destitute in order to become eligible for the pension; and whether he can state how many destitutes have received the pension, and how many applicants have been debarred in consequence of having employment?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Special Campaign Pensions, being of a compassionate character, are not given to men who are fully able to maintain themselves; but since August, 1895, necessitous circumstances have been accepted as a qualification instead of destitution. Therefore an old soldier, otherwise eligible, is not debarred from a pension by the mere fact of having employment, if his earnings are insufficient for his maintenance.

  QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE (CRIMEAN VETERANS).
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state if it is in contemplation to include a parade of old soldiers in the Diamond Jubilee pageant of 22nd June, seeing that a parade of Crimean veterans took place on the occasion of Her Majesty's Jubilee in 1887, and was much appreciated by the public?
  MR. BRODRICK: I can only reply, as on other recent occasions, that the suggestion will be considered.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty
  924
  whether he will consider the practicability of associating some representatives of men who served in the Navy during the Crimean War with the celebration of the sixtieth year of Her Majesty's reign?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The general arrangements for the celebration of the sixtieth year of Her Majesty's reign are not in my hands, and I am unable to answer the hon. Member's question beyond saying that if men who served in the Army during the Crimean War should take part, naturally the men from the Navy would also do so. [Cheers.]

  WHITE ESTATE (CO. CORK).
  MR. JAMES GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether an absolute order for the sale of the White Estate, in the county of Cork, has been made; and, if so, whether he can state approximately when the sale will take place?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The property referred to cannot be identified upon the information given in the Question. If the hon. Member will mention the name, in full, of the owner, and the locality in which the estate is situated, further inquiry will be made.

  TRAWLING IN BANTRY BAY.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether an Inquiry has been held relating to trawling in Bantry Bay; and, if so, with what result?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: An Inquiry into the question of trawling in Bantry Bay has been held by the Inspectors of Fisheries, who will give their decision with as little delay as possible.

  TELEGRAPH. FACILITIES (GOVAN).
  MR. J. CALDWELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for Lanark, Govan (Mr. JOHN WILSON), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he has received from the Commissioners of the Burgh of Govan a communication in reference to the want of a telegraph

  925
  office in Ibrox district; and whether he is aware that the opening up of the New Cessnock Docks in the immediate neighbourhood would be largely benefited by giving effect to the requisition of the authorities?
  MR. HANBURY: There is already a telegraph office at Ibrox. The Postmaster General has received from the Commissioners of Govan a communication relating to Alma Street, and has intimated that a case has not at present been made out for the opening of an office there, the Govan branch office being only about 500 yards distant and the Govan Road office being quite close to the docks on their eastern side.

  EMBEZZLEMENT (ALLEGED) KILMARNOCK.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate (1) with regard to the case of Arthur Sturrock, solicitor and bank agent in Kilmarnock, who absconded in the month of August or September last, after having embezzled upwards of £40,000, whether the fact of the embezzlement was known about a month before he absconded; (2) will he explain why proceedings for his apprehension were not taken at once; (3) whether it is the case that the Crown authorities refused to institute proceedings without a guarantee for their expenses; and (4) what steps the authorities propose to take in the case.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): I ought to say that I have already been in communication on this subject with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock Burghs (Colonel Denny). The answer to the first and second parts of the question is that it is not the fact that the embezzlement was known a month, or any time, before Sturrock absconded. He remained in good credit until he absconded on the 23rd October. The answer to the third part is in the negative. To the last part of the question, the answer is that photograph's and descriptions of Sturrock have been extensively circulated, but that hitherto no reliable information has been obtained.

  ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND.
  MR. HUDSON KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the reason why the pension awarded to Mrs. Keogh, of Woolwich (whose husband was killed in the Crimea), 43 years since, has recently been stopped by the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund?
  MR. BRODRICK: I am informed that Mrs. Keogh, who is the widow of a soldier who died at Varna (he did not reach the Crimea), is now the wife of an army pensioner. On her re-marriage her pension was reduced to 2s. 6d. a week; and, lately, this pension has been stopped in consequence of her continued intemperate habits.
  MR. KEARLEYasked whether pensions of this character were liable to be forfeited through moral indiscretion?
  MR. BRODRICK: These pensions are dealt with by the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund, and I cannot interfere with their discretion in the matter.

  GUARDS' BANDS.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for War whether the Cold-stream and Scots Guards will have their respective bands augmented in proportion to the increase in these regiments, or whether it is intended to reduce the bands of the Grenadiers to the present lower establishments of the other two regiments?
  The HON. MEMBERalso asked the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is in contemplation to reduce the number of officers in any of the existing battalions of Guards; and, if so, what will be the extent of the reduction; and whether the establishment of officers of the proposed new battalions of Guards will be the same as that of existing battalions?
  MR. BRODRICK: There is no intention to reduce the number of officers in any existing battalion of Guards. The establishment of officers for the two new battalions and for the depot is under consideration. This and other matters, such as that referred to in the first of the Questions, form the subject of correspondence still in progress between the Adjutant General and the General Officer commanding the brigade of Guards.

  RAILWAY TRUCKS (LABELLING).
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has approached the various railway companies upon the subject of wagons and trucks being labelled on both sides, and provided with brake levers on each side, as favoured by him in reply to a deputation in November last?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): Yes, Sir, the Board of Trade attach importance to the labelling of wagons and trucks on both sides, and also to the provision of brake levers. They have directed the attention of railway companies to these subjects in the past, and will do so again as opportunity offers. The companies make little difficulty in putting such labels on their own wagons, but they are not responsible for private owners' wagons. The information in possession of the Board shows that many companies have adopted, and that others are adopting, levers on both sides of their wagons.

  LAND VALUATION (IRELAND).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is prepared to recommend the introduction of a short Act authorising the appointment of a Valuation Commission to re-value the land in Ireland or, in case such a task could not at present be undertaken, will he assent to the introduction of a short Bill fixing the valuation of a tenant's holding at the fair rent fixed thereon by the Irish Land Commission?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As I stated a day or two ago, the question of a re-valuation of Ireland is, in my judgment, well worthy of consideration. I am not prepared at present, however, to give an undertaking on the subject. The suggestion that a short Bill should be introduced fixing the valuation of a tenant's holding at the fair rent fixed thereon by the Land Commission could not be entertained. It is of the essence of any good valuation for rating purposes that the valuation should be uniform throughout each area of taxation, and this quality would be conspicuously absent if the proposal of the hon. Member were adopted.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is prepared to grant an Inquiry into the system of management and distribution of the Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund; whether he is aware of the fears of contributors to this fund that it is at present in an insolvent position; and whether, in the event of being unable to assent to an Inquiry, he will cause Papers to be laid upon the Table of the House showing actuarial vouchers for the present state of the accounts?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no evidence before me that any inquiry is called for into the system of management and distribution of the Fund. The Fund was placed in a solvent position by the grant of £150,000 made to it by the Parliamentary Vote of 1891. An actuarial investigation into the position of the Fund, as at the 31st March 1893, showed that it was then in possession of a surplus of assets, and the progress of the receipts and expenditure since that date tends to show, to the satisfaction of the National Debt Commissioners, that it remains in a solvent position.

  UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES (GOVERNMENT GRANT).
  MR. A. BIRRELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for Norfolk, N. (Mr. H. COZENS-HARDY), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Departmental Committee, appointed last year to visit the colleges sharing in the grant made to universities and colleges in Great Britain, and to investigate the character and quality of university work done, have yet made their report; and whether their report will be laid upon the Table of the House at an early date?
  MR. HANBURY: This report has been received. It is intended to appoint a committee, as on former occasions, to allocate the grant to universities colleges, and when the report of that committee and the Treasury minute upon it are presented to the House, the report of the Departmental Committee will be presented at the same time. ["Hear, hear."]
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the intended Committee has been appointed to allocate the proposed increased grant to university colleges in Great Britain; can he state who are the members of the Committee; and whether the sums proposed to be allocated to the several colleges will be intimated before the Estimate is submitted in Committee of Supply?
  MR. HANBURY: The Committee has not yet been appointed; but their work is not likely to take long, and I see no reason why it should not be completed before the Estimate is taken.

  SOUTH AFRICA (IMPORTATION OF WARLIKE STORES).
  MR. HUBERT DUNCOMBE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to the reports which are being persistently circulated of the importation of large quantities of warlike stores into South Africa from French and German sources. Whether he is aware that the late Mr. Stokes was hanged by an officer of the Congo Free State for a similar offence on a minor scale, and what action, if any, he proposes to take to prevent this serious menace to the maintenance of peace in South Africa?
  MR. J. M. PAULTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask him whether, even assuming that the statements in the question of the hon. Member are true, he has any power to prevent the circulation of mischievous reports either by persons in South Africa or Members of this House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have no power whatever to prevent the circulation of mischievous reports. I wish I had. [Laughter.] I confess I am not quite certain that I understand the Question of my hon. Friend. I presume he refers to the importation of warlike stores into the South African Republic, of which I am fully aware. The late Mr. Stokes was, as I understand, accused of an offence against the laws of the Congo Free State which do not apply to South Africa. I am not aware that
  930
  there is any breach of local or international law in the importation of warlike stores into the Colonies and States of South Africa.

  NATIONAL BOARD (IRELAND).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether Head Inspector Sullivan, of the National Board, who had been removed from Dublin to Galway, was removed by the Board of Commissioners or by the Resident Commissioner; (2) how long had he been in charge of the Dublin district when he was removed; (3) if it was stated to the Board that he was re-transferred to Galway because his appointment to Dublin would cause friction; (4) did the Board ever inquire who made the allegation, or from what source the friction was likely to arise; (5) whether any charge was ever made against Mr. Sullivan during his time in the Board's service?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Board of National Education State that the removal of Mr. Sullivan, Head Inspector, from Dublin to Galway was in pursuance of Order of the Resident Commissioner in the ordinary exercise of his functions. Mr. Sullivan was twenty days in Dublin. The Minute of the Board, dated 17th November, 1896, which is the only official record of the Acts of the Commissioners is as follows—
  "Ordered that Mr. Sullivan be informed that his letter of the 30th October has been before the Board and has been duly considered, but that the Commissioners see no reason to interfere with the arrangements already made, by which, after he had declined to take charge of the Belfast Circuit, he was reappointed to Galway."
  The reply to the last paragraph is in the negative.
  MR. T. HARRINGTON: Arising out of that answer, may I ask whether any answer has been given as to the complaint and friction which arose out of the appointment. Have the National Board declined to answer that?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have given to the House all the information at my disposal, and I have read the Minute of the Commissioners on the subject. Any private representations that have been made are not within my knowledge.
  MR. HARRINGTON: If we move for the letter of Mr. Sullivan to be laid on the Table as a Return will the right hon. Gentleman agree to give it?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot answer that without communicating with the Commissioners.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Might I ask why this Gentleman declined to take charge of the Belfast circuit?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not aware.

  LADIES' CARRIAGES.
  MR. JAMES BIGWOOD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in The Times, of the 13th instant, in which it is alleged that an inspector of the South Western Railway Company at Clapham Junction, whilst a train was in motion, forced a man into the compartment of a carriage labelled "Ladies' carriage," in spite of the protests of the sole lady occupant, with the consequence that the lady, in her dread, jumped out of the moving train; and whether he has taken any steps to obtain from the Railway Company explanations of this alleged act on the part of one of their superior servants, especially in the light of a recent notorious occurrence on the same Company's line?
  MR. RITCHIE: Before my hon. Friend's Question appeared on the Paper I had communicated with the Railway Company, and I have received a reply from Sir Charles Scotter to the following effect—
  "The letter which appeared in The Times of the 13th instant is, I much regret to say, substantially correct, and the only explanation which the inspector complained of has to offer for his misconduct is, 'that it was raining very hard at the time, and he did not notice that the compartment referred to was labelled as reserved for ladies.' I send you herewith a specimen of the label pasted on both ends of the carriage. The inspector was, therefore, without any excuse in allowing a male passenger to enter the compartment. When the case was brought under our notice, the inspector was immediately suspended from duty, end the directors are now considering how such a serious breach of the Company's regulations shall be dealt with. I may say that the inspector will not be allowed in any case to resume duty on a passenger platform."

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can give any information as to the decision of the Government relative to the recent raising of the commission on post office orders for all sums of £1 and under to three pence, a charge which presses very heavily on Friendly Societies of working men?
  MR. G. H. MORRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that members of the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society, with headquarters in London, and half of its members resident in the country, using for greater security post office orders rather than postal orders in transmission of quarterly contributions and sick pay, and having by a rule of the Society all incidental expenses deducted out of the moneys due to each member, suffer serious loss in consequence of the new charge (1st February, 1897) of 3d. on all orders, however small, not exceeding £3, instead of the 2d. formerly charged on orders not exceeding 20s.; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made with a view to the consideration of some relief to the Friendly Societies generally in this respect?
  MR. A. F. GODSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has come to any determination on the question of reducing the charges on money orders under £1 to the old amount of 2d., and so meeting the wishes of the members of the Friendly Societies and others?
  MR. HANBURY: It is no doubt the case that, owing to the fact of persons without banking accounts not being able to make use of crossed postal orders, the increased cost of money orders, which are regarded as safer than uncrossed postal orders for the transmission of small amounts, has caused inconvenience. The Government has decided to revert to the old rate of 2d. on money orders not exceeding £1, and this will be done without any condition as to the abolition of the advice note or otherwise.
  MR. W. J. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, under Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Friendly Societies Act, it, is compulsory to notify members by written or printed notice sent by post delivered at the last known address of members before non-forfeiture of their interests therein, and whether such notices are allowed to be sent through the post under the cover of a halfpenny stamp In wrapper; and whether, in the case of such notices not being delivered, they have from 1876 until recently been returned to the sender through the Dead Letter Department free of charge; why the charge of a half-penny is now demanded for the return of such notices sent under the above-mentioned section; and whether the Postmaster General will resort to the old practice, and not charge for the return of such notices?
  MR. HANBURY: The Friendly Societies Act referred to seems to have been repealed, but the Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies Act, 1896, provides for the issue of notices such as the hon. Member describes. These notices are allowed to be sent by the halfpenny post. Prior to the 1st January, 1895, any which could not be delivered were returned to the senders free of charge, but since that date all undeliverable packets prepaid halfpenny only have been liable to a return postage of one halfpenny, and the Postmaster General regrets that he cannot see his way to make an exception in favour of Friendly Societies. It may be added that on the 1st January, 1895, the charge for redirection previously made on all halfpenny postal matter was abolished, and in connection with this change it was considered necessary to revise the practice in regard to the free return of such packets when undeliverable.
  MR. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Department have yet come to any decision with regard to the proposed alteration in the manner of making the statutory declaration now necessary in the case of a lodge of any Friendly Society desiring an alteration or amendment of their rules?
  MR. HANBURY: An additional Treasury Regulation is in preparation and will, I hope, shortly be issued, by which, as an alternative to the statutory declaration, a document will be provided giving formal information as to the amendments made in the society's rules, to be signed by two officers of the society. This it is hoped will meet the wishes of the Friendly Societies and remove the inconvenience that has been complained of.

  ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE, SANDHURST.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the recommendation contained in the Report of the Visitors of the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, that a swimming bath should be provided for the cadets; and whether provision for this will be made in next year's Estimates?
  MR. BRODRICK: The question of providing a swimming bath at the Royal Military College will be considered when the Estimates for 1898–9 come under discussion.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND).
  MR. HARRINGTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether an assistant teacher, serving five years in a workhouse National School and getting his second-class certificate, is entitled to the same rights as to bonus on getting appointed to an ordinary National School as if his whole service as assistant had been in the latter school?
  GERALD BALFOUR: The service rendered as assistant teacher in a workhouse National School, if rendered under the provisions of the rules as to average daily attendance and classification that warrant the recognition of assistant teachers in ordinary National Schools, would entitle the assistant to the Same rights as to bonus under the Irish Education Act, 1892, inn being appointed to an ordinary National School, as if his whole service as assistant had been in the latter school.

  INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATIONS (IRELAND).
  MR. M. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return asked for in connection with the Intermediate Examinations (Ireland) 1896?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by the Commissioners of Intermediate Education that they will furnish the hon. Member with a Return containing the information indicated, so far as they are in a position to provide such information, on his making application to the office of the Commissioners in Dublin. Under these circumstances it is not considered necessary to grant the Return as a Parliamentary Paper.
  MR. FLAVIN: Would the right hon. Gentleman not lay the Return on the Table of the House for general information?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I don't see that there is sufficient ground for going to that expense. The hon. Member, as I have said, can have the Return by applying for it to the Commissioners.

  BEHAR OPIUM AGENCY.
  MR. ARTHUR PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government has any information as to the progress made by the Government of India in arranging that the Behar Opium Agency should deal directly with the cultivators of opium instead of dealing through middlemen?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The subject to which the hon. Member refers has not been lost sight of by the Government of India, but I have received no information about it beyond what is contained in the Annual Report on the Administration of the opium Department for 1895–6. I shall be glad to place a copy of this Report at the disposal of the hon. Member for perusal if he wishes it.

  POST OFFICE (CLONMEL).
  MR. T. J. CONDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is in the contemplation
  936
  of the Government to substitute or build a new post office in Clonmel in lieu of the present building, and whether a site has been selected by the surveyors of the Department situate at the extreme end of the lower portion of the town, and opposite the gates of the military barracks; whether he is aware that such site is objected to by the inhabitants of the town as being unsuitable and inconvenient, especially to ladies; whether the wishes of the townspeople or of the Corporation were in any way consulted as to the choice of a site; whether any advertisement was issued applying for a site; and, if not, what steps did the surveyors take to ascertain whether more suitable sites could be obtained from persons other than the owners of unoccupied premises?
  MR. HANBURY: It is in contemplation to provide a new post office at Clonmel, but no premises or site have as yet been selected. Several sites are under consideration, and before a definite choice is made the views of the local authorities on the subject will, as usual, be ascertained.

  IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. G. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the delay in the delivery of the mails in several towns in the North of Ireland causes very serious inconvenience and considerable loss to the inhabitants of these towns; whether he is aware that the forenoon delivery which leaves the Belfast post office at 10.20 a.m. only reaches the office of the Irish News, a distance of less than half it mile, at 12.15 p.m., a delay of almost two hours; and if, when making arrangements to accelerate the carriage of mails to and from Ireland, he will also provide for their speedy delivery?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is not aware that there is delay in the delivery of the mails in several towns in the North of Ireland, causing serious inconvenience to the public, but he has ordered an inquiry into the matter. As regards Belfast, it is true that the forenoon delivery at the office of the Irish News has lately been made after the proper time, and this appear

  937
  to have arisen from the temporary employment as substitute for the regular postman of a man less acquainted with the route. Arrangements will at once be made for restoring punctuality.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if any communications have been addressed by the Post Office authorities to the Irish Railway Companies in reference to the acceleration of the mail service; if so, to what companies; and whether he can state when the proposed new mail arrangements will be effected?
  MR. HANBURY: The Secretary of the Post Office in Dublin has been instructed to enter into communication on the subject in question with the Irish Railway Companies owning the lines from Dublin to Belfast and Derry, Galway, Cork, and Wexford, and to make arrangements for carrying out the necessary alterations on those lines on the 1st of May; and he is now engaged in this matter. Most of the towns on the Waterford and Limerick Railway will also be provided for by the same date; but it will not be possible to extend the arrangements to the remoter districts of Ireland until after the alterations on the main lines have been carried out.
  MR. FLAVIN: Have these instructions been sent to the Railway Company?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes; they were sent some days ago.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what additional interval will be gained under the new arrangement?
  MR. HANBURY: I think the mails to Cork will arrive 40 minutes earlier and leave 50 minutes later.

  CONGESTED AREAS (IRELAND).
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state if the Poor Law divisions of Woodford, Derrylaur and Loughatorick, in the Loughrea Union, and the division of Coose, in the Portumna Union, are scheduled under the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, how long, and what, actual benefit they have derived under same?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The electoral divisions named in the Question are scheduled as congested areas. The cattle-breeding improvement scheme has been extended to one of these divisions, and the Board have also offered a grant of £500 towards the construction of a road from Woodford to Derrygoolin, provided the Grand Jury would contribute the balance of the sum required for its completion. So far, however, it does not appear that the Grand Jury have accepted the Board's offer, and if there be a generally-expressed wish that the sum of £500 should be otherwise expended in the locality, the Board will be prepared to consider any suggestions that may be made to them.

  WATER SUPPLY (PUNJAB).
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the attention of his Department has been called to the sufferings of the Black Watch at Sabathu, in the Punjab, from the deficient and contaminated water supply, and consequent prevalence of enteric fever; whether any steps are being taken to improve the water supply at that station and Dagshai; and whether Kasauli, Solon and Jutogh, where the water supply has been improved, are now completely free from enteric fever?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It appears from the monthly returns, which have been received up to November last, that enteric fever prevailed in the regiment of the Black Watch at Sabathu, in the Punjab, during April, May and June, increased in.July, August September, but diminished greatly in October, while no cases were reported in November. The report as to the health of British troops for the year 1896 has not yet reached me; but I will ask the Government of India to expedite it, and also to furnish information as to the water supply at Sabathu, Dagshai, Kasauli, Solon and Jutogh.

  EXPORTS OF COAL, CINDERS AND PATENT FUEL.
  MR. A. J. MUNDELLA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury why the Customs Return of Coal, Cinders and Patent Fuel shipped

  939
  from the several ports of England, Scotland and Ireland for the year 1895, was only issued on 20th February 1897; when the Return for 1896 may be expected, and if anything can be done to secure the publication of these Returns early in the year following the year of export?
  MR. HANBURY: A Return is issued by the Board of Trade early in January each year, giving the exports of coal, coke, cinders and fuel for the preceding calendar year (page 54 of Board of Trade Returns). These figures are obtained from the Customs, and so far as the exports are concerned there would be no reason for not furnishing this information in the Return mentioned by the right hon. Member during the month of January, though it gives the facts in much greater detail, both as to the countries to which the exports go and the ports of the United Kingdom from which they are exported. But the Return also gives the coastwise traffic, which the Board of Trade Return does not give, and this would take at least a fortnight to prepare, as the Customs have to obtain the information specially from all the ports of the Kingdom. The fact is, however, that this is not an annual Government Return, but is moved for by a private Member, and last year it was not moved for at all. This year the Returns for both 1895 and 1896 were ordered by the House of Commons on 4th February, 1897, and no urgency was intimated.

  COALING STATION (LOUGH SWILLY).
  MR. THOMAS B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to establish a coaling station and a torpedo depôt in Lough Swilly, county Donegal; at which side east or west of the Lough it is proposed to establish the coaling station and torpedo depot; and what are the intentions of the Government in regard to the forts on the west side of Lough Swilly, and are they to be repaired or utilised for Naval purposes?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): There is no present intention of establishing a depôt at Lough Swilly such as suggested in the hon. Member's Question. It is not
  940
  desirable that I should enter into details with regard to any defence works which may be contemplated.

  BRITISH TROOPS IN INDIA (HEALTH).
  CAPTAIN NORTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Captain PIRIE), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now able to state the approximate date when the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Health of the Army in India will be placed in the hands of Members; and if he can state the reasons for the delay in its publication?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I am laying the Report on the Table today, and hope that it will be distributed to-morrow.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, on the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Health of the British troops in India, the Government will give facilities for its discussion?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to my right hon. Friend, I have to ask him if he will defer his Question until he has had an opportunity of reading the Blue Book, which will be in his hands in a few days.

  HULME CAVALRY BARRACKS (MANCHESTER).
  MR. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the authorities have come to any decision with regard to the occupation of the Hulme Cavalry Barracks; and, if not, whether there is any likelihood of a decision being arrived at in the immediate future?
  MR. BRODRICK: As there are no facilities at Manchester for the training of a cavalry regiment, it is not proposed to re-occupy Hulme Barracks with cavalry; but they are used at present for infantry purposes.

  NORWOOD-UNDER-SOUTHALL (POSTAL DISTRICT).
  MR. BIGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why it is that a regular postman is not appointed for the

  941
  Norwood-under-Southall district; and whether he is aware that the district has been left to casual service only for now nearly six months past?
  MR. HANBURY: The case to which the hon. Member refers has been delayed in consequence of a revision of the post having been found necessary. The work had grown too heavy for one man, and other arrangements had to be made. A postman is, however, now under nomination for the establishment, and, if he succeeds in obtaining the necessary Civil Service certificate, he will be appointed without further delay.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (HACKNEY CARRIAGE DEPARTMENT).
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that for some months past persons representing railway companies, and other persons, are daily touting for cab-drivers for a particular cab company or companies in the offices or building of the Chief Commissioner of Police at the new Police Offices, New Scotland Yard, and if so, will he explain on what grounds this special favour is granted to some persons, whilst refused to others equally interested in the cab trade; and will he consider the advisability of putting a stop to the practice in question?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: So far as I am aware, there is no such practice.

  POOR LAW AND MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND).
  MR. HARRINGTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he has received from the Dublin Trades Council, representing a membership of 15,000, a resolution requesting the Government to take immediate steps to assimilate the different Poor Law and Municipal franchises in Ireland to the Parliamentary franchise; and (2) whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation on the subject at an early date?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. As I have already intimated, it is not in contemplation to introduce legislation this Session dealing with the Municipal and Poor Law franchise.

  QUEEN'S YACHT "VICTORIA AND ALBERT."
  SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will inform the House the original cost of Her Majesty's yacht Victoria and Albert, and the amount of money since expended annually upon refits, decorations, and repairs, and also upon the reconstruction of the hull and machinery; and will he also state to what use the Victoria and Albert is to be relegated when the proposed new yacht is ready for sea?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The hon. Member has already the information he asks for prior to 1883, when he obtained a return of expenditure upon Her Majesty s yachts. Since 1883 the average annual expenditure has been £8,847. It is not possible at short notice to distinguish between the various items of expenditure, as requested by the hon. Member, nor could there be any object in doing so. The use to which the Victoria and Albert may be put, when relieved by the new yacht, will depend upon the result of the thorough survey of the hull and machinery, which will then be made.

  TRUCK ACT.
  LORD BALCARRES: On behalf of the hon. Member for Cambridge, Wisbech (Mr. C. T. GILES), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Truck Act 1896 has any application to contracts of employment made before the Act came into operation; and whether the scale of deductions and fines under such contracts can still be enforced?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The Act makes it illegal to impose any fine or make any deduction, after the date of its coming into operation, except in pursuance of or in accordance with such a contract as is required by the Act. If, therefore, a contract made before that date is not such a contract as is required by the Act, no fines or deductions can be imposed under it; and though not itself made illegal, it becomes inoperative so far as fines or deductions are concerned.

  RICHMOND LUNATIC ASYLUM (DUBLIN).
  MR. J. L. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the present alarming condition of the Richmond Lunatic Asylum in Dublin; whether he is aware that, with accommodation available for only 1,000 patients, 1,714 were housed there in October last; and that, in consequence of this overcrowding, beri-beri, a loathsome disease hitherto confined to the densely and filthy quarters of Chinese and other Eastern cities, has appeared, and of 113 patients attacked last year, seven died up to December last; will he explain why, notwithstanding the repeated protests of two of the members of the Board of Control against overcrowding, no practical steps have been taken by that body to stamp out the disease; and whether, in the circumstances, the Government will see that immediate precautions are taken to prevent its spreading.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Irish Government has been giving close and constant attention to the accommodation at the Richmond District Asylum and the outbreak of the beri-beri there. The number of patients on the asylum register at the end of 1896 was 1,728, of whom, 29 were at Portrane. The present accommodation of the Richmond Asylum is for 1,398 patients, in addition to which provision has been made for 80 patients at Portrane, and for 40 in the residence of the resident medical superintendent (surrendered for that purpose), thus bringing up the present accommodation to 1,518. Further temporary accommodation for 220 patients is now being provided at Portrane. The number of deaths at Richmond from beri-beri during 1896 was eight, as against 123 deaths from various other causes. I may observe that the general death rates in this asylum for 1895 and 1896 were the lowest recorded since the opening of the asylum. In 1895 the percentage of deaths from all causes was only 7·1, and in 1896, 7·8, and, comparing these rates with the death rates in the principal English asylums during 1896, I find that with two exceptions the rates in the English asylums were much higher than
  944
  at Richmond. Every effort has been and is being made by the Board of Control to stamp out the disease known as beri-beri, and to provide adequate accommodation for the patients.
  MR. CARSON: Is it proposed to make any permanent enlargement of the asylum? The right hon. Gentleman spoke of a "temporary arrangement."
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I understand that a private Bill is in course of preparation or of being passed through the House for the purpose.

  REFORMS FOR TURKEY.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to make any statement with respect to the probable date when the scheme of reforms agreed to by the representatives of the Six Great Powers will be presented to the Sultan?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. C. CURZON,): I am afraid that I cannot, at present, make any statement as to the probable date when the scheme of reforms will be presented to the Sultan.
  MR. STEVENSON: Has that scheme of reforms been agreed to now by the six Governments as well as by the six representatives?
  MR. CURZON: No, Sir, it is still under discussion.

  CRETE.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether looting goes on daily unchecked in Canea; whether the Turkish police in the town are intrusted with any police duties; and, whether the only police force in the town is the force which recently mutinied and murdered its commanding officer?
  MR. CURZON: On the 6th inst. her Majesty's Consul telegraphed that pillage was taking place in Canea. The Turkish police continue to discharge police duties there. It is not correct to say that this force recently mutinied. The mutiny was confined, as I have twice previously stated in the House, to 40 Albanian gendarmes.
  MR. DILLON: Has anything been done to stop the pillage?
  MR. CURZON: Oh, yes, Sir, of course it has, because, as I have often had to state in this House, peace and order in the town are looked after by the detachments from the ships of the Powers.
  MR. T. C. H. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State of State for War whether the Government are dispatching any Highland regiments to Crete; and, if so, whether such troops have been selected with a view to the possibility of hill fighting?
  MR. BRODRICK: Six hundred men of the Seaforth Highlanders are under orders for Crete, having been selected by the Commander-in-Chief as being in all respects admirably fitted for the service.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: Arising out of that I should like to ask whether this country is supposed to be at war with any Power in Crete? [Ministerial Cries of "Order."]
  An HON. MEMBERasked what was the peculiarity of the service referred to?
  MR. BRODRICK: I do not know that it is in any respect peculiar.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision to send Highlanders out to Crete and send some other regiment? [Laughter.]
  [No answer was given.]
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any declaration of blockade has been issued and notified in connection with the present proceedings of the Great Powers; and whether Her Majesty's Government have consented, while the German Government have declined, to employ land forces for operations in the interior of the Island of Crete?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Before the First Lord of the Treasury answers this, perhaps it would be convenient, in regard to the first half of the question, to answer a question of mine, of which I have given him private notice, at the same time—whether he can inform the House, in view of the statement of M. Méline in the French Chamber on Monday last (and Parliament has been referred to that speech by the British Prime Minister)—(Cheers)—that "Greece would once again be invited to accede to the Note of the Powers," and
  946
  further "Crete would be blockaded and the contingent of European troops increased," whether—this is the question—Greece was in fact, according to M. Méline's words, "invited to accede to the Note of the Powers" before the blockade was instituted
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I believe information has been sent to the British Minister at Athens for notification to the Greek Government of the blockade which will be established in connection with Crete. In regard to the Question on the Paper, think the first paragraph is answered by what I have just said. In regard to the second paragraph—
  SIR C. DILKE: I may say I used the legal words of international law, "issued and notified." The words have a technical meaning.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I fancy that is in process of being done. With regard to the second paragraph of the Question, it is not accurate—as far as I know—to say that the German Government have declined to send any troops to the island. They thoroughly agree with the general policy of the Powers.
  SIR C. DILKE: But are they sending any troops?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not know.
  MR. MORLEY: Will technical notification be made to the Greek Government as to what M. Méline meant when he said "Greece would once again be invited to accede to the Note of the Powers"?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I really do not know. ["Hear, hear!"] I have not much satisfaction in answering the questions of the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of an Opposition who try to embarrass the Government as much as they can—[cheers, and Opposition, cries of "Oh!"]—by their speeches out of doors, though they dare not move a Vote of Censure. [Loud and prolonged Ministerial cheers.]
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, who was received with Opposition cheers, said: Before we move a Vote of Censure—[Ministerial laughter]—we must ask whether we shall be allowed to debate it in this House. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!" and Opposition cheers.] I must again ask, as we

  947
  have been referred to the speech of M. Méline, for an answer as to that speech. It is the only information which has been given to this House or to the country—[it Ministerial cries of "Order!"]—and I ask again whether, M. Méline, having stated that Greece would again be invited to accede to the Note of the Powers, and that Crete would not be blockaded, and the contingent of European troops increased until that invitation had been given—
  MR. CURZON: He did not say that. [Opposition cries of "Order!" and Ministerial laughter.]
  SIR W. HARCOURT: You are laughing too soon. Greece, he says, will once again be invited to accede to the Note of the Powers, then Crete will be blockaded and the contingent of troops disembarked there will be increased. What does the word "then" mean? Does it mean before or after? [Ministerial cries of "Order!"] I have a right to ask that question because this is the explanation of the English Government—[Opposition cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not, as I have already said, feel myself bound to explain M. Méline's speech. [Opposition laughter and Ministerial cheers.] I understand the right hon. Gentleman to refer to a speech made by the Prime Minister in another place. The right hon. Gentleman has colleagues in another place; let them ask the Prime Minister. [Ministerial cheers and Opposition laughter.] With regard to the observation that fell from the right hon. Gentleman before that, I do not know whether he means to suggest that we desire to prevent him moving a Vote of Censure in this House. I can assure him he is greatly mistaken, and he has only got to name his day. [Loud and prolonged Ministerial cheers, and cries of "Name it."]

  QUEEN'S JUBILEE PROCESSION (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the Jubilee Procession of Her Majesty the Queen will pass the Houses of Parliament; if so, whether it is the intention of his Department to make suitable arrangements for Members to view it?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER Op WORKS(Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St.
  948
  Augustine's: Suitable arrangements will be made for Members to view Her Majesty's Procession on the day of the celebration in June; but it is not yet in my power to state what they will be.

  TORPEDO BOATS (ROYAL NAVY).
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the total number of torpedo boats having a speed of from 15 to 25 knots in Her Majesty's Navy; where are they lying; and what is the number in each of the respective dockyard basins or creeks?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): There are 98 first-class torpedo boats distributed between the home and foreign stations. Fifty of these are abroad, 24 are at Portsmouth, 14 at Devonport, and 10 at Chatham.

  MUSSEL BEDS.
  MR. C. L. ORR-EWING: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the list of mussel beds referred to in Section 11 of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act,1895 has been prepared, and if it will be presented to Parliament?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Yes, the list referred to by the hon. Member has been prepared, and it will be presented to Parliament so soon as it can be printed.

  BETTING ON RACECOURSES.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, at the Derby Hunt Steeplechases held at Derby on Tuesday last, betting was carried on in Tattersall's Ring by bookmakers in the manner recently decided by the Queen's Bench Division to be unlawful, and that, although the police were present in force, they did not interfere; and whether, in virtue of the powers conferred upon him by No. 1 of the Regulations made under the authority of the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879 and 1884, he will order the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute criminal proceedings where evidence is available in cases in which the law appears to have been broken?
  The HON. MEMBERfurther asked the Secretary of State for the Home. Department whether, with a view to secure uniformity throughout the country in the due execution of the law, the Director of Public Prosecutions will, by a requisition in virtue of the Regulations under the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879 and 1881, require the chief officer of every police district to furnish him with such information as the Regulations prescribe respecting the offence of unlawful betting on racecourses and similar places within his district?
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERasked whether the Home Secretary was aware that further legal proceedings were pending arising out of the decision in the Queen's Bench Division referred to?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I am not aware whether further proceedings are possible with the exception of those involved by the remission of this case to the magistrates. I will answer both Questions of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green at the same time. My attention has not been called to the case he mentions, and the decision of the High Court is of so recent a date and involves so many questions requiring serious consideration that it is quite impossible for me to give him a complete answer at present. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to postpone his question for a few days.

  PARISH COUNCIL ACCOUNTS (SCOTLAND).
  MR. R. SOUTTAR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate (1) whether his attention has been called to the continued and widespread dissatisfaction existing in Scotland in connection with the method of auditing Parish Council accounts; and (2) whether he can hold out any hope that the system will be changed?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. The representations made are being carefully considered. A number of appeals against the charges made by the auditors have been received and are being dealt with. Until this procedure has been completed it is impossible to decide what change, if any, should be made. I may add that,
  950
  as the hon. Member is aware, no important change in the system can be effected without legislation.

  TELEPHONE EXCHANGES.
  MR. A. D. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Post Office officials will make any separate Return, actual or approximate, of the enormous sums, amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds, which they have expended in the construction and maintenance of telephone exchanges, and of the amounts earned by the exchanges?
  MR. HANBURY: The sum expended upon the construction of telephone exchanges is £107,000, of which about three-fourths has been spent on the exchange at Newcastle, and a large portion of the remainder in Cardiff and the neighbourhood. It is not possible to give either the amounts earned by the telephone exchanges in the hands of the Government or the amounts spent on their maintenance. The telephones and the telegraphs have the same headquarters charges, and the same offices, the same clerks, the same mechanics, the same engineering staff. And even if the accounts of the telephones could be separated, it would not be desirable to furnish information as to the details of our working to the National Telephone Company, who are in competition with the Post Office in the very district concerned.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS BILL.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it will be possible for a scheme of allotment, made under Sub-section (3), Clause 1, of the Voluntary Schools Bill, to include (in addition to grants to individual schools) provisions for the expenditure of part of the share allotted to the association upon central classes for pupil teachers or scholars, or upon visiting teachers and apparatus for the common use and benefit of the schools included in the association?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I understand that it would be contrary to the views of the Department that money should be given, except to

  951
  individual schools. There is no reason why the money so given should not be devoted to the purposes suggested by my hon. Friend's Question.

  ENGINEERING TRADE DISPUTE.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any steps have been taken by the Board to bring about a settlement of the dispute in the Engineering Trade; and, if not, whether he will endeavour to induce both parties to refer the dispute to arbitration before engaging in a protracted and wasteful struggle?
  MR. RITCHIE: No application has been made to the Board of Trade in this matter. I understand that the parties to the dispute have been in direct communication with each other. It does not seem to me that the Board can at present usefully intervene.

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can fix Monday 29th March for the Debate on the Report of the Royal Commission on the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Subject to this hypothetical Vote of Censure, I think it will be probably convenient to discuss the financial relations on the day named by the hon. Gentleman—namely, on Monday week.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS' BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [The CHAIRMAN Of WAYS and MEANS, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]
  [PROGRESS, 17TH MARCH.—TWELFTH DAY.]
  Clause 2,—

  REPEAL OF 17s. 6D. LIMIT IN S. 19 OF 39 AND 40 VICT. C. 79, AS RESPECTS DAY SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND AND WALES.
  After the last day of March one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven, the following words in section nineteen of the Elementary
  952
  Education Act, 1876, namely, "such grant shall not in any year be reduced by reason of its excess above the income of the school if the grant do not exceed the amount of seventeen shillings and sixpence per child in average attendance at the school during that year, but shall not exceed that amount per child, except by the same sum by which the income of the school derived from voluntary contributions, rates, school fees, endowments, or any source whatever other than the Parliamentary grant, exceeds the said amount per child, and" shall be repealed so far as they apply to day schools in England and Wales.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISmoved as an Amendment to substitute the words "nine hundred" for the words "eight hundred and ninety-seven." The hon. Member explained that his object was to defer the operation of this clause for three years, in order that they might ascertain how the first clause worked with regard to subscriptions.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said he trusted the effect of the clause would not be to diminish the voluntary subscriptions; but whatever its effect might be, no case could be made out for any further retention of the 17s. 6d. limit. ["Hear, hear!"] The 17s. 6d. limit was open to a great many objections; it certainly was a great temptation to the manipulation of accounts; and it fined poor but efficient schools in a manner highly detrimental to the interests of education. ["Hear, hear!"] Therefore, so far as he was concerned, he would not defer even for a month, the operation of this clause. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill,"
  MR. T. R. BUCHANANagreed with the First Lord of the Treasury that there was not much to be gained by the retention of the 17s. 6d. limit. It had already been abolished in the case of necessitous schools in the Highlands of Scotland; and now it was proposed to abolish it in regard to all schools, Voluntary and Board, in England and Wales. Therefore, when the Bill was passed the only part of Great Britain in which the 17s. 6d. limit would exist would be the non-Highland portions of Scotland. There could be no case for retaining it in that limited area, when it

  953
  was done away with in every other part of Great Britain; and he trusted some assurance would be given by the Government that it would be abolished also in the case of the non-Highland portions of Scotland.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLsaid that, while the consensus of public opinion was in favour of the abolition of the 17s. 6d. limit, it was undoubtedly the fact that the teachers considered it ought to be retained. A deputation of the teachers of Yorkshire which had waited on him had said they anticipated that if the limit was done away with the managers of the schools would put pressure on the teachers to induce them by additional work, and even by additional cramming, to earn more money in fees for the schools. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. T. R. LEUTYagreed with the First Lord that the 17s. 6d. limit was a fine on poverty, and if there was a division he should certainly vote for its abolition. But after that abolition the children of Nonconformist parents should no longer be driven into schools over which the Church of England retained control, though it paid no part of the cost of maintaining them.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid he would not discuss whether or not it was wise to abolish the 17s. 6d. limit. But he desired to emphasise the fact that, unless it was followed up by making the grant to all schools a fixed capitation grant, and not a grant dependent on the number of subjects taught, education would be sacrificed to the earning of Government grants. ["Hear, hear!"] He had always felt that the educational training of a child did not depend on the number of subjects in which instruction was given, but on the adequate teaching of a limited number of subjects. ["Hear, hear!"] The operation of the 17s. 6d. limit had been to reduce the number of subjects, and he trusted its abolition would not act as an inducement to managers to take up the maximum number of subjects and to think more of turning the children into grant-earning machines than of properly training their moral and mental faculties. ["Hear, hear!"] There was too much grant-grabbing already in the schools; but he trusted that in future the efficiency of education and not the earning of grants would be the aim of managers. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLANDsaid that if, as the First Lord of the Treasury had said, no case could be made out for the retention of the 17s. 6d. limit, it ought to be abolished for evening schools as well as for day schools. Again, when this limit was instituted by the Act of 1876, it was applied to England, Wales and Scotland at the same time, and therefore, in order to be perfectly logical they ought to repeal it in this Bill for Scotland as well as for England and Wales. ["Hear, hear!"] The 17s. 6d. limit was introduced by a Conservative Government in 1876 in order to secure the principle of local contributions. If general expenditure on education and the demands of the Department had increased since 1876, those difficulties could have been met by raising the 17s. 6d. limit; but the Government were now abolishing all limits; and the result would be largely to lessen the efforts which produced voluntary contributions; and those contributions many of the best supporters of Voluntary Schools believed to be almost vital to the schools' existence. There was also this consideration—what would be the effect of the removal of the limit on the teachers? There were many poor schools—both Board and Voluntary—where the managers would put great pressure on the teachers to teach more subjects in order to earn a larger grant. The 17s. 6d. limit had hitherto prevented this undue pressure; but what was to prevent it now in schools where the managers were only bent on getting money?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir J. GORST,)said that he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee of Council were quite alive to the possibility of over-pressure being put on teachers in order to earn larger grants. The abolition of the limit created that danger; but it would be very carefully watched by the Department, and, if necessary, alterations would be made in the Code to prevent any such abuse. There were several ways in which that could be done. One was to make the grant a capitation grant, and not a grant for the teaching of special subjects; and another was to put restrictions on the teaching of special subjects, by requiring that there should be an adequate staff of

  955
  teachers. The vigilance of the Department would be quite enough to prevent abuse of the abolition of the limit.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid that, whatever might be the case in respect of day schools, there was a general consensus in favour of the abolition of the 17s. 6d. limit for evening schools. He urged the Vice President to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consent to this extension of the proposal of the Bill.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that the Government was now doing away with the last shred of guarantee for any local contributions at all. It was very hard that children should be taught a large number of subjects, not in order to improve their chance in the world, but merely to earn a larger grant for the school. The only ground for maintaining the Voluntary Schools was that they were voluntary; but there would in future be no guarantee that the amount of local contributions now secured would be maintained. No sooner was the grant raised to 17s. 6d. in 1876 than the voluntary subscriptions began to diminish. They were 8s. 8d. per head in 1876; in 1894 they were only 6s. 6d. He believed that the repeal of the limit was proposed with the sole object of still further relieving voluntary subscriptions. He should certainly vote for the omission of the clause.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought that the answer of the Vice President was satisfactory as to the prevention of over-pressure on the teachers, but he should like to know what was going to be done to secure the maintenance of local contributions. He was enamoured of the 17s. 7d. limit as it stood, but it was the sole remaining safeguard for the maintenance of subscriptions. Why was the 17s. 6d. limit to be abolished in England and Wales, where it affected the Voluntary Schools, and not in Scotland, where it affected the Board Schools?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,replied that it would be out of place to deal with Scotland in a Bill which applied only to England and Wales.
  MR. BUCHANANexpressed the hope that the Government, having regard to the peculiar position in which Scotland would be placed by the passage of this Bill as it stool, would during the present
  956
  Session bring forward legislation to deal with the case of Scotland.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYdid not think it would be quite regular to discuss the case of Scotland on the present clause. Scotch Members had always been jealous, and rightly jealous, of mixing up English and Scotch questions of education, the two systems being so diverse. He agreed, however, that the position of the Lowland counties of Scotland after the passage of this Bill would be more or less anomalous, and the matter would be carefully considered.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid he felt great objection on principle to the abolition of the 17s. 6d. limit. The last shred of guarantee was taken away of securing a certain amount of voluntary subscriptions every year. If his hon. Friend went to a division he would certainly follow him into the Lobby.
  MR. C. P. SCOTTwas in favour of the abolition of the 17s. 6d. limit, because the provision applied equally to both Board and Voluntary Schools. If a few other of the provisions of this Bill had applied in the same way to the whole of the schools in the country they should not be discussing the Bill now; they would have got through it a week or ten days ago. At the same time, the abolition of the limit was not an unmixed blessing, and he warned hon. Gentlemen opposite that if they wished to maintain the existing system they would have to make extraordinary efforts, which they might find it difficult to sustain, in order to keep contributions up to the present level; otherwise the existing system was doomed.
  MR. A. J. MUNDELLAsaid he had never been a strong supporter of the 17s. 6d. limit, but, on the other hand, undoubtedly it was a most effective weapon in keeping up voluntary subscriptions. The danger of the loss of voluntary subscriptions was a more serious one than hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to realise. If the subscriptions really became merely nominal, the whole raison d'être of the Voluntary Schools would disappear, and the end would be that they would be swept away. The danger of over-pressure on the teacher was one which the Vice President held too lightly. He believed that, when they had swept away

  957
  the limit, the managers who cared more about grants than education would put great pressure on the teachers to enlarge the curriculum and to make the children mere grant-earners, so as to contribute more largely to the income of the schools. He did not see how the Vice President could prevent the pressure being put on the teachers. If the managers demanded that an increased number of subjects should be taught, how was he going to prevent it? It would be impossible to limit the subjects to the three R's. In his opinion, it was far better that these schools should teach the barest elements of reading, writing, and arithmetic than squander the teaching over a considerable number of subjects. This was a thorny question which would require a great deal of attention from the Department and a great deal of watching front the House. With respect to the Scotch question, it would present itself for practical treatment very soon, because, having abolished the limit in England and Wales, they could not possibly maintain it in Scotland.
  MR. LEWISasked the Vice President or the Leader of the House to give a reply to the very pertinent question of the hon. Member for Poplar—namely, what steps were the Department going to take in order to insure the keeping up of subscriptions?
  Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 267; Noes, 62.—(Division List, No. 129.)
  Clause 3,—

  EXEMPTION FROM RATES OF VOLUNTARY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  No person shall be assessed or rated to or for any local rate in respect of any land or buildings used exclusively or mainly for the purposes of the schoolrooms, offices or playground of a Voluntary School, except to the extent of any profit derived by the managers of the school from the letting thereof.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSmoved after the word "rate," to insert the words "other than a School Board rate." The hon. Member explained that the clause provided for exemptions from all kinds of rates
  "in respect of any land or buildings used exclusively or mainly for the purposes of the
  958
  school rooms, offices, or playground of a Voluntary School, except to the extent of any profit derived by the managers of the school from the letting thereof."
  He said that he strongly objected to the whole clause, and at any rate asked that those people who were now so much assisted because they were friends of education should contribute by paying the School Board rate in the district. If all public buildings of this kind were exempted from rates it would be difficult to argue against the clause, and if these schools were used exclusively as elementary schools, there might be a case made out in favour of the proposal of the clause. It was true that the schools were used in the day time for educational purposes, but in every other respect they were practically the private property of the managers or trustees, for the time being, and in many cases it was almost impossible for anybody not connected in some way with the Church of England to obtain the use of any of these schools for any purpose outside what might be approved of by the clerical management. The only rate in regard to which by his Amendment an exception would be made, was the School Board rate, which was an educational rate. The general ratepayers of the district would have to contribute their quota, whatever that might be, to the provision of this £600,000 granted by the Bill to Voluntary Schools, and they would also have to bear their own School Board rate. He did not think, therefore, it was too much to ask that the supporters of Voluntary Schools, which were used in a large measure as private property, should not be exempted from paying an educational rate such as the School Board rate. He begged to move the Amendment.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYcould not think the hon. and learned Gentleman was serious in bringing the Amendment before the House, nor had he made out any case for an exception from the exemptions in favour of any rate. If there was one rate more than another which it seemed absurd to throw on the Voluntary Schools it was the rate required for the maintenance of Board Schools. It would savour of, he had almost said, insult, to say that they would relieve the supporters of Voluntary Schools of other rates and still leave them liable to that particular rate which

  959
  went to swell the pockets of rivals who were the chief source of their difficulties.
  MR. CHARLES HARRISONsupported the Amendment on the ground that it was not fair and just that the rate for the Voluntary Schools should be practically thrown back again upon those who were already paying the local rates on School Boards as well as School Board rates.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSmoved to leave out the words "or mainly." The object of his Amendment, he explained, was to provide that the Voluntary Schools should not be exempted from rates unless they were used exclusively for educational purposes. If they were used as other than educational institutions then they ought to pay to the ordinary rates. By introducing into the clause the words "or mainly," a number of very difficult questions would arise, and the door would be opened to all kinds of difficulties and doubts. Who was to be the judge of whether these buildings were used mainly for educational purposes? Suppose, for example, that the Church schools in a country village were used once or twice a year for Church concerns, would that be sufficient to exempt a school from rating liability, or would it have to pay? He urged that it should be laid down clearly once and for all, through this Bill, that if these schools were to be exempted from rating they must be used as schools and schools only. If the managers desired to have the right, which they had enjoyed in the past, of using the schools on certain occasions for other purposes outside those connected with education, then he submitted they ought to pay for that privilege in the shape of not being exempted from rating liability. He begged to move the Amendment.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALhoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment. The effect of the hon. Member's proposal would be that if the schools were not used exclusively for educational purposes, they would lose the benefit of exemption from rates altogether. Thus if they were used for a parish meeting, or as polling stations for parliamentary purposes, or for the district council, they would be deprived of the benefit of exemption, which would be contrary to the spirit of the Act of 1894. There would be no difficulty in deter-
  960
  mining whether a school was mainly used for purposes of education. The right of exemption would be ascertained in the ordinary way. Exemptions, subject to certain conditions, were already enjoyed by different societies and institutions, by chapels and other buildings, and no difficulty was found in the matter.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSdid not think the Amendment of his hon. Friend quite carried out the object he had in view. His object was to have it declared practically in an enactment that the clerical managers of the schools were to have no benefit or advantage in these schools of a personal character. The Solicitor General had pointed out that the omission of the words "or mainly" would make it absolutely necessary that the school should not be used for any purpose at all other than for elementary education. Thus if the Amendment were carried and a parish meeting were held in the school, it would make it assessable to the rate, although no one on that side of the House objected to such a use of a school.
  MR. ROBERTSasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. EDWARD STRACHEY, with a view to prevent Voluntary Schools being exempted from the payment of rates when profit is derived from letting the premises, moved to leave out the words "except to the extent," in order to insert instead thereof the words "so long as no profit." He remarked that in some places the school rates amounted to 1s. and 2s. in the pound in addition to other rates, and if Voluntary Schools were exempted in those cases it would be a valuable concession to them. But sometimes almost prohibitive charges were made for the use of the school rooms for lectures and political meetings, and where a large profit was made in that way he did not think the schools should be exempt from the payment of rates. In future the school buildings would practically be maintained by the State, and, therefore, it was not unreasonable that the use of the schools for public purposes should be without charge. If a profit was made by the letting of the schools, they should be rated on the ordinary estimated value of the school, like any other premises

  961
  by which a profit was made. The proposal to rate schools according to the profit derived would cause assessment committees much unnecessary trouble. It would also involve a return being made each year by the school managers of their profits. In fact, they would have to make a return like that of Schedule D for the income tax, and this would be no little trouble to them.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALhoped the Amendment would not be pressed, as he did not think a school should be penalised because during the year it had occasionally been let for small local purposes.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISagreed that in ordinary circumstances a school building should be treated as an unoccupied house for rating purposes, but when profits were made by letting the building it was in a different category.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERadvised his hon. Friend not to press the Amendment, because its practical effect would be to work injustice. [Ministerial cries of "Hear, hear!"] In a large number of country parishes the schoolrooms were the only rooms for any general purpose. They could be used compulsorily for polling purposes and Parish Council meetings, and they should be used compulsorily for other purposes. Parish schools were used for a large number of small entertainments and lectures, which were not only amusing, but instructive. He did not think school managers were bound to let the promoters of these have the schools for nothing, and he was afraid if the Amendment were adopted the managers would refuse the use of the schools rather than lose the exemption from school rates, and this might lead to much public inconvenience.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the clause seemed to clearly suggest that school managers had a right to let the schools for profit. He asked the Solicitor General whether they had this right, and, if so, what guarantee was there that the money would not be devoted to educational purposes, but applied by the managers to their own ends.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid that no right to make tiny profit was conferred. The words were that the schools should be "exempt from rating except to the extent of any profit derived by the managers from the letting thereof."
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he never suggested that the words conferred a right. But they indicated that the managers might let the schools for profit. Assuming that the managers did so, was there any guarantee that the money would be applied to educational purposes and not go into their own pockets.
  MR. STRACHEYremarked that, in deference to the wishes of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. H. LEWISmoved to insert after the word "extent" the words "or the estimated money value of any advantage," with the view to giving Assessment Committees power to inquire into the extent of any profit made by the letting of schools. He submitted that when the managers treated the schools as private property and used them for their own advantage, this power should be given to the Assessment Committee.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid he did not know what was the precise class of cases to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to suggest the case of the manager of a school giving a private entertainment to his friends? He did not think he had any right to do so. He submitted that the cases supposed did not really in practice exist, and that the effect of introducing the words proposed would not have a satisfactory effect.
  MR. LEWISasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion "That the clause stand part of the Bill,"
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid they had hitherto refrained practically from putting forward their chief objection to the passing of this clause. All they could do under the circumstances was to make such a protest as they were able to, but they knew only too well that no protest of any kind, no reason and no argument of any description, would have the slightest effect. [Cries of "Oh!"] So far, at any rate, they had had no effect. He was afraid the House of Commons was

  963
  hardly fulfilling its proper function when the arguments put forward by Members elected to that side of the House were not considered in any way. His objection was that they would not be doing the right thing if they exempted school-rooms from rating which he feared were to an enormous extent used as private property. He knew of cases where the Nonconformists had at great sacrifice built a public hall in the village they inhabited simply in order to assert the right of public meeting. He could mention cases also where clergymen had prevented public meetings being held on the most extraordinary grounds. He protested against the arbitrary way in which the Nonconformists had been treated in the past in regard to the use of the school-rooms, and he therefore begged to move the rejection of this clause.
  MR. HARRISONsaid he did not know if he would be in order in discussing an amended clause on this question.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid the hon. Member was entitled to urge upon the Committee as a reason for rejecting this clause that he had a better clause which he proposed to submit, but before the clause of the hon. Member could be discussed in detail this clause must be negatived.
  MR. HARRISONsaid he ventured to think the scheme proposed by this clause was one which ought not to be adopted. There were two great objections to this clause. The drafting of it was essentially bad. It would not, he thought, effect the object it apparently had in view; and, secondly, as it would cast the deficit caused by exempting the Voluntary Schools on the parish instead of on the fund levied on the area out of which the local rates on School Boards were paid, it would be inequitable. As to the first point, the clause in the Bill did not confer on the Voluntary Schools the benefits it proposed to confer. It contemplated the retention on the valuation list of the Voluntary Schools. It did not wholly exempt them. It would do so if no person was to be assessed or rated, for there would be no beneficial occupation. But the last portion of the clause assumed the schools were to be retained on the valuation list for assessment in respect of profit which they might make. The proper form of drafting should be, not to declare that no person should be assessed
  964
  for the schools, but that, as in the case of exemption of churches, the property assessed, "the church," the hereditament, should be exempted. It was decided in the case of the Foundling Hospital that, in London at all events, which had a special Act (the Metropolis Local Valuation Act), the property must appear on the valuation list, and that the overseers or other officers would be bound to observe and give the schools the advantage of any privilege or provision for being rated or taxed on any exceptional principle of valuation. But this clause did not give that exceptional advantage to the property of the schools, but only declared no person should be assessed or rated, a provision only advantageous in rating law for the purpose of destroying a beneficial occupation, and therefore a non-liability to be placed on the valuation list at all. This clause would not save the schools from being placed on the valuation lists, and, when placed there, would not confer an advantage or benefit, because it was an advantage or benefit directed to the person, and not to the property. As to the second objection, it was forcibly illustrated in the case of London. The 434 School Boards in London paid for local rates £92,000 a year, or equal, on the 394,000 children in Board Schools, to 2s. 7¼d. per child. That sum was paid as a School Board expense, and was levied in the School Board rate over the whole metropolis. Every ratepayer in each parish was therefore paying for local levies on School Boards 2s. 7¼d. for each child in School Board buildings. On the other hand, the 492 Voluntary Schools were paying £8,666 for local rates, and this Bill proposed to exempt them from this payment. On the 176,552 children in the Voluntary Schools, this payment was equal to a grant by the rest of the ratepayers of the metropolis, already paying 2s. 7¼d. per child for the Board School local rates, of the payment of an additional 118d., or nearly 1s., for the Voluntary Schools, which would benefit to that extent over and above the 5s. grant which they would obtain by this. Bill. Not only would the London ratepayers collectively pay this rate for Voluntary Schools relief amounting to 1s., but in the case of particular schools they would pay as much as 16s. per child. For instance, Voluntary Schools in Battersea,

  965
  Charlton, and Woolwich, by the exempting of the Voluntary Schools from local rates will be relieved of what was just under three farthings for each child in the Voluntary Schools; whilst in the Voluntary Schools of St. Michael's, Paddington, they would obtain relief to the extent of 6s. 9d. for each child. In St. Bride's, in the City, to the extent of 7s. 7d. per child, and the Saltram Crescent School, Paddington, to the extent of 16s. 1d. per child. This relief so awarded in these particular instances was to be obtained under the operation of the Bill at the expense of the ratepayers in the particular parish in which these Voluntary Schools are situated. But if, instead of referring to particular schools, they turned to the 11 School Board divisions in London, then the relief to the schools in the division would be, in the City, 1s. 7d. per child, in rich Marylebone 1s. 3d., in rich Chelsea 11½d., and all this relief would be effected at the expense of the ratepayers in those particular divisions. If the 2s. 7¼d. paid for local rates on Board Schools was paid out of School Board area, so also ought the 1s. in respect of which the Voluntary Schools would be relieved, instead of having to be made good by other ratepayers, in the parish, ought to be paid out of the same fund and area. That was the provision in the Government Bill of 1896; which, by Section 20, provided that the rates on Voluntary and other schools should not be paid by the parishes but as an expense of School Board area, and levied accordingly. London only reflected the same principle which he had been illustrating in boroughs, where there are often several parishes for local taxation. In all these cases the leakage or deficit caused by abstracting the Voluntary Schools from local taxation should be borne and paid, not by the parish, but by the borough, and out of the borough rate. In regard to counties the same principle applied. The parish in which the particular school was situated should not be called upon to provide the leakage caused by its exemption but the entire area—the county in which the expense and not the particular parish. The additional clause he had placed on the Amendment, had that object in view. He submitted it was a scheme far preferable and much more equitable than
  966
  that proposed by the Bill. For those reasons he supported the omission of Clause 4.
  MR. BUXTONsaid he did not intend to oppose the clause, hut there was one important point connected with it which, as a London Member, he would like to point out. The amount which the Voluntary Schools of London would gain by the abolition of rating, was £8,700. With 173,000 children in average attendance in the schools that sum worked out at 1s. per head in addition to the 5s. grant, so that the managers of the Voluntary Schools in London would receive, not 5s. but 6s. per child. He was also bound to point out that this subsidy to managers of Voluntary Schools would work out very unequally in different parts of London. In the City where managers do not need assistance, it would amount to 1s. 7d. per child, while in the poorer parts of the Metropolis had great difficulty in obtaining subscriptions, it would amount to no more that 3¾d. per child. He also supported the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, that the deficit caused by this exemption from rates, should not be borne by the particular parishes, but by the general rate of the Metropolis.
  MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELLhoped that the Amendment would be pressed to a division, as he intended to vote for it. The clause proposed to give to the Voluntary Schools an advantage which was not given to the Board Schools, but more than that, by the exemption of the Voluntary Schools from rates, the burden of rates on the Board Schools would be increased, because the rates on the Board Schools must be heavier if the Voluntary Schools were exempt from rates. He did not see why, if by the last clause, they exempted Board Schools from the 17s. 6d. limit, they should not exempt them by this clause from rating.
  MR. SCOTTopposed the adoption of the clause on two grounds. First, because it proposed to exempt from rates what were in fact private educational institutions. And, secondly, because it was partial in its application. A comparison had been instituted between this proposal and the exemption of churches and chapels from rates, but in the latter case the exemption was carried through all round,

  967
  whereas, in this case, they were selecting a certain category of schools for the exemption, while they declined to extend it to others more deserving of that favour. On what ground were elementary schools to be exempted from rates when the institutions devoted to higher education obtained no such exemption? The Solicitor General said that this proposal was founded on the Act of 1843, which exempted from rating societies established for the promotion of science and the fine arts. But that Act had practically been inoperative, and the only institutions which had benefited from it were Mechanics' Institutes. University Colleges were at least as important as Voluntary Schools; and, after all, the value and quality of elementary education was to a large extent determined by the efficiency and quality of the higher education. The Owen's College, with which he was associated, paid in rates last year over £12,000.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I do not quite see the relevancy of this.
  MR. SCOTTsaid that he would not pursue the point. He was merely dealing with the analogy which both the First Lord of the Treasury and the Solicitor General had endeavoured to set up, and winch he held to be bad. He would undertake to vote for this clause if the First Lord of the Treasury would give him any encouragement to believe that by subsequent legislation this exemption from rating would be extended to University Colleges.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that he should vote against the clause on the ground of its inequality. He should be out of order in discussing the fact that the clause did not apply to Board Schools; but if it had so applied, instead of to Voluntary Schools only, he should have voted for the clause.
  MR. ALBERT SPICERsaid that he disliked preferential grants, but this principle had been practically admitted by the country for some time. In the chief town of his constituency, all the Voluntary Schools were rated at 20s. each, and the Board Schools at a much larger amount. The effect of the clause would be to make people realise that these schools were not private property, but were to be used for the benefit
  968
  of the public generally. He hoped the Government would see that fair play was given all round in regard to the use of the school rooms; and when the extravagant expenditure of School Boards was referred to in future, he hoped it would be remembered that the cost included rates. He should vote for the clause.
  MR. JOHN BRIGGsaid that, as the Amendment had been ruled out of order, he could only protest against the clause as a whole. He knew what it was to live in a district where the only suitable meeting place was the room of a Voluntary School, and where the use of that room was refused to one political Party.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that in some districts Voluntary Schools were now practically exempt from rating; but there the schoolrooms were put at the disposal of the public; so there was no injustice done. He should vote against the clause on the ground that it was part of the Government scheme for the endowment of one or two denominations. An exemption from rates was being given to buildings which were practically under the control of one man—the clerical school manager—who had absolute discretion as to the use of the room, and who used it to tyrannise all over the country. The whole Bill was an iniquitous and impudent attempt to give an additional endowment to a Church already endowed.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid that often during election campaigns he had been unable to find a suitable meeting-place, because the clergyman had refused the use of the schoolroom. Welsh Members had special reason to oppose the clause. They did so mainly on the ground that it added to the resources of Church schools from Imperial funds, and did not, on the other hand, confer any public advantage on those who lived in the neighbourhood. There was no necessity for the exemption, because a very large majority of the schools in Wales had more than ample funds. As a protest against the unjust character of the Measure he should divide against the clause.
  Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 283; Noes, 88.—(Division List, No. 130.)
  Clause 4,—

  DEFINITIONS.
  In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
  The expression "Voluntary School means a public elementary day school not provided by a School Board.
  Any reference to the number of scholars in schools means the number of scholars in average attendance as computed by the Education Department.
  The expression "local rate" means a rate the proceeds of which are applicable to public local purposes, and which is leviable on the basis of an assessment in respect of the yearly value of property, and includes any sum which, though obtained in the first instance by a precept, certificate, or other instrument requiring payment from some authority or officer, is or can be ultimately raised out of a local rate as before defined.
  Other expressions have the same meaning as in the Elementary Education Acts 1870 to 1893.
  MR J. A. PEASEMoved to insert after the words Education Department"
  "A school shall be deemed to be "necessitous" if, in the preceding school year, either—
  "(a) A rate of 3d. in the pound on the rateable value of the school district in which the school was situated, together with any other school district, or part of a school district, for which the school is recognised as available by the Education Department, would have produced less than £20, or less than 7s. 60. per scholar in the school or schools of the district; or,
  "(b) A School Board existed in the district in which the school was situated, and a sum was paid to the treasurer of the School Board by the rating authority which was not less than the proceeds of a rate of 3d. in the pound on the rateable value of the district."
  Those who had spoken on the Bill had, almost without exception, criticised the vague character of what might be considered a necessitous school under the provisions of the Bill, and the Members of the Government had admitted that the term was somewhat elastic. His object in seeking to define what a necessitous school was, not to limit the necessity to poor districts, but to establish statutory equality with Board Schools. Members would recognise in his Amendment the principle of the 97th Section of the Act of 1870, which applied to Board Schools. He was not himself satisfied with that definition and desired to, see it considerably extended. The Conservative Measure of 1876 when it was introduced contained in the 13th Section a special provision as to Parliamentary grants being
  970
  given to schools in poor districts. In that section, where the Education Department were satisfied a rate of 3d. would produce less than 6s. per head of one-sixth of the population of the school district, special grants would be provided; that then appeared to be the Government view as to what was a necessitous school. It was the intention of the Government that £620,000 should be given to only necessitous schools. Why not, therefore, now define the word, and allow one standard of necessity for Board and Voluntary Schools alike. It was his object to make the law equal in its application. If the First Lord would indicate to them that in the Bill about to be introduced he was going to extend largely the idea of what was a necessitous Board School, he would be glad to alter his Amendment that what was a necessitous Voluntary School should be exactly the same as a necessitous Board School. They ought to see that equal justice was done as far as possible. He knew the effect of his Amendment would limit the number of schools which would receive the aid grant, but where there was no guarantee of efficiency or public representation on the management, it was expedient that the grant should not be given recklessly. His object was to secure and encourage interest on the part of the managers of Voluntary Schools in their schools, and to secure statutory equality, and he therefore moved.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid there were several subsidiary objections, but there was one overwhelming objection which would prevent the Committee being justified in accepting the Amendment. In estimating the poverty of a Voluntary School the poverty of the district was no criterion. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought the suggestion of the hon. Member was beyond the power of any draftsman, as some of those on the Front Bench would admit.
  Amendment negatived; clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 5,—

  EXTENT OF ACT AND SHORT TITLE.
  "(1) This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland.
  "(2) This Act may be cited as the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897."
  MR. LEWISmoved after the word "to," to insert the word "Wales." He said the Welsh Members had taken particular interest in the Bill because they knew that if it were extended to Wales it would tend to strengthen the Establishment and augment its endowments. If this Bill had been before Wales at the last election, he believed not one Member would have been returned to support it. He was aware that these views did not meet with any sympathy from hon. Members opposite, but he asked hon. Gentlemen to put themselves in the place of Welshmen. The great mass of the people of Wales believed that a cruel injustice was being done to them by this Bill; and the Government would not strengthen the loyalty of the people of Wales by thrusting upon them Measures of this kind, to which they were firmly and unalterably opposed. As Welsh Members they had felt bound to fight the Bill from beginning to end, and so far as Wales was concerned they now made their final protest, believing that it would not bring educational peace to Wales, but that it would rather stir up strife in the country.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITHsupported the protest of his hon. Friend. The policy embodied in this Bill was exceedingly obnoxious to the people of Wales. It was looked upon as an attempt to stamp out Dissent in Wales. He had been informed by a Gentleman, in whose veracity he had the highest belief, that not long ago his children in one of the Church schools were told by the vicar that Dissenters were all bad people. [Laughter.] Indeed, there were intolerant bigots among the Anglican clergy who looked upon Nonconformists as little better than vermin. That was the reason why this Bill, giving as it did increased power to the clergy over the schools, was so obnoxious to the great mass of the Welsh people.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsupported the Amendment, and said that the feeling in Wales, as represented in the House of Commons, was without doubt Overwhelmingly in favour of the Board School system, and against the Voluntary School system. There was more than one precedent for treating Wales separately in the matter of legislation. There was, for example, separate Sunday closing legislation, and the Intermediate Education
  972
  Act of 1887. In England the majority of the children attending Voluntary Schools were more numerous than those attending Board Schools; in Wales the reverse was the case. It was hard, therefore, for Welshmen to have a Bill like this thrust down their throats by an English majority. Taking the aid grant of 5s. in the four northern counties of Wales he showed how the Bill would work. It would give to every man, woman, and child in Merionethshire 2s. 0¾., in Anglesey 3¾., Denbighshire 4¼d., and Montgomery 5d. In Berkshire, however, it would give 7¼d. per head, Westmoreland Rutland 8¼d., and Oxfordshire 8½d. In Merioneth the amount raised by rates and voluntary subscriptions amounted to 6s. 1¼ but Cheshire would receive per head 8¾., though it only subscribed in rates 1s. 0¾d. They believed that the Bill would do harm so far as the cause of elementary education was concerned in Wales, and that it would help to buttress the Anglican Church there.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSalso entered his protest against the proposal of the Government. This Bill was purely the result of an English demand, but it was not asked for by any considerable portion of public opinion in Wales in the first place England was not a School Board country; Wales, on the other hand, if not quite, was very nearly a School Board country. He thought that every real educationist would desire, but for the present condition of affairs with reference to Voluntary Schools, that the secular education of the country should be intrusted to School Boards only. The Voluntary School system was by no means an essential part of the educational system in Wales. Anybody who knew anything of the question must believe that the desire for education was greater in Wales than it was in England, and that the sacrifices made in Wales in its behalf have far exceeded those made in England. There was no other portion of the United Kingdom where a University College had been erected practically out of the pence of the poorer part of the population. ["Hear, hear!"] He would give the Committee a few figures to show how different the case in Wales was to the case in England. No doubt the number of children attending Voluntary Schools in England and Wales was very much greater than the number of children attend

  973
  Board Schools, but if Wales and Monmouthshire were taken alone the case was very different. In Wales and Monmouthshire, according to the 1894 Return, the average attendance in Voluntary Schools was 98,829 and in Board Schools 150,000. ["Hear, hear!"] There were one or two specific cases he wished to mention. Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire were two of the richest counties in Wales, and contained a large proportion of the population of the Principality. In Glamorganshire the number of children in average attendance in Voluntary Schools was 30,046, and in Board Schools 71,310. In the case of Monmouthshire the number in average attendance in Voluntary Schools was 12,115, and in Board Schools 24,000, or two to one. In One parish where there were 10,147 children in average attendance, they all attended Board Schools with the exception of 53 who attended a Roman Catholic school. Was it fair that the parents of those 10,000 children should be called upon as taxpayers to contribute to this grant for Voluntary Schools? ["Hear, hear "] The question might also be looked at front the point of view population. The whole population of Wales and Monmouthshire, according to the census of 1891, was about 1,700,000, and of that population about 1,400,000 were in School Board districts, so that only about 300,000 were in non-School Board districts. He might further argue the case from the point of view of Disestablishment—[cries of "Oh, Oh!"]—but that he would not do. He did contend, however, that the Welsh people had shown that they desired their children to be educated in secular elementary schools. But it must not be supposed that because they desired that, they did not care for religion. Who started Sunday Schools in the Principality? Up to recent years the Church of England had entirely neglected teaching on Sundays. On the other hand, the Nonconformists had spread Sunday Schools all over the country—["Hear, hear!"]—and had shown that the country could produce numbers of volunteers in this work who did not come to Parliament and say, "Do help us by a Parliamentary grant to teach religion."["Hear, hear!"] There was, of course, no hope of carrying this Amendment, for it was now clear that there was to be no Report stage on this
  974
  Bill, but he made no apology to the Committee for the observations he had made, because he conceived it to be his duty to put the case of Wales before the Committee, and to show that no one in the Principality was asking, for the Bill, and to thrust it upon them was a great injustice to the inhabitants of that country. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. ACLANDsaid that in the absence of any answer by the First Lord of the Treasury, he would like to say that he thought it quite right that some notice should be taken of the attitude of the Welsh Members. If Wales alone had been concerned, no such Bill as this would have been presented to the House, for there could be no doubt that the educational position of Wales differed materially from the educational position of England. ["Hear, hear!"] In a great number of the rural counties in Wales there were enormous numbers of Nonconformist children attending the schools managed by Churchmen, and there were many parishes where quite two-thirds of the children in Church schools were the children of Nonconformist parents. That children of Churchmen should be forced to go to a school which was controlled by Nonconformists would be considered intolerable by many members of the Church In many cases in Wales schools had been erected with the assistance of Nonconformist farmers, but no Nonconformist was found on the board of management. [Viscount CRANBORNE: "Why did they subscribe if they disapproved?"] The noble Lord hardly understood the circumstances. Many a Nonconformist farmer had given assistance school in order to secure the help of the wealthier members of the parish. If the Government had consented to allow the representation of parents or of local authorities, as they had been asked to do, the attitude of many Welshmen towards the existing Voluntary Schools would have been largely modified. That would have gone far to remove the present grievance. In his opinion the Welsh Members were perfectly justified in endeavouring to get rid of the disabilities and disadvantages of which they complained.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman, following the example of the Welsh Members, had dwelt on the fact that in

  975
  Wales there were districts containing a large body of Nonconformist children who had no schools to go to, except schools under the management of trustees, who must be members of the Church of England. He had himself never denied that, that state of things constituted an inequality in our system of elementary education, and had even recently stated that it was one of the inequalities which made the settlement of 1870 a settlement which nobody could defend as logically fair all round. But he had pointed out that, while there was that inequality pressing upon Nonconformists, there were other inequalities under the Act of 1870 which pressed with at least equal injustice upon Churchmen. If they were to permit the extinction of the Voluntary Schools in Wales and elsewhere, the result would be that while the compromise of 1870 would be altered in favour of the Nonconformists it would be left exactly where it was as against all Churchmen. It would be very unfair to attempt, without reconstituting our system of education from top to bottom, which was a task to which he for one did not, feel equal to at present—it would be grossly unfair to allow in Wales or elsewhere the voluntary system to come to an end while leaving intact the School Board system and all those inequalities which made that system in certain districts so repulsive—[Opposition cries of "Oh!"]—so repellent to the views which Churchmen held on the subject of elementary education. For the rest, it was, perhaps, enough to say that the system of elementary education in Wales had been since 1870 one with the system which applied to the rest of England. He certainly would not be a party, either in connection with this Bill or any Bill that might succeed it, to drawing for the first time a line dividing Welsh elementary education from English elementary education. He could not assent to such a distinction, and certainly he could not consent to make it at this late stage of their discussions. While he recognised the propriety of the Welsh Members making their protest at the present stage, he felt sure that they did not expect the Government to make this alteration which they desired, but which would not be consistent with the broad principles upon which the Measure was founded.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIScommenting on the statement of the Leader of the House, that since 1870 Wales had been treated in exactly the same way as England, said that that was what the Welsh Members had protested against over and over again. Thousands of Welshmen complained bitterly of the fact that Welsh elementary education was treated by the Department and the House of Commons on the same basis as English education. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY explained that his statement referred to legislation and not administration.] Well, administration depended largely upon legislation. He admitted readily that the Welsh Members had been successful in securing certain advantages from the Education Department which had been of real value. By the code and in connection with inspection and examination the Department had acknowledged in the last few years that there was a distinct difference between the conditions of primary education in Wales and England respectively. But that only touched one part of the difficulty in Wales. The chief grievance in Wales arose from the position in which Nonconformists were placed, especially in rural parishes. Before the Act of 1870 many schools were erected in parishes by the co-operation of the Nonconformist inhabitants and the squires and Churchmen. Sometimes these schools were built on land that was given, and sometimes on the village common. In scores of cases, if not in hundreds, these schools so built had passed, often surreptitiously, into the hands of managers under trusts and deeds provided for the training of the children in the principles of the Established Church. In many parishes, therefore, the school built by general effort was now regulated and controlled by the clergyman and one or two Churchmen who were associated with him. That was a state of things which the people naturally resented. The brightest children in the school were, as a rule, Nonconformist children, for they formed the majority. They took the best prizes in the school; yet, if they desired to join the profession of teaching, which lay nearest to them, they were confronted with difficulties. They could not become pupil teachers unless they renounced the religion of their parents—["hear, hear!"]—entered the Church, and became communicants. Was it not a cruel thing for

  977
  the Nonconformist parents and children in these parishes, where there was only one school, that the children could only gain admittance to the teaching profession by renouncing the religion of their own hearths and homes? There were instances in every county and every town where there was not a School Board, of parents having to choose between the two alternatives of either keeping their child away from the only avenue to the one profession he desired to follow or allowing or forcing him to renounce his own religion and enter the Church of England. ["Hear, hear"]
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSremarked that this was a little wide of the Amendment.
  MR. THOMAS ELLISthought he would be able to show that his argument bore immediately upon the contention that this Bill proposed really to increase the burden which now lay upon the Welsh people, and it would be better for them educationally, and fairer to them as a people if they gave up the £25,000 to England rather than that it should be used in order to fasten more closely upon their shoulders a yoke they had already found too great to bear. [Cheers.] It was not a merely sentimental grievance; but it was one which was felt bitterly in hundreds and thousands of homes in Wales. In a village in his constituency a school was built on common land by the co-operation of the whole village. At last a clergyman came upon the scene who refused to carry out those obligations of honour and neighbourliness upon which the school had been conducted, insisted on taking the school into his own hand, not giving to the Nonconformists any right whatever in the school, and refusing to allow any scholar of that denomination to become a pupil teacher. What was the result? The Nonconformists said they would not pay any voluntary rate, but would establish a Board School. They were not allowed by the Education Department to establish a Board School, for the reason that there was sufficient accommodation in the existing school. So strongly, however, did the Nonconformists feel that, though the Education Department refused to sanction a Board School, they collected £650 and built a school which they carried on until the Department sanctioned it. [Cheers.] Out of the 150 children in the parish over 100
  978
  at once attended the new school, and the clergyman, seeing it was futile to carry on his school with some 20 or 25 children, at last said he would much prefer they should go to the thoroughly efficient Board School with its excellent education rather than that he should try to keep up a school in which the children could not, from the circumstances of the case, receive nearly so good an education. In another town, also in his constituency, a school built under precisely similar conditions, passed under the trust of the National Society, with the painful result that the Nonconformist children and parents had to choose between the two alternatives he had mentioned, They felt the matter so keenly that, although they were burdened with municipal rates to the extent of 7s. or 8s. in the pound, they collected £700 or £800 in order to build a school, which, when sanctioned by the Education Department, they handed over without a penny consideration to the School Board. [Cheers.] He cited these two instances to show what was a real grievance to the mass of Nonconformists in the Principality in those parishes where the Church School was the only school. [Hear, hear!"] The feeling in Wales was one of a strong desire, stronger even than that for the disestablishment of the Church, to have a complete public system of national education. [Cheers.]
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I really do not see the relevancy of this. Even if the Amendment which the hon. Member is supporting was carried, the grievances to which he refers would not be remedied.
  MR. THOMAS ELLISadmitted this, but sail that by the Bill the grievances of Wales would be doubled. [Cheers.] Without entering into any argument between Voluntary and public schools, all he would say was that the desire of the overwhelming majority of the Welsh people was to have a public system of education such as they had in Scotland; but to ask them to agree to £25,000 being spent to increase a grievance which they already felt bitterly was to make a proposition which no free people would desire to accept. [Cheers.] If the Bill had permitted of it they would have asked for an equivalent grant to be devoted to purposes which they thought would be of infinite value to all forms of

  979
  elementary, technical, and secondary education in Wales. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYremarked that the speech of the hon. Member had caused a feeling to arise in his mind which he certainly should never have expected to discover there—namely, a desire that they should have heard more of the Welsh Members in this Debate—[laughter and cheers]—for certainly, whether they agreed or disagreed with the hon. Member, they must admit that he had made a most excellent, and interesting speech. [Cheers.] It was, perhaps, enough for him to say in reply that while the hon. Gentleman had, with great eloquence and force, explained what he himself had always deemed and now most freely admitted to be a blot in their present educational system, he had absolutely shut his eyes to the corresponding difficulty under which members of the Church suffered in Wales and in other places. [Cheers.] Those who had preceded the hon. Gentleman on the same side had explained to them that in Wales there was a larger proportion of children educated in Board Schools than in any other part of the country, and the hon. Member had concentrated his attention upon those parts of Wales where the whole education of the children, whether of the Nonconformist or the Church, was intrusted to Church Schools. But surely there were other parts of Wales where the whole education of Church children was intrusted to a system which Churchmen did not like? The hon. Gentleman would like to see the whole scheme of 1870 upset so far as Wales was concerned. But that was neither a practical proposal nor was it the proposal before the House. When the time came for such a policy to be proposed, he did not think that any violent opposition on his part would be discovered. ["Hear, hear!"] While he could not think it could be justly said that the Bill intensified the grievances of any Nonconformists in Wales, it did something to prevent new grievances being laid upon the shoulders of Churchmen. [Cheers.]
  MR. LEUTY,speaking amidst persistent cries of "Divide" from the Ministerial Benches below the Gangway, said there were one or two points he wished to answer briefly, and his answer would apply to England as well as Wales, but he would speak only of Wales. Had the
  980
  Leader of the House during the whole of the discussions given to the representations made from the Opposition side of the House the same kindly consideration which he had bestowed upon the remarks of the hon. Member below (Mr. T. Ellis) any effort of his to relieve the legitimate grievances of Churchmen would not have been opposed. The right hon. Gentleman said that in the School Board districts, "You take our children, you teach them reading, writing and arithmetic, but you do not teach them any creed or catechism." He (Mr. Leuty) sympathised with Church people who had that feeling, and he would go a long way to meet their conscientious scruples; but it was woeful when the Leader of the House said that the grievances of the Church people in England and the Nonconformists in Wales were parallel. ["Hear, hear!"] There was a great grievance which Dissenters suffered under. That was in districts where the whole of the children had to go to a Church school, and where they were taught to believe things that their parents disbelieved. They were not only taught things that their parents disbelieved, but which their parents looked upon as neither more nor less than superstitions. He did not himself say whether they were superstitions or not. If hon. Gentlemen opposite had the true interests of the Church at heart they would be ashamed of crying "Divide." They evidently did not see where the true interests of the Church lay. Our forefathers would not be penalised out of existence, and Nonconformists would not be bribed out of existence, as this Bill attempted to do. The evils which Churchmen sought to remove were as nothing to the evils under which Nonconformists laboured; and he had the utmost contempt for this attempt by a haughty, intolerant Party to put Nonconformists under a pecuniary disadvantage, and to drive their faith out of existence. [Opposition cheers.] He had used more forcible language than he should otherwise have done, because of the impertinent interruptions to which he had been subjected. [Cheers and counter cheers.]
  MR. PRYCE JONESsaid he merely wished, as a Welsh Member, to say that he should vote for the Government with the greatest pleasure. He was not prepared to decline to receive on behalf of Wales an

  981
  annual sum of about £25,000. ["Hear, hear!"] But he was bound to say that, for one, he did not agree entirely with the Bill. He regarded it as a departure front the compromise of 1870. Still, he looked forward to a similar grant to the one proposed being made this year or next year to the Board Schools of the country. Then he hoped his hon. Friends opposite would be more satisfied with the Government than they were now. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Question put, "That the word 'Wales' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 61; Noes, 198.—(Division List, No. 131.)
  On the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill,"
  MR. J. DILLONtook the opportunity of asking the First Lord of the Treasury what he proposed to do in the way of an equivalent grant for Scotland and Ireland for Voluntary denominational schools. If Clause 5 were omitted from the Bill this grant in aid of 5s. per child would be available in respect to all schools in Scotland and Ireland which were not supplied by School Boards. In Ireland no schools were supplied by Boards, and in Scotland there were a considerable number of Voluntary Schools. Therefore, before they agreed to the passing of this clause, he thought the Government should take the opportunity of saying what they proposed to do for schools in Scotland and Ireland by way of an equivalent grant for this large grant which was now being made to the denominational schools in England. He desired to point out to the First Lord that this afforded an opportunity for settling that very vexed question with regard to religious schools in Ireland. The principle of the Bill was to encourage and to maintain schools of this kind in England which were giving denominational religious instruction. Now they had in Ireland a number of schools in which denominational religious instruction was given as part of the system.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONasked whether the hon. Member was in order in referring to the Irish system of education upon this Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON): I do not think he would be in order in referring to the whole system of
  982
  education in Ireland, but he would not be out of order in asking a question there upon.
  MR. DILLONsaid he was about to say there were a number of schools in Ireland corresponding to those in England, which were assisted by this Bill. He could not but feel surprised that the hon. Member for South Belfast, who had so steadily voted for this Bill, should rise and protest against any attempt being made to induce the Government to give a like support to denominational schools in Ireland, and it would appear that the hon. Member changed his principles when he crossed the Irish Channel. [Laughter.] He had not the least idea of debating the Irish system, but he desired to take what he thought a very reasonable opportunity of asking the Government to take into consideration the desirability of announcing that they would make a reasonable equivalent grant to Scotland and Ireland in respect of this £600,000 now being granted to denominational schools in this country.
  MR. JOHNSTON: May I ask, Mr. Grant Lawson, whether I should be in order if I were to discuss the question of a Roman Catholic University for Ireland? [Cheers and laughter.]
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON): No. [Renewed laughter.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I may remind the hon. Member that the schools in Ireland have to be supported entirely out of public funds without the assistance of subscriptions or rates, and have been so ever since the National system of education was started there.
  MR. DILLON: Not the Christian Brothers' Schools.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am speaking of the general system of education, which is denominational in the sense in which we understand it in England, and I say again that National system is supported entirely out of public funds, and therefore I do not think the occasion for the hon. Member's question arises.
  MR. DILLONsaid the Christian Brothers' Schools were strictly denominational Voluntary Schools, and they corresponded to the schools that were dealt with in this Bill. His point, and he thought he might now ask for an answer, was, that if Clause 5 were omitted, the

  983
  Christian Brothers' Schools would come under the Bill. The object of the Bill was to encourage Voluntary religious denominational schools, and therefore, he asked, would it not be fair to supply to Ireland an equivalent grant for the same purpose for religious Voluntary Schools in Ireland. In reply to what the right hon. Gentleman had said, no doubt the educational system in Ireland was denominational, and had become so owing to the pressure of public opinion, and much to the indignation of the hon. Member for South Belfast. [Laughter.] But it was not practically denominational in the same sense as Voluntary Schools in England were, and the only schools in Ireland which corresponded from the religious point of view to those Voluntary Schools in England were the Christian Brothers and Convent Schools. He should press on the attention of the Government that they ought to set apart an equivalent grant for Ireland to be applied for the same purpose as the grant under this Bill was to be applied for the encouragement of separate Voluntary religious Schools.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  On the return of the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, after the usual interval,
  MR. HERBERT LEWISmoved the following new clause:—

  DURATION OF ACT.
  "This Act shall continue in force for three years after the 31st day of March next after the passing thereof and no longer, unless continued by Parliament."
  He was prompted to move this limitation by reason of the fact that a large portion of the Bill was of a purely experimental character. It was impossible to tell at present how the associations would work. It was difficult to know to what extent they would be formed, or whether, when formed, they would be able to work in such a manner as to command the confidence, on the one hand, of the Education Department, and, on the other, of the country. It was also difficult to foresee the way in which the voluntary character of the schools would be maintained. It was quite certain that, in regard to the schools affected by the abolition of the 17s. 6d. limit, the subscriptions would be very materially reduced. But unless some definite term were prescribed for
  984
  the termination of the Act, it would be practically impossible to raise the question again by way of legislation. The House was so overburdened with work that once an important question like the Voluntary Schools question was legislated upon, it was bound to remain quiescent for many years unless the operation of the Act was limited to a certain period.
  Clause read the First time.
  On the Motion "That the Clause be read a Second time,"
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,)said he did not agree with the contention of the hon. Gentleman that this Bill was in the nature of an experiment, but he would point out that nothing worse could be done to prevent an experiment having a fair trial than that it should be stated in the first instance that the whole thing would be ripped up in a few years and become again the subject of discussion. He could not help thinking that the hon. Gentleman had overlooked one initial fact which had been admitted on both sides of the House. Though it was quite true that a few scattered Members had expressed their detestation of the Voluntary system, and that if they had their way there would be only Board Schools in the country, at least two distinguished occupants of the Front Opposition Bench had stated more than once that though they thought, when the Board School system was established, the Voluntary Schools would have gradually dropped out of existence, they had been forced to the conviction that the Voluntary Schools were an essential and integral part of our educational system, and that the country had distinctly decided so at the last General Election. Therefore, to limit the operation of the Bill to three years in order that the question might be again discussed, would be very unfair to the Voluntary Schools, which had been proved to require aid from the State. The hon. Gentleman knew that aid to the necessitous Board Schools formed part of the scheme of the Government, and that a Bill to that effect would be introduced when the state of things allowed it. Would the hon. Gentleman propose that the Board Schools should be subjected to the same experimental arrangement? The hon.

  985
  Gentleman had said that as a result of the Bill the subscriptions to Voluntary Schools would fall off. The Government held a distinct conviction to the contrary. When the Voluntary Schools were less handicapped by the competition of the Board Schools, there would be an increased inducement to Churchmen to subscribe liberally in order to make the secular part of the education of the Voluntary Schools more efficient than it was at the present time. Unless there was a special reason for it, Parliament never inserted a time limit in a Bill, and there was no subject to which they should be slower to apply such a provision than the subject of primary education.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts,)said he had not supposed that this Amendment would commend itself to the Government any more than any of the numerous Amendments which had been already moved; but he had a conviction that this Amendment would be regarded with great favour throughout the country by the real friends of education, no matter what might be their political opinions. He supported the Amendment because the Bill was admitedly a very incomplete Bill. It was also full of vague phrases mid ambiguous provisions; and what was lacking in it had not been supplied in the discussions by the Government; indeed, the greater the desire for information on the part of the Opposition in regard to doubtful points the greater was the alacrity of the Government in having recourse to the Closure. That brought hint to his second point, which was that the Bill had been forced through Committee—
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON): Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not in order in discussing his dissatisfaction with the proceedings in Committee.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid that what was to be said on that point would have to be said on another occasion. He would therefore pass to another reason in support of the Amendment. The First Lord of the Treasury had admitted that the association scheme was quite experimental, and though the right hon. Gentleman was very sanguine as to its results, a large number of educationalists, Churchmen as well as Nonconformists, regarded it with grave misgiving. Another reason in favour of the Amend-
  986
  ment was that the Bill involved the solution of very critical and difficult questions by the Education Department. He would be surprised if, after the lapse of a short time, the authors of the Bill proved to be altogether satisfied with their handiwork. No one was quite satisfied with the Measure except the Members of the Government. Hon. Members opposite were not satisfied with it. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] They had spoken of it in terms of absolute contempt; and out of doors the Bill had met with a degree of opposition on the part of Nonconformists, Churchmen, and educationalists which Measures of this House had not commonly to encounter. For these reasons, and others he might name, he suggested that the Government should follow the precedent they themselves set in the case of the Agricultural Rating Bill, by limiting the operation of the Bill to three years.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid that the Leader of the House himself had admitted that the clause of the Bill dealing with associations, to which he attached most importance, must be experimental; and the noble Lord the Member for Rochester had described the Measure as vague, as an earthwork hastily thrown up for the defence of the Voluntary Schools, as a temporary Measure, and so forth. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose had said that the Voluntary Schools were an essential portion of our elementary educational system, but he did not say drat the provisions of this Bill dealing with compulsory association were an essential portion of our elementary educational system. Amongst the clergy there was a great deal of opposition to the compulsory association clause, and indeed generally there was every disposition to treat the present proposals as of a temporary nature. With regard to the distribution of the grant, questions must crop up in the course of the next three years which would give rise to friction. Difficulty must surround the fixing of the different rates for town and country. There was the question whether the areas were to be large or small, and only the other day the Leader of the House said it was impossible for anyone to foretell how the abolition of the 17s. 6d. limit would operate. For these and other reasons he

  987
  heartily supported the Amendment. It seemed to him that one of the effects of a three years' limit would be absolutely salutary. It would cause managers of schools to see that the voluntary subscriptions were not reduced but increased, and it would create the keenest desire on their part to maintain the efficiency of the schools.
  MR. D. F. GODDARDdid not think the Amendment could be opposed on the score of unreasonableness. Everyone would admit that the Bill had a good many novel features. For that reason alone it was desirable there should be some limit to its operation, or some opportunity of reconsidering its methods in a few years. Voluntary Schools had hitherto been recognised as elementary schools, but now, for the first time, they were to be recognised as denominational schools. For that reason, too, some limit should be placed on the operation of the Measure. The Attorney General had said it was not usual to put a limit upon legislation. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: "No."] Surely there was a very recent and wise precedent for the admission of a clause like this in the Agricultural Rating Bill of last year.
  [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS in the Chair.]
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Committee divided: —Ayes, 63; Noes, 198.—(Division List, No. 132.)
  MR. J. BRYCEmoved the following new clause:—

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS.
  Where an endowment is attached to any school to which an aid grant might be made under this Act, the existence of such endowment shall not be deemed to be a ground for withholding the aid grant from such school; but if any aid grant is paid to such school under this Act provision may be made, either by scheme or by an arrangement to be sanctioned by the Education Department, that a part of the annual income of the endowment, not less than the sum paid to the school in the same year in respect of the aid grant under this Act, shall be applied for the educational benefit of the scholars in such school, whether by means of advanced classes or of exhibitions or maintenance allowances.
  A scheme to be made as aforesaid may be made under the provisions of section seventy-five of the Elementary Education Act 1870, as applied by section three of the Endowed Schools Act, 1873, or under the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853–1894, or under the provisions of the Endowed Schools Acts, 1869 to 1889, as may be proper in each case.
  988
  He said that there were a large number of small endowed schools in the country which were now used as elementary schools. These schools were established before the present century, at a time when there was no general provision for education in the rural districts, beyond the old dames' schools. A parish which received the gift of an endowed school in those days had a great benefit and advantage over its neighbours. But in the course of the present century the conditions had completely changed. Public elementary schools were now universal, and a large number of these old endowed schools had come under the Department and were regularly inspected for the grant. The parish with the endowed school was no better off now than the neighbouring parishes, which had schools supported partly by private subscriptions and partly by public grant. But if the parish were no better off than its neighbours, somebody must be better off. Who was it? It was the well-to-do people in the parish whom the endowment relieved from the necessity of subscriptions. That was hardly a happy result for a charity intended by its pious founder to benefit the poor. If the endowed school were by reason of its endowment held to be non-necessitous, and, therefore, not entitled to the aid grant, there would be a practical injustice by depriving the school of the benefit which its endowment ought to give it over other schools. There was a great want of schools in the rural districts which give a superior education to that which was provided in the elementary schools, and it had been suggested with all the weight of a Royal Commission, that one useful way in which a better education could be provided would be by choosing a certain number of schools, especially those which possess endowments, and placing them, so to speak, in higher departments, and in those higher departments the education of the promising children might be carried further, and in that way the whole parish might be benefited. That was the line which might be followed in the case of the schools in question. If they received the aid grant from the Department, it seemed reasonable to require that such increase to their endowment should be used to confer higher benefits on the inhabitants of the whole parish, and especially to the poorer inhabitants.
  Clause Read the First time.
  On the Motion "That the Clause be Head a Second time,"
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid everybody would so far sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman as to think he had not gone beyond his duty in pressing forward the interest of secondary education. After all his Amendment and speech had nothing whatever to do with primary education; their relation was to secondary education; and the speech went a little beyond the limit of the Amendment.
  MR. BRICEexplained that the endowments he alluded to were those which might be said to be on the border line between elementary and secondary, and whose teaching might be called higher grade elementary.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYhad never been quite able to distinguish between higher grade elementary and secondary, and being incapable of drawing such a line he would not follow the right hon. Gentleman in the argument he had developed. But he would put a case. Supposing there was a school with an endowment of £5 a child. To ask the House to vote part of the £620,000 a year to schools which already had an endowment of £5 a child appeared to be a proposition so extravagant that it really ought not to be entertained for a moment. [Cheers.] There were schools in many of our poorer districts in which really the endowment was nothing more than a capitalised subscription. But there was a great difference between such cases and laying down as a guide to the Education Department that, no matter what the endowment of the school may be, it was not to be counted as eliminating the school from the class of necessitous and placing it in the category of non-necessitous. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would feel that while they sympathised with the object it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.
  MR. ACLANDpointed out that there were a considerable number of endowed schools which were really not Church schools but undenominational schools. If such schools were anxious to escape association they might do so under Subsection 5 of Clause 1, under the claim that they did not belong to the religious majority of the association, being undenominational schools. That might be urged as a reason for
  990
  treating, at any rate, endowed schools of that sort somewhat tenderly. He was not at all sure that the pious founder had any desire when he left his money for the benefit of education to relieve landlords and wealthy squires of another generation. He thought it was perfectly fair to hold the view that the great mass of them intended to do something for the education of the children. It, therefore, appeared to him that in the distribution of these grants they ought not to take away money because the pious founder left that money many years ago for the benefit of the children. If they did not give these parishes their fair share of the grant they would be alienating a portion of the money left by the pious founder. Why should they seek to alienate it? Why should the manager not be allowed to keep the children at school a few years longer, and give them a fair share of the aid grant? The manager was entitled to say, "Do not take away front me my share under the plea that I am not necessitous because we happen to enjoy an endowment conferred on us in days gone by."
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEagreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that an endowed school ought not to be penalised because of these grants. A rich school ought not, of course, to be treated as a poor school was treated. The money was contributed for the purpose of education and especially of religious education, and in that respect it should be treated as subscriptions. He hoped that in the administration of these grants they would treat the endowments as nothing more or less than voluntary subscriptions, and not allow existing endowments to in any way penalise any school.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsupported the clause proposed in the clause, which he thought was entitled to favourable consideration.
  MAJOR BASCHsaid he happened to be one of those persons to whom reference had been made by the right hon. Gentleman. He was what was called "a pious founder "—[laughter]—not at all by his own wish. [Laughter.] He regretted that the First Lord of the Treasury could not understand why the money should be kept back simply because there was an endowment.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYthought it was somewhat strange

  991
  that hon. Gentlemen opposite should now be urging that there should be no distinction between necessitous and non-necessitous schools. He had always urged that it was impossible to distinguish between the two, because nearly all schools were necessitous.
  MR. BRYCE,in asking leave to withdraw the clause, hoped that the discussion would have the effect of calling the attention of hon. Members to the extreme gravity of the question.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR H. FOWLERmoved the following new clause:—

  REPORTS TO PARLIAMENT.
  The Education Department shall in every year cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament a report of the proceedings under this Act during the preceding year.
  He thought that this was a reasonable demand to make. He hoped that the First Lord of the Treasury would reserve the consideration of this Amendment for another place, and would hold out some hope that there the matter would be fairly reconsidered, and the Amendment, if possible inserted. He would not press the Committee to divide, but his request was strictly in accordance with Parliamentary precedent.
  Clause read the First time.
  On the Motion "That the Clause be read a Second time,"
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he thoroughly appreciated the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman moved his Amendment, and assured him that substantially his contention would be carried out by the manner in which the Act would be administered by the heads of the Department, as in the case of the earlier Acts. He promised the right hon. Gentleman that the propriety of introducing specific directions in the Bill would be carefully considered at a later stage.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH (on behalf of Mr. LAMBERT,)moved the following new clause:—

  MEETINGS OF GOVERNING BODIES TO BE OPEN.
  The proceedings, deliberations, and meetings of the governing body of every such association shall be open to the public and the Press.
  992
  They had always contended that the proceedings of these associations should be made public, the object being to secure that publicity without which the association would not do their work properly. The association was an irresponsible body; it would neither be elected nor selected by the managers of the schools, and they did not know that every Voluntary School would be represented on the association. It would, therefore, be unfair to them if no official knowledge was given of what took place in the association. The associations would also deal with half a million of public money, and he maintained that there was no precedent for a public body, representative or non-representative, dealing with a large sum of money not having their deliberations made known to the public. When the associations knew that their work was open to the criticism and inspection of the public they would be more anxious to do their work properly.
  Clause read the First time.
  On the Motion "That the clause be read a Second time,"
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid there was an apposite precedent in the case of the School Boards of the country. There was no statutory requirement on the part of the School Board either to admit the Press or the public. While he had the greatest respect for the public and the Press he saw no reason why the Government should insert a clause requiring their presence.
  MR. T. LOUGHthought that a great deal of valuable information would be furnished by the deliberations of the associations to those who took an interest in educational matters. The objection taken as to School Boards was hardly conclusive, because the School Boards were publicly elected bodies. The electors saw that the proceedings were fully reported, and the public had means of acquiring information, so that there could be no secrecy about the proceedings. Besides, the minutes of the School Boards were open to the inspection of the public. [Sir J. GORST dissented.] The objection of the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, was not conclusive.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. J. W. LOGANmoved the following clause:—

  DUTIES OF TEACHERS.
  No teacher employed in Schools which receive aid grant under this Act shall be required to perform any extraneous duties, that is to say, any duties other than those of teaching in the school and instructing pupil teachers therein.
  He said he could give very numerous instances of advertisements by managers of Voluntary Schools for teachers who were not only able to teach the children but also to play the organ, train a choir, or perform other extraneous duties. In his opinion, teachers should not be required to do anything but teach the children. The question whether or not a teacher was a communicant in the Church of England had nothing to do with his appointment as a teacher. ["Hear, hear!"] The advertisements showed that only a very small remuneration was offered for the performance of those extraneous duties, and it came to this, that, in many instances, the money of the nation was being used to pay a church organist. But there was a more important question than that involved, and that was, that teachers for Voluntary Schools were not chosen, as they ought to be, because they were people best qualified to teach the children, but because they were good organists or good Churchmen and promised to be communicants. ["Hear, hear!"] He knew it would be useless to appeal at that stage to the First Lord for any attention to this demand, but he felt it his duty, in the interest of the education of the country, to move the new clause.
  Clause read the First time.
  On the Motion, "That the clause be read a Second time,"
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that this clause, whatever might be its merits, would put a most unmerited disability on teachers in Voluntary Schools as compared with those in Board Schools. The teacher in a Board School might teach in a Sunday school, or perform other duties of the kind mentioned by the hon. Gentleman; but, if a teacher in a Voluntary School undertook to do the same things, the hon. Gentleman proposed that the school in which he was a teacher should be deprived of
  994
  the whole amount of the aid grant. Moreover, if he was to interpret the views of the hon. Gentleman, it seemed that the hon. Gentleman would go further, and make it impossible for the unfortunate teacher in a Church school to communicate in the Church to which he belonged. [Laughter.] That, he thought, was a degree of tyranny which the hon. Gentleman in his more careful moments would hardly venture to further. ["Hear, hear!"] He trusted the hon. Gentleman would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. ACLANDthought the right hon. Gentleman had not quite realised the actual meaning of the clause. The words of the clause had been most carefully drafted—[Ministerial laughter]—by a very skilful draftsman, who knew exactly what was intended, and he was perfectly certain that the words absolutely fulfilled the intention. The whole point was that no teacher "should be required" to perform these extraneous duties—["hear, hear!"]—that in engaging a teacher the managers should not require or demand from him extraneous duties of the sort mentioned. The desire of the vast majority of the teachers of this country had been to see something of this sort on the Statute-book, and he believed that the clause was a perfectly sound one. ["Hear, hear!"] The question was whether a teacher when he was engaged ought to be required to perform any other duties than that of a teacher. There was no objection to teachers entering voluntarily into arrangements to do other work. What they did object to—and they were right to do so—was that in their engagements as teachers other matters should be included. Many hon. Members opposite had assented in the past to the view embodied in this clause. It was a reasonable demand to make that teachers should not be asked to undertake, in connection with churches, chapels, etc., duties which lay outside the limits of their profession. It would be a great relief to a large number of persons who were entering the teaching profession, and to a large number who were already in it, if it were quite understood that managers could not impose any extraneous duties upon them, and that the performance of such duties should be purely voluntary. It should also be understood that their salaries were salaries for teaching only,

  995
  and that if any additional remuneration was to be given to them it must be kept quite separate from the sums they received as teachers. The members of the profession naturally valued the idea that they were appointed primarily as teachers and not for other duties, and held that they ought not to be dismissed except for faults committed in their teaching capacity. Everybody must desire that the teaching profession in elementary schools should be dissociated from extraneous duties, as it was in public schools, secondary schools, and the universities. If a teacher was invited to undertake work on Sundays, or other duties, that work ought to be treated as something quite separate from his work as a teacher. That was the feeling of tens of thousands of teachers. The Amendment before the Committee was a most reasonable one, and the principle which it embodied ought to be put in the Statute Book.
  MR. GRAYfelt bound to say a word or two on behalf of the principle of the Amendment before the Committee. He believed that the First Lord of the Treasury had not noticed the particular form in which the Amendment was proposed to the Committee, for the right hon. Gentleman's argument was based upon the wording of the earlier Amendment, to which no one, he felt sure, would have assented, because it would have fettered the hands of the teachers and prevented them from accepting appointments outside their teaching work, even when they desired to accept such appointments. That Amendment, however, was not before the Committee. There was a very great deal to be said on behalf of the Amendment that was before it, and he should not have hesitated to place a similar Amendment on the Paper himself, if he had realised that it would be in order. There was no doubt that teachers were often appointed subject to their consenting, at a time when they were naturally anxious to obtain employment, to undertake all sorts of parochial duties not connected with the work of teaching. It was a common thing for managers to advertise for persons who would undertake, not only the duties of a teacher, but some half-dozen other occupations as well. By such action a school was frequently deprived of the services of the best teacher, an inferior teacher being
  996
  engaged, because he was more competent to perform extraneous duties. There was yet a further obstacle in the way of progress. When a teacher had won the affections of the children, the appreciation of the inspectors, and the regard of every inhabitant in the district, some little friction would be caused in connection with the performance of some extraneous duty, and as a result the teacher would be dismissed. This compulsory performance of extraneous duties was one of the greatest blots in our educational system. The practice was not limited to the Voluntary Schools; there were many School Boards in the country that were equal sinners on this respect. [Opposition cries of "How!"] In Church schools the extraneous task was often that of playing the organ in church, in Board Schools it was not un-frequently the task of presiding at the harmonium in the parish chapel. [Laughter.] The right hon. Member for Rotherham had said that he would desire to see this proposed clause applied to the case of teachers in all schools. What could be the object of that suggestion, unless the right hon. Member knew that the change was as necessary in some of the smaller Board Schools of the country as it was in the Voluntary Schools? If hon. Members opposite wanted instances to show that the clause ought to be applied to School Boards as well as to voluntary organisations, no doubt the right hon. Member for Rotherham would be able to supply them with such instances. The exigencies of the moment necessitated that if this clause were pressed to a division a vote should be recorded against it. He understood that; but he affirmed, without hesitation, that there were many hon. Members on his side of the House who in other circumstances would have assented willingly to the principle of the proposal before the Committee. They were as anxious as he was that the best teachers should be secured for schools, whether Voluntary or Board Schools, and that as long as a teacher's character, professional and moral, was beyond reproach—as long as he discharged satisfactorily his duties to the managers, the Department and the parents in the district—he should not be subject to capricious dismissal in connection with the performance of some task quite unconnected with the work of the school.

  997
  Extraneous services willingly given would be of far greater value, both to the Church, the teachers, and the schools, than services unwillingly wrung out of teachers who feared that unless they were performed they must be turned adrift in the world, not merely at an age when it was difficult to obtain employment, but often with such resentful feelings left behind on the part of managers of schools that it was frequently impossible for them to obtain recommendations for appointments in other schools. There was much to be said in favour of the Amendment, but he hoped it would not be pressed to a division. [Cries of "Why?"] Because he believed it would be injurious to the object they had in view to have an adverse vote recorded upon it. He took exactly the same line as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, who withdrew his Amendment because he believed it would be injurious to have an adverse vote recorded upon it, and because he recognised the necessity of having the Bill passed through its closing lines without Amendment. [Cries of "Why?"] Those who were interrupting him had been longer in the House than he, and they ought to know what the result would be if an Amendment were accepted at this stage. Everybody recognised that position, though, perhaps, hon. Members opposite would rejoice in having a free hand to repeat the stupid Amendments that were placed on the Paper in the earlier stages of these proceedings. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a Division.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSremarked that the hon. Member for West Ham, who had described some of the Amendments proposed from the Opposition side of the House as stupid, seemed to have forgotten that he had supported several of them. The hon. Member now desired that this Amendment should be withdrawn lest he should be obliged to go once more against the Government to support whom he had been returned to Parliament.
  MR. GRAYhoped the hon. Member would not further misrepresent what he had said, or at any rate had intended to say. What he tried to represent to the Committee was that if the time expended on unreasonable proposals had been devoted to reasonable Amendments, there would have been opportunities of discussing them and of actually getting them
  998
  inserted in the Bill. The fact that there had been such a large number of other Amendments, which he ventured to criticise as stupid, had prevented some of the Amendments which he had supported being embodied in the Bill.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSreplied that he had not seen any disposition on the part of the Government at any time to accept Amendments, however reasonable, and the hon. Member had not indicated a single Amendment which ever had a chance of acceptance from the Government. The present Amendment, he submitted, was one upon which every Member was entitled to have his vote recorded, and if pressed to a division he should not be surprised if the hon. Member himself would not be driven to vote for the new clause. He had never before heard the argument used that they ought not to amend a Government Bill because they thereby escaped one stage. Again, what an argument it was to advance to the Committee that the Amendment could be introduced in another place! The Amendment might be good, but they apparently in the Commons were not wise enough to carry it through. Were they to relegate that very important part of their work to the unrepresentative Members of another place? If the Amendment was a good one there was no reason whatever why the Government should not adopt it. The teachers of this country, and of Voluntary Schools more especially, had been for some time agitating for some kind of guarantee of fixity of tenure, and the hon. Member would agree with him when he said that the support given the Bill by the Voluntary School teachers was in a great measure given because they themselves hoped that some provision of this kind would be introduced into the Bill They knew that this money was to be given to the schools, and the hon. Member himself voted in favour of an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Huddersfield in favour of the teachers having some share of it. This proposal was in precisely the same direction. Those who knew the circumstances of the case knew there was very solid ground for this Amendment. [Mr. GRAY: "Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member who represented in that House a large body of the teachers admitted that this Amendment was a good one, and yet he asked them not to press it

  999
  to a division. The reason why the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton withdrew his Amendment was because a pledge was practically given by the First Lord of the Treasury that there should be every year a full statement of the proceedings under this Act and of the application of the money made to the House. No such pledge had been given in the present instance, nor had there been any promise that the Amendment should be introduced in the other House. The hon. Member for West Ham would admit the authority of Mr. Macnamara to speak for the teachers in this matter, and he would quote two or three extracts from Mr. Macnamara to show the importance of this Amendment. He had a case before him where a schoolmaster with less than £100 a year and 70 children on the rolls had to be organist, choir master, parish clerk, Sunday school superintendent and teacher, bell ringer, clerk to the County Council, i.e., a Conservative County Council. [Laughter.] Another master, with £77 a year, had these extraneous duties: organist, playing on Sunday, choir practice 40 times a year; "when the Vicar's wife is absent, I play once on Sunday." [Laughter.] Another master with £76 a year, which had been reduced because the voluntary subscriptions had not been kept up, had these extraneous duties (there were 57 children in his school): to arrange for the school cleaning; Sunday school, morning and evening, organist, paid a little extra (quite an exceptional case); act as choir master, attend to the savings bank (these were great people for money, they collected it whenever they could get it), and assist with Band of Hope meetings. The conclusion of the matter was (a serious matter) a schoolmaster or teacher ought to be selected on the ground that he was a good teacher, and knew how to instil learning into the children. If so selected he should be allowed to devote the whole of his energies to his work and not be required to undertake any extraneous duties. If a school-master or teacher did his work properly he had not much time for these extra duties. He ought not to be liable to dismissal, not because he was a bad or unpopular master, but because he did not fulfil these duties.
  MR. J. H. YOXALLsaid there was a comic side to this, no doubt, but there was also a serious and
  1000
  pathetic side. It was perfectly reasonable that a teacher employed in a denominational school should belong to the denomination of the school in which, he taught, and render the ordinary service to the denomination which other members of same denomination gave. If this extraneous work were not compulsory, no doubt teachers would render voluntary unpaid service as many members of a denomination other than teachers did. But teachers specially trained and examined, quasi State servants, and paid mainly out of State money, should be required before taking employment to undertake only the work in schools for which they were trained. With their daily teaching and their instruction to pupil teachers there was quite enough work, and he most strongly objected to these compulsory tasks of an extraneous character being imposed. This might not be the best part of the Bill to introduce the prohibition, but he should support the protest. It would be outvoted, no doubt, but he was not without hope that the Education Department would secure the object of this clause by regulations.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 96; Noes, 237.—(Division List, No. 133.)
  Bill reported, without Amendment, amid loud Ministerial cheers.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY,whose rising was greeted with Ministerial cheers, said: I propose to put this Bill down for Third Reading on Monday. But the right hon. Gentleman opposite made an appeal to me, which, especially as there is no Report stage, I feel bound to agree to, that Monday is too soon. Therefore, though putting it down for Monday, I shall, on Monday, defer it until Thursday in next week if there is no Vote of Censure moved on that day. [Loud Ministerial cheers.] If, on the other hand, Thursday is required by the Opposition for a Vote of Censure, I shall feel bound, however reluctantly, to take Tuesday for the Third Reading.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the courtesy and consideration with which he has responded to the appeal I made to him. I think the appeal was thoroughly well founded, for, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, there is to be no Report stage

  1001
  to this Bill, which is in itself a very remarkable circumstance—[cheers and counter cheers]—a circumstance so remarkable that no doubt we shall have to call attention to it here and elsewhere. [Ministerial laughter and Opposition cheers.] To-night we had dispatched Clauses 2 and 3—clauses which were practically not largely controversial—in a spirit which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite will be the first to acknowledge. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "Hear, hear!"] But it might be inferred front the conciliatory and business-like way in which those two comparatively non-controversial clauses have been conducted that the Debate, on the first clause, which is really the contentious clause of the Bill, and is, in fact, the substance and body of the Bill, has been, though I will not admit that, unduly prolonged. [Ministerial cheers.]
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Speech!
  MR. J. MORLEY: With all respect to my right hon. Friend, I am speaking strictly to the question as to the date for which the Third Reading of this Bill is appointed. However, I have no intention of prolonging these remarks, except to notice that the right hon. Gentleman said, as I understand, that he would put the Bill down nominally for Monday, but with the intention of taking it really on Thursday, unless my right hon. Friend the header of the Opposition should ask Thursday for what the right hon. Gentleman calls a Vote of Censure. Upon that point I would say that the question of whether we shall ask for Thursday, or what day we shall ask for, will undoubtedly depend upon whether the Government's policy has been so developed—[Ministerial cries of "Oh!" and "Norwich!" and Opposition cheers]—and has taken such practical and operative form as to compel us to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us Thursday for the examination of that policy. That is our position. Meantime, and subject to those contingencies which may arise—and whether they arise or not will depend on the Government—we, of course, are perfectly willing to acquiesce in the arrangement which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned to the House.
  VISOUNT CRANBORNEhoped that Tuesday would not be diverted from private Members, for there was a very im-
  1002
  portant Motion, in which. Churchmen were largely interested, down for that day. The House of Commons did not exist mainly for the convenience of the two Front Benches—[laughter] and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose and his colleagues would make up their minds at once whether there was to be a Vote of Censure or not on Tuesday, in order that the fate of the Motion to which he had alluded would be known as soon as possible.
  MR. LOUGH(who was received with Ministerial cries of disapproval) said he only rose to support the appeal of the noble Lord, as he had got the second place on Tuesday for a Motion, and he therefore hoped the Government would leave the day to private Members.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Ask your own Bench. [Ministerial cheers.]
  MR. LOUGH: Unfortunately, our own Bench has not control of the affairs of the House. [opposition and Ministerial cheers.]
  Third Reading put down for Monday next.

  MILITARY WORKS (MONEY) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [The CHAIRMAN Of WAYS and MEANS in the Chair.]
  [PROGRESS, 22ND FEBRUARY.]
  Clause 2,—

  BORROWING FOR PURPOSES OF ACT, AND ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT.
  (1.) The Treasury may, if they think fit, at any time for the purpose of providing money for the issue of aunts out of the Consolidated Fund under this Act, or the repayment to that fund of all or any part of the sums so issued, borrow money by means of terminable annuities for such periods not exceeding thirty years from the passing of this Act as the Treasury may fix, and all sums so borrowed shall be paid into the Exchequer.
  (2.) The said annuities shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament for army services; and if those moneys are insufficient, shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof, but shall not be payable as part of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt.
  (3.) The Secretary of State shall in every financial year cause to be made out amid laid before the House of Commons an account, in the form required by the Treasury, of the money expended and borrowed and the securities created under this Act, and the accounts of expenditure under this Act shall be audited and reported upon by the Comptroller and

  1003
  Auditor General as appropriation accounts in manner directed by the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the clause dealt with the way the money for the works was to be obtained. It left it to the discretion of the Secretary of State for War and the Treasury to borrow the money, or to obtain it in some other way which was not defined. He moved, in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "may, if they think fit at any time," and to insert the word "shall."
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)said if the Amendment were carried the Treasury would have to put the taxpayers to the expense of borrowing the money for the military works, even though it might be otherwise available. That was a suggestion which he was sure the Committee would not support. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. LOUGHmoved to omit from Subsection (1) the words "all or any part of." As the clause stood, the money might be divided into two parts—one to be borrowed and the other obtained in some mysterious way. His object was to rid the clause of that indefiniteness.
  MR. BRODRICKopposed the Amendment on the ground that the effect of it would be precisely the some as that of the Amendment they had just negatived.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 186; Noes, 65.—(Division List, No. 134.)
  MR. HUDSON KEARLEYmoved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "thirty," and to insert the word "fifteen." He said that the latter period was far too long, as the bulk of the works would be finished in five years. He would remind the Committee that under the Naval Works Act, under which powers were taken for the expenditure of a large sum of money on works of a permanent character, the money was repayable in seven years. He thought this was an Amendment which ought to be accepted. There could be no doubt that 30 years was too long. It was a bad principle taking out of control of the House of Commons the voting of money year by year; it was a far worse principle
  1004
  to borrow money and distribute the repayment over such a lengthened period as 30 years, because, long before the period was expired the works would be decayed or have been swept away.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid the hon. Member could hardly have considered that the period of 30 years was fixed according to the precedent of the Barracks Act. The only reason which the hon. Member assigned was that the works were not of a permanent character, but he had by no means established that fact. On the contrary, the works scheduled under the Bill, including as they did the purchase of land and the building of barracks, which would probably last 100 years, were of a very permanent character.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsubmitted that 30 years hence many of the works would be quite out of date. Ranges put up 30 years ago, for example, were of very little use to-day, and they did not know what, like the ranges would be 30 years hence.
  MR. DUNCOMBErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid, therefore, they ought to pay for them long before 30 years had expired. Even admitting they had done wrong in days gone by, that was no reason why they should go on doing wrong. He appealed to the Government, if they could not go the whole way, to reduce the period, say, to 15 or 21 years; and so meet their views to a certain extent.
  MR. DUNCOMBErose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 158; Noes, 57.—(Division List, No. 135.)
  Question put accordingly, "That the word 'thirty' stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 159; Noes, 56.—(Division List, No. 136.)
  And, it being after Midnight, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [5th February] further adjourned till Monday next.
  FOREIGN PRISON MADE GOODS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  KINGSTOWN HARBOUR ROADS TRANSFER BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  LAW OF EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL CASES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  On the Motion "That this Bill be now read a Second time,"
  MR. KEARLEYobjected to the Bill being proceeded with at that hour. It was an important Measure, dealing with the whole of Her Majesty's Forces on land and sea, at home and abroad, and it was entitled to a proper discussion. The Bill dealt with soldiers, sailors and marines, and as a large portion of his constituents were members of one or other of the Services he naturally was interested in the Measure. When he mentioned that such an important subject as courts martial was raised it would be recognised that this was not an occasion when they could adequately discuss the matter. Dealing with the question of courts martial there had been a great amount of evidence—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman can deal with that particular question when the Bill is in Committee. He cannot go into questions of detail now.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that he merely wanted to mention generally the question of courts martial.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter of detail and not the general question.
  MR. KEARLEYdesired to point out that the Judge Advocate General no longer existed and the responsibility of re-hearing the judgments of the courts martial was to be committed now to a Judge, over whose action the House had no control.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question before the House is whether there shall be a general Code governing the Army. A discussion of the details of the Measure would be more properly discussed in Committee.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he understood that on a Second Reading Motion he was at liberty to discuss the whole area of the Bill. His constituents were much interested in the matter, and he thought hon. Members were entitled to ask that the Second Reading should be deferred until they had had an opportunity of studying a Measure of this importance. The hon. Member moved, "That the Debate be now adjourned," but Mr. Speaker, being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the House.
  MR. LOUGHappealed to the Government to postpone the Second Reading.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the request was most unreasonable. This was the annual Bill brought in maintaining the discipline of the Army and Navy. There was no change in it last year and there was no change this year, and no question arose upon it that the House need discuss.
  MR. W. WOODALLsaid that, having had that assurance, he hoped his hon. Friends would not oppose the Second Reading, notwithstanding the bad example set in regard to a similar Measure by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite when the position of Parties was reversed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Monday next.
  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 2nd April.
  COUNTY COUNCILS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT AND INCORPORATED BUILDING SOCIETIES (PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 5th May.
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Standing Committee on Trade, etc. [17th February] further adjourned till Monday next.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 29th March.
  MERSEY CHANNELS BILL.
  Read a Second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  TRUCK ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 25th March.
  LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY,in moving "That this House do now adjourn," gave notice that to-morrow he would move the suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule, not because he at all contemplated a prolonged sitting after Twelve o'clock, but because it was the last day for getting through certain financial business, which he believed would be accomplished long before the magic hour of midnight; but he wished to guard against possible accident.
  MR. LOUGHasked what were the Votes it was essential to get through, and would
  1008
  the right hon. Gentleman mention the business for Monday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the Votes were, if he remembered correctly: Vote 1 for the Navy; a small Supplementary Vote for the Army; Vote la ought also to be taken for the Navy; and there was the Ways and Means Resolution. The first business on Monday would be the continuation of the Committee on the Military Works (Money) Bill.
  MR. KEARLEYasked if there was an intention to take Vote 8 to-morrow?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,)said that Vote was excepted.
  MR. KEARLEYinquired if other business than Estimates would be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he proposed to follow what he thought had proved the good practice, of taking only Estimates on Friday.
  MR. J. CALDWELLasked what would be the Second Order for Monday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Second Reading of the Public Health (Scotland) Bill.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONwas understood to ask whether the Licensing Exemption (Houses of Parliament) Bill was a Government Bill?
  LORD STANLEYsaid it was not a Government Bill in any sense of the word, but was brought in by the Kitchen Committee for the benefit of the House.
  MR. KEARLEYasked whether it was intended to take the Committee stage of the Army (Annual) Bill after Twelve o'clock on time following night.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that if the hon. Gentleman would put a question on the subject down upon the Paper he would answer it tomorrow.

  MUSEUMS OF THE SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT.
  Ordered, That Mr. Donal Sullivan be discharged from the Select Committee on Museums of the Science and Art Department.
  Ordered, That Mr. Daly be added to the Committee.—(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)
  House Adjourned at Twenty-five Minutes before One o'Clock.

ISLE OF MAN (CHURCH BUILDINGS ACTS) BILL [H.L.]
THE PRIME MINISTER (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY), in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said: The object of this Bill is a very simple one. The Church Building Acts, as everyone knows, are remarkable, as many English Acts of Parliament are, for the labyrinthine intricacy of their provisions, and most erudite lawyers have difficulty sometimes in saying exactly what they mean. But in the Isle of Man there is the additional difficulty that nobody knows what Church Buildings Acts apply to the Isle of Man and what do not, so, practically, things are at a standstill because they do not know whether action can be taken under the authority of the Church Buildings Acts, or under their local Legislature. When this difficulty was brought before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners they recommended that the simple course should be taken of withdrawing the Isle of Man altogether from the operation of these Acts, of course validating any transactions which have already taken place. In accordance with that recommendation, Mr. Asquith, in the late Government, introduced a Bill to that effect, but in the crowd of more attractive and difficult legislation the Bill failed to get through. I think it was introduced twice, and I propose now to make a third effort. If the Bill dies it will be simply because it is not interesting enough. I cannot conceive that anyone can see any objection to handing over to the Legislature of the Isle of Man the management of its Church building affairs—at least the only objection I can imagine is that it may be said that it is a distinct piece of Home Rule legislation. [Laughter.]
Read a Second time (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

SURVEYORS (COUNTY DUBLIN) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYmoved that the Report of Amendments be now received.
Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid the Amendment which he proposed to move was a very simple one, and was moved after the Bill had been dealt with by the Standing Committee, and after consultation with his noble Friend who represented the Local Government Board. His noble Friend had pointed out that the Bill as drafted empowered the local authorities to do what they liked with the house, but it did not give them any authority to obtain possession of that workman's house. Consequently, at his request, he moved as an Amendment the necessary words which gave the local authority power to possess themselves of the house. Sub-section (2) of Clause 3 was as follows:—
(2.)If any such condition is broken, the local authority may, after giving the owner an opportunity of remedying the breach, if it is capable of remedy, cause the dwelling-house to be sold.
He moved after the word "sold" to insert the words:—
"And the owner shall thereupon become the tenant-at-will of the local authority."
Amendment agreed to; Bill to be Read the Third time To-morrow.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT 1881.
THE DUKE OF ABERCORNasked the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government could consent to the appointment of a Commission for Inquiry into the working of the Irish Land Act of 1881. He said that in asking this question he thought he ought to tell their Lordships

891
that a deputation of the Irish Landowners' Convention waited upon the Prime Minister last week and begged that an inquiry might be made into the Land Act of 1881. The Prime Minister then replied that he was unable to give any definite answer until he had consulted his colleagues in the Cabinet. He hoped that on the present occasion the noble Marquess might be able to give them a satisfactory answer.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My noble Friend at the head of the Government has allowed me to interpose for a few minutes. I had expected that the noble Duke who asked this question would have said something in support of it, but not having done so I am thrown back upon what I have no doubt most of your Lordships have read—the conversation which took place between a deputation of Irish landowners last week and my noble Friend at the head of the Government. My noble Friend then spoke necessarily under very great reserve. It was not possible for him to express an opinion offhand upon a proposition of that nature, and he was not in a position to express any opinion upon the Land Act or upon its workings. At the same time, my noble Friend did say some very striking things, and on the whole he certainly encouraged the landlords of Ireland to make known their case. He spoke of silence being inexpedient, and he seemed to indicate that possibly some blame might have attached to the landlords of Ireland for not having put forward their case more prominently than they had yet done. But still more, my noble Friend spoke of the ignorance which exists in England as to the Land Act and as to its working now. I rose mainly for the purpose of saying that I entirely agree with my noble Friend in these observations. It is now a good many years since I have had the honour of addressing this House upon the subject of Irish agrarian legislation, and I should have been very glad if I had never been called upon to say a word on the subject again. For a good many years I felt there was nothing to be said and nothing could be done, but I should be ashamed of myself at this crisis in the fate of the Irish landlords if I did not say a, few words on what I believe to be the truth—namely, that the people of this country have no idea of what has been and is
892
going on in Ireland or of the principles which underlie transactions in regard to the Irish Land Act. ["Hear, hear!"] Nothing could be more absurd than for any body of men, such as Irish, or English, or Scotch landlords, or any other class, to come before Parliament and say, "Our interests are suffering; our values are depreciated; we have lost a good deal of rental, and we ask you to inquire into it." Nothing could be more absurd than such a proposition if the diminution of values arose from a purely economic cause. I expected my noble Friend to tell us, what I believe to be true, that the reductions going on in Ireland now amount to more than 50 per cent. of the value in many cases—["hear, hear!"]—50 per cent. in some cases not only below the old rent, but below the rent fixed by the first Commissioners. I have myself, in many cases, suffered more than a loss of 50 per cent. on some particular farms, but then I know, and the English landlords know, that that is part of the course of nature ; that reductions arise justly and necessarily out of economic conditions. What the landlords of Ireland know is that their reductions do not happen naturally. ["Hear, hear!"] They happen out of arbitrary and licentious power given to certain individuals in Ireland to deal with their property as they please, without giving rhyme or reason for what they do. [Cheers.] That is the peculiarity of their case, and I do not think that the English people understand that to be their case—they do not understand the facts of the case. My noble Friend at the head of the Government in that conversation said that the public generally ought to be informed of what was being done by the Commissioners. Yes; but the English people should be reminded of what they have done themselves through their Government and Parliament. I never can get anybody who has not looked into these matters carefully and has not been a party to the discussions upon them to believe this most astounding fact—that in 1881 the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland, representing as it is supposed a civilised Government, handed over to three men in Ireland—I called them triumvirs at the time—falsely called Judges, for they were in no sense Judges, the power of disposing of the whole of the landed

893
property in Ireland precisely as they pleased as between landlord and tenant. [Cheers.] It was a lawless, and arbitrary, and an entirely irresponsible power, from which there was no appeal. The Irish landlords complain that their rents have been reduced 50 per cent. They have been very mercifully dealt with if they have not been reduced 100 per cent. It was equally in the power of these Commissioners—and I want to drive this into the heads of the people of this country—to deprive them of the whole of their rent. It is asserted that seine of these reductions amount practically to prairie value. I am not saying that that is the case, but I do say there is a case for inquiry. You have given an arbitrary power over the property of every Irishman connected with land in that country which you are bound to watch the operation of. If this sort of thing is allowed to go on with property we shall very soon see it extended to personal liberty and even to life. There are three great kinds of punishment in this country—punishment by fine, punishment by imprisonment, and punishment by deprivation of life. You have given to these men the complete power of fining to the extent of the complete confiscation of property both of the landlord and the tenant, for remember that the power extends to the tenant as well as to the landlord, and he is only protected by the known bias of those who administer the law. The tenants do actually complain that they are wronged; it is not only the landlords who are dissatisfied, but the tenants are equally dissatisfied, and for this reason, that it is known that these judgments rest upon no law and upon no principle that can be explained or defended. There is a circumstance about this arbitrary power that is not generally remembered. I think even my own colleagues do not remember it. I wonder whether Lord Kimberley, who was a colleague of mine, remembers it. Bad as I thought the Bill was when it was introduced, so bad that I could not be a party to it, I rejoice to say, and I have rejoiced more and more every year—bad as the Bill was when it was introduced, it was not originally so bad as it was when passed. As it left the Cabinet and as it was introduced by Mr. Gladstone, it was a Bill which did not give arbitrary power
894
to these men; it was a Bill which defined the principles on which they were to value land. Does my noble Friend remember that? [The EARL of KIMBERLEY: "I do not."] I do not think he does. [The EARL of KIMBERLEY: "No."] I have never met a human being who remembers it. Not only was it there, but Mr. Gladstone made a great fuss about it—a tremendous splash in the House of Commons. He reproached the Opposition at that time for not being willing to commit themselves to the principle, and he said, "we acknowledge it to be the duty of the Government to lay down a principle upon which these men are to act." The Commissioners were to act upon a certain principle. What was that principle? It was the principle—the common principle—by which all assessments are raised in England, that market value was to be the basis of rent. If that clause had been kept in, the law would have been comparatively harmless, for you would have a known standard to which you could refer. This is the clause:—
"A fair rent means such a rent as, in the opinion of the Court, after hearing the parties, considering all the circumstances of the case, holding and district, a solvent tenant would undertake to pay one year after another."
That is the familiar phraseology of all our assessment Acts. Assessments in England are all raised upon rateable value, and the basis of rateable value is letting value. In Scotland we levy our rates upon actual rents, in England it is called rateable value, but in both cases the assessors are bound to take as the basis of their assessment the market value of the holding. If that clause had stood it could not have been said of these men, as I say of them now, that they are not Judges, that they do not constitute a Court, that their rents are not judicial rents, but they are a revolutionary tribunal and their findings are not justified by any known principle of law. Why was the clause dropped out of the Bill? I have searched the Journals of the House of Commons and I cannot find the date exactly when the words were given up, but I do not think anybody saw what the effect of the elimination of the words would be. The Government found that the Irish Members, with whom they wished to curry favour, disliked the

895
very idea of a letting, or market values being taken, as the foundation for the action of the Commissioners. Irishmen like arbitrary power when they expect it to be exercised in their own favour, and they pressed the Government to give up the words, and the Government, finding it difficult to carry them through silently, let them go. The effect of that was at one blow to sever the whole rental of Ireland from the improvement of the country. Not a farthing was laid out, upon Irish land by the landlords after they discovered this. Could a greater curse be inflicted upon any agricultural country than to separate its whole rent from the improvement of the soil? ["Hear, hear!"] It has often been said, "Oh, Irish landlords never did improve." A falsehood, an absolute falsehood. [Cheers.] In 1881 the landlords made applications for loans for the improvement of their estates to the extent of upwards of a million sterling. By the end of the year they had begun to discover the trap into which they had been led, and the applications fell to £500,000 in the second year, and in the third year they disappeared altogether. No Irish landlord is now such a fool as to lay out a single shilling on land which is occupied by a tenant. I beg your Lordships to consider what is the position in which the valuators of land in Ireland are placed. The whole object of the Act of 1881 was that there should be no eviction, and therefore the Commissioners, instead of fixing a fair rent lest it should lead to an eviction, were often driven to bring down the rent to the level of the slipshod barbarism of the tenant. It is difficult to get an idea of what principle the Commissioners are working upon, but occasionally a conversation in one of the Courts, as they are called, affords a little information. I will give you two cases which I believe to be typical. One is the case of a Sub-Commissioner, before whom came a poor man with a small holding, I think of £9 a year. It had come to the knowledge of the Sub-Commissioner that the man had actually paid a short time before £170 for the holding. The Sub-Commissioner said to the man, "Why did you give such an enormous sum for this wretched piece of land." At first the tenant denied that he had bought the holding, but ultimately
896
confessed that he had. The Sub-Commissioner was inclined to be indignant with the tenant, and said,
"When you Irishmen will go about and pay these enormous amounts for wretched bits of land there is no dealing with you."
Afterwards, however, he took compassion on the man and reduced his rent 30 per cent. That is to say he fined the landlord for the folly of his tenant. [Laughter.] I will give another case. One of the evils of this law, this barbarous law as I shall never cease to call it, was this, that, although the three first Commissioners were gentlemen of high character and reputation, it was evident to me that whenever a vacancy happened there would be an appointment by the Government of the day prompted more or less by political considerations. Very fortunately nobody did die in that Commission until quite lately. My noble Friends opposite were in power, and, of course, they filled up the vacancy by a friend of their own, that is to say, by a friend of the tenants. What happened? One of the first questions which came before them was that of a tenant, who asked for a reduction of his rent.
EARL SPENCER: What year?
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Three or four years ago. It turned out that the lease dated from 1781, and everyone knows that land in Ireland then was at a lower price than now. After considering the case the new Commissioner laid down his principle in some such terms as these:—
"It is very true that he and his forefathers have been in the enjoyment of this land since 1781. It may, perhaps, have been worth more, but still we must bear in mind that the tenants have kept it in tillage. If they had not it would have gone back; therefore he ought to be paid for that "
—for cultivating his own land! This was one of the new Sub-Commissioners, appointed, of course, by the Party opposite. There was, however, an appeal to the whole triumvirate, and they were shocked with the conduct of their brother, and his decision was over ruled. They made something like an indignant protest against the action of the new Commissioner. That is the way your law is working, and that is the way it will work unless, it is amended. Whenever there is a vacancy in the Commission there will be pressure put on the Government of the day to appoint a man of their

897
own kidney, whether towards the landlords or tenants. It will be political jobbery from beginning to end. ["Hear, hear!"] That is what you have, by this horrid law, stereotyped and imposed upon the Irish people for ever. Look at the elections for Members of the House of Commons. Is it not notorious that the tenants are voting for the men who they think will appoint Commissioners who will reduce their rents? Was there ever such an element of corruption introduced into the blood of any people. ["Hear, hear!"] I must refer for a moment to the vote of this House. I was not present last year—I was ill—when the discussion took place. I regretted very much that my noble Friend at the head of the Government and his colleagues had not determined that in their new Bill they would restore to the Act some such clause as that which Mr. Gladstone had so improperly let go. That would have been no repeal of the Act, but I could not get some of my Irish Friends to understand its importance. Several of them told me that they would not like the Commissioners to have the power to decide what reduction should be made from the market value. They have that power now; and not only that, they first find out the value, and what the reductions are to be besides. [Laughter.] However, in this House my noble Friend succeeded in securing this, that the Commissioners were to state what the value was. He did not, indeed, dictate, as Mr. Gladstone intended to dictate, but he did require them to give the grounds and the principles on which they proceeded. That was carried by a large majority in this House, and it went in the direction of restoring the principles of civilisation and of restoring the principle of a really legal judgment to the Courts of the Commission. It is still, however, in the breast of the Judges entirely to fix the rent, and I am very much afraid that that clause which you ultimately agreed to has not produced the effect that was anticipated. The "pink paper," which at first I did not understand, is intended to show the grounds of the valuation of the Commissioners, but it does not give the data which would enable you to judge. Here is a case of 32 acres, of which 20 is good arable land. All that the Commissioner enters on the pink paper is that
898
the land is "gravelly and clayey." There is no information here. Pure gravel is useless and pure clay also, but clay and gravel mixed may be the richest soil in the world, but this does not tell you how the facts stand. He values that at 17s. 6d. an acre. It is one of the delusions of the people of this country, which I cannot account for, that under the Act of 1881 the Irish people were secured for ever in comparatively cheap land. That is an absolute delusion. Cheap land was given to those who were holders at the time and to their families, but the dearest possible land was imposed as regards all new comers into the farms. Existing tenants were relieved from the limitations put on the selling value of tenant right. In the north of Ireland the landlords, although they had been extremely careless in allowing tenant right to rise to the degree that it did, nevertheless felt it their duty to impose limitations so that the incoming tenant should not come in a hopelessly mortgaged man. ["Hear, hear!"] On most estates there was a limitation. As far as that went it was a provision for a cheap rent for the tenant coming in. The first thing Mr. Gladstone did was to strike down that limitation. A trumpet voice was sounded in the first section of the Act—the tenant was to take the highest price he could get in the market. That was what prevented cheap land passing from one generation to another. It raised prices for those who were not in possession to the maximum. Are these not matters which should be inquired into by some means or other? Undoubtedly they are; whether by a commission—commissions are somewhat discredited at the present moment—or a Committee of this House I do not venture to say. I am disposed to think that a Committee of this House, although open to many objections—we should be told it would be a committee of landlords—yet, if it was so constituted as to examine landlords and tenants, and report upon the actual operation of the Act in this respect, it might have an important effect on the opinion of the country. I, therefore, hope that my noble Friend will act on the principle that he has laid down, that some opportunity should be given to the landlords of Ireland to make plain their case. That is not only the interest of the landlord and tenant, it is the interest

899
of all who are concerned as to constitutional government. If this precedent passes into law as to the properties of men, why may it not be extended to their lives and liberties? I hope we shall not live to see the day when my noble Friend opposite will come forward, with benignant grace, to propose some such scheme as that. In case that day should ever come, I should certainly hope that my noble Friend will afford some opportunity to the landlords of Ireland—and to the tenantry of Ireland, for they are equally dissatisfied and equally entitled to be so, because there is no principle to go upon—to see how far this legislation has worked for the benefit of the people of Ireland and for the instruction of future ages. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE PRIME MINISTER (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY): I shall not follow my noble Friend in his very interesting review of the Land Act and its working. I have often expressed in this House sentiments of a very similar character, and I have never seen any reason to change one of them; but this is not the opportunity in which I can discuss the Land Act. I am rather asked to discuss the working of the Land Act, and to furnish means of ascertaining whether in its operation and its administration it has been carried out so as to fulfil the intentions which Parliament had when they passed it. I cannot say that there is any want of case for such a request. The whole of the circumstances are to the Saxon eye somewhat inscrutable and obscure; but this at least is quite clear—that the landlords are very discontented with the working of the Act, and the tenants are also discontented with the working of the Act, and I do not know that you can say that an Act in that position is precisely working in a satisfactory manner. Therefore, if I had the other day any hesitation in accepting the proposal of my noble Friends it was not from any doubt that great cause for an investigation exists, or from being at all convinced that the great injustices that many of us foresaw are not in fact being carried into effect, but it is on account of the extreme difficulty of providing machinery by which, such an investigation could be carried on. I had to point out the other day that the machinery of a Royal Commission, as we understand it, works badly for the ascertainment of the
900
truth in highly-controverted questions. We are in the habit too much of constructing them on the happy family principle, under which persons differing as much as possible are put into the same room and told to agree. [Laughter.] I do not think that in highly-controverted questions that method of investigation is likely to be successful. Unluckily this question has been now for 25 years before us, and it has been intensely controverted, and I imagine it is very difficult to find anybody in public administration, or anybody in public life whose opinions are not already well known, or, at least, whose opinions cannot be diverted from the surroundings in which he has lived. Therefore, if a Commission was constructed of persons to whom that would apply, it would inevitably be said that we were appointing a packed Commission. I feel I am unable to give at present a definitive answer. I will not bind the Government not to appoint a Commission, but at this moment, I frankly confess I have not been able to see my way to a Commission that would be satisfactory; but I wish to reserve full liberty to the Government at a somewhat later period to enter on an investigation of that kind if in its judgment the public interest can be served by it. As to the other modes of investigation to which my noble Friend has referred, I think it is easy to give a simpler answer. I think a Committee of this House would, no doubt, not be able to examine with anything like generality or width into the whole area. of the question referred to; but still, when a number of noble Peers assert to us that, these grievances exist, and that an Act passed by this House is not carried out in the way in which it was intended to be carried out, and that they think that, an investigation of these suggestions is desirable, I think they have a right to ask it, and I do not think we ought to refuse it. If my noble Friends behind me choose to move for a Committee, and will undertake a Committee in this matter, the Government will not resist them; but I do not say for a moment that I look upon an investigation of that kind as an adequate substitute for an investigation by an effective Royal Commission. My doubt, is that, an effective—a perfectly impartialx2014;Commission can at this moment be established, but, I have not the least doubt that a certain amount of aid will result from a Committee of this

901
House, as it did result from the action of a similar Committee appointed on the Motion of Lord Donoughmore 15 years ago. That statement, however, is not an answer to the question of my noble Friend. He makes no allusion to a Committee. He speaks merely of a Royal Commission. I have only to answer that, as at present advised, the Government do not see their way to the appointment of such a body, but they reserve to themselves the liberty of agreeing to such an appointment at a later period if they think it desirable. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid that in dealing with this subject he wished to look at the matter not as a landlord, but as a real lover of Ireland. He wanted to prove to their Lordships, in the first place, that in the interests of the land-owning class in Ireland were involved the interests of Ireland as a whole; in the second place, he wished to brim, before their Lordships the present condition of the land-owning class; and, in the third place, to endeavour to prove that with the ruin of the land-owning class must be bound up the absolute ruin of Ireland itself. It was a very popular and fallacious idea, which was especially held in England, that those Members of their Lordships' House who were connected with Ireland represented nothing but the landlord interest. The interest they represented was far larger. They represented the land-owning interests in all parts of Ireland, and with, those interests were bound up the interests of a very large number of people, who, though they might not be owners of land, were either directly or indirectly connected with the land. There were the mortgagees, many of whom were philanthropic and religious societies, great commercial bodies, bankers, and insurance companies, and there were the labouring classes who owed their very livelihood to their connection with the land. He agreed with the noble Duke that the position of English and Scotch landowners was entirely different to that of the Irish landowners, but, were the condition of agriculture in Ireland as depressed as it was in some parts of England and Scotland, the Irish landowners; would not say a word. They would bear the reductions forced upon them as calmly and as nobly as any other landowners; but the complaint the Irish landowners made at this
902
moment was that their rents were reduced, not because it was necessary, but simply at the will and caprice of the Sub-Commissioners. It was somewhat difficult to compare the prices of various products in different parts of the country, but he thought that he could show that agriculture in Ireland, so far from being as depressed as in England, was in a more prosperous condition, and that the prices prevailing at the present moment compared favourably with those of some ten years ago. First of all he would compare the years 1893–95 with the years 1887–89. During the latter period agriculture in Ireland was extremely depressed, and, comparing it with the former period, there had certainly been a decrease in the price of some products, such as wheat, wool, mutton, cattle, and lambs, amounting in the average to about 5 per cent.; but there had been an increase in the price of some of the other products. There had been an increase in oats, barley, hay, potatoes, butter, pork, flax, eggs, and beef. In the case of hay the increase was no less than 40 per cent., and in potatoes 23 per cent. The total average increase was 12 per cent. It was astounding, therefore, to find that in the years 1887–1889, which were acknowledged to be years of depression, an average reduction of only 10 per cent. in rents was recorded, and that in 1893–1895, when there was a decided increase, rents should have been cut down by 27·8 per cent. In view of the enormous reduction of rents by the Sub-Commissioners one would naturally suppose that the value of tenant-right had fallen in Ireland. The contrary, however, was the case. In Ulster, in the period 1882–1895, there were 2,795 cases in which over 17½ years' purchase was given for the tenant-right. On the estates in Down, Antrim and Armagh, which were managed by Mr. Henry Barton, a well-known land agent, the prices given in 1882 in 12 cases averaged 20½ years' purchase; in 1887 the average price given in 42 sales was 24 years' purchase, and in 1896 the average price in 21 sales was 20–30 years' purchase. On Mr. Wolff's estate there was a farm the rental of which was reduced in 1897 from £23 to £12, and in March, 1896, the tenant-right fetched no less than £175. It could not be denied that the tenant-right was now commanding higher prices than it

903
had commanded for many years past. To what was the extraordinary action of the Sub-Commissioners due? It was largely due to the fact that the land legislation gave no definite instructions to the Sub-Commissioners as to the way they were to proceed. ["Hear, hear!"] When he first declared in that House that the Land Bill of 1896 failed absolutely to define the duties of the Sub-Commissioners and was an ill-drafted and ill-considered Measure, he hardly expected that he would be corroborated in so short a time by no less a person than one of the leading Irish Judges, who had been Attorney General for Ireland in 1885 in the Administration then presided over by the present Prime Minister. In the Record Court, Monaghan, recently, Mr. Justice Holmes, giving his decision in an appeal case, said:—
"The 12th section of the Act has thrown all into confusion. It is a great pity they did not get someone to draft the Land Bill who knew something about the land laws. A more helpless and hopeless production I never saw."
[Laughter.] What could be the reasons why the Sub-Commissioners made such extraordinary reductions? Probably one reason was that they desired to make the Land Courts attractive to the tenants, thinking that if they were not made attractive the tenants would keep away from them, with the result that the occupation of the Sub-Commissioners, like Othello's, would be gone. The Commissioners had also probably been influenced by words used by the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the Debates last year. The right hon. Gentleman said on one occasion that rents fixed in earlier years, not were too high, but ought to be reduced if revised. Then on another occasion, in June, the right hon. Gentleman said:—
"Of course, it was the earnest desire of the tenants that they should be enabled to enter the Courts earlier than in the ordinary course, because it was admitted that if they entered the Courts again their rents would, in all probability, be fixed lower than in the first instance."
The right hon. Gentleman also observed that
"the hon. Member for East Mayo had quoted from the resolutions of the Presbyterian Assembly the words 'impossible rents' as applied to present rents. These rents doubtless would be 'impossible rents' if they were to be continued indefinitely, but no one entertained that
904
idea, for under an arrangement made by Parliament in 1881 the tenants would be entitled to come into Court in due course for the re-fixing of their rents."
While he did not for a moment believe that the Chief Secretary wished to bias the minds of the Sub-Commissioners, he could not help thinking that the utterances which he had quoted had influenced the Sub-Commissioners in their recent action. If it was not the right hon. Gentleman's intention that his words should be interpreted by the Sub-Commissioners in the way in which he suggested they had interpreted them, the right hon. Gentleman ought to make the matter clear. The Commissioners had probably also been influenced by the action of the Government in opposing the Amendment, moved in their Lordships' House with the object of forcing the Sub-Commissioners to give details and reasons for their reductions. The Sub-Commissioners had not acted in accordance with the spirit of that Amendment, for the reasons given by them were in many cases quite inadequate. In one case where the reduction was 35 per cent. no reason at all was assigned, and in another case where the rent was reduced by more than 50 per cent. the only reason given was that the holding "might receive injury from frost." [Laughter.] He wished to know whether the Government thought that the disappearance of the land-owning class would be to the advantage of Ireland. That class would certainly be eliminated if the Sub-Commissioners were allowed to multiply decisions such as those to which he had called attention. The land-owning class said very little, as the noble Marquess had pointed out on a recent occasion, when he remarked that they had not advertised their grievances.
THE PRIME MINISTER: No; I did not say that exactly. What I did say was that they were a class who did not complain, but went to the wall in these days. [Laughter.]
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYthought that amounted to much the same thing. The other day, in a speech delivered by Mr. James Wilson, a typical instance was given of the fate of Irish landowners now. He said that 20 years ago an eldest son was left an estate producing £1,000 a year, but there was a mortgage on the estate, and annuities were charged upon it, so that the son's

905
income was brought down to £500. The first time the Commission went round they made a reduction of 20 per cent., which meant a reduction of from £500 to £300 in income; and anyone could imagine the anxiety and terror of the landlord as he looked forward to the next revision, which might, leave him almost destitute. Such cases were very numerous, and were especially hard in the case of ladies, owners of small properties, with very limited incomes. Was it for the benefit of Ireland that the landlord class should be eliminated from Ireland? He said, without hesitation, it was not for the benefit of Ireland; but, on the contrary, if landlords were eliminated from Ireland, from that date might be traced the ruin and downfall of Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] At the present moment there were a certain class he—did not think they were very numerous—who would welcome the expatriation of Irish landlords. Would it be for the benefit of Ireland? Undoubtedly' it would not. No doubt their places might be taken by those who hut endeavoured to expatriate them, and, in the course of time, those who now occupied the land might be its owners but we must look a little further ahead, and he asked, would those owners be permitted to retain it? There was a class below the present occupiers, the labouring class, who possessed votes, and their argument would be simple. "You have sunk capital in the land, but we have sunk labour, and we have as much right to obtain a share of the land. We will expatriate you as you expatriated the preceding class. We have votes, and we will return Members to Parliament who will expatriate you, and we shall obtain our share of the land." A pauper proprietary would occupy what is now prosperous agricultural Ireland, it proprietary without capital, absolutely unable to develop the resources of the land, unable to give employment, absolutely unable to borrow money, for he did not suppose for a moment that England would be so utterly foolish as to pledge her credit and advance money to a ruined country for a bankrupt, industry. ["Hear, hear!"] History tells us that after a certain period of time property invariably finds its way again into few hands, and it would be so in this case, but not into the hands of owners, who, whatever might be said,
906
were respected by the Irish people, but into the hands of the gombeen men—the men who advanced money at usurious rates of interest. ["Hear, hear!"] What would be the state of Ireland then? Agricultural land gone entirely out of cultivation, for the reasons he had brought forward, and, he would venture to say, it would take a century of hard work and immense sums of money to bring back Ireland to the condition in which it is at the present moment. ["Hear, hear!"] Consequently it was absolutely essential for the interest of Ireland, putting the land-owning interest on one side, to retain a landlord class in the country. All the landlord class asked was that a Commission should be appointed merely to inquire into the facts, whether they are being justly or unjustly treated, whether it is necessary to retain them or to expatriate them. A Royal Commission, difficult though it might be to obtain, would be the means of eliciting the facts; Committee, of the House would be regarded with prejudice by the people of Ireland as representing a House of landlords. But whatever was done should be done quickly. A Commission should inquire into these extraordinary reductions of rent. If these were fair the landlord class would be the Last to object, but if they proved, as he venture I to say they would be proved, unfair, then, surely, no lover of justice in the Three Kingdoms would refuse the just rights of even an unfortunate Irish landlord. ["Hear, bear!"] The Prime Minister, at the head of so strong a majority, could do virtually what he liked; and it would be matter of keen regret to those who so loyally supported him, and worked as they did to secure that great Majority in 1895, if that great majority should prove to have been bought by the sacrifice of the land-owning interest of Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"]
VISCOUNT DE VESCIsaid he was led to interpose in the discussion by the answer given by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister had alluded to the difficulty of finding an impartial court of inquiry, and said that it was difficult to bring together impartial men on a Royal Commission, but he offered to accept, on a Motion from any one of their Lordships, what, on the whole, would be a more objectionable body for an inquiry—a Committee of the House. As had just been said by the

907
noble Marquess (Lord Londonderry), the confidence of the people would not be attracted to such a body or its Report. In the words of the resolution passed by the Landowners' Conference in Dublin, landlords and tenants are entitled to know the methods and principle adopted by the Land Commission in fixing rents. He fully indorsed that. He did not wish in any way to have the inquiry from the landlords' side only. Tenants were fully entitled to the information how rents were fixed, and landlords how they were to be reduced; but the main point was, and the cause of complaint of the operation of the Land Act was, the method and principle pursued. He desired to cast no slur on the bonâ fides and honesty of the Sub-Commissioners, who, no doubt, were exposed to great temptation, from the fact that their appointments were temporary and the applications came mainly from the tenants, and they made their business from them but what he did believe, and allege, was, that the class of Sub-Commissioners now appointed were not, from their previous careers, capable of fixing the value of land on true principles. The Prime Minister alluded to the difficulty of forming a Commission of impartial men; but there were experts and professional gentlemen fully capable of conducting an inquiry, or, if not, of giving evidence before a Commission, but he would prefer they should be members of the Commission, in order to put test questions as to the method employed in valuing land, and who, from their own experience in valuing land in England and Scotland, knew the true principle on which valuation should proceed. He did not desire to trouble their Lordships at length; he put forward this suggestion in the hope that the Government would consider the propriety of appointing a Commission of experts. He hoped that a motion for a Committee of their Lordships' House would not be made.
THE EARL OF ERNEendorsed the appeal for immediate attention being given to this subject, and gave instances which had come within his knowledge illustrating what was now going on in Ireland in relation to land tenure. These instances occurred on an estate which was certainly not rackrented, an estate which, in former days, was held to be a model
908
of what a well, liberally-managed, low-rented estate should be, an estate rented at 14 per cent. below Griffiths' valuation. In 1881 a farm on the estate was rented at £26; the tenant went into the Land Court, and the rent was reduced to £22. At the end of the statutory term a fresh application was made to the Court, and a further reduction was made to £16. On the same estate, and almost at the same time, the tenantright or goodwill of a farm, held under a judicial rent of £17, was put up for auction, and was sold for £380, a fraction under 23 years' purchase, and the occupier now paid £14 or £15 a year, for it was not to be supposed that he borrowed under 4 per cent. for the privilege of holding a farm for which he paid another £17 in rent. In the face of sales of tenantright like this, how could the enormous reductions in rent be justified? There could be no doubt that, under the operation of the Land Act, Ireland was fast becoming more rackrented than in the days before the Land Act passed. Who was benefited by this? Not the landlords, who, in many instances, were saddled with impoverished tenants; certainly not the incoming tenants, who in many cases—perhaps in nine cases out of ten—had to borrow money from the gombeen men at enormous rates of interest; certainly not the community at large, who were interested in land being farmed to the best advantage. The only man who was benefited was the outgoing tenant, who departed for America or the colonies with the money which should be applied to the development of the resources of the land of Ireland. In illustration of the necessity for inquiry, he might mention that there was a widespread feeling in Ireland that in giving these enormous reductions the Commissioners allowed a large sum of money for what was called the "occupation interest." He had looked through all those pink schedules which had been issued and withdrawn, and he found no mention of "occupation interest" in them; nor in filling up the schedules had any of the Sub-Commissioners, he believed, made any allusion to the "occupation interest." But if it was not for that they were given, on what account were these enormous reductions made? Certainly they were not due to any fall in prices, although there might have been

909
a certain fall since the Act was passed. With regard to the form of the inquiry to be held, he agreed with the noble Lord who spoke last that a Committee of their Lordships' House would not be the best form. If it were possible to appoint a small committee of experts, say three or five, taken from the class his noble Friend had indicated, he believed it would be the most satisfactory solution of this question. But, whatever was done, he hoped it would be done at once, because this was a matter which brooked of no delay. Precedents were being established which would have a disastrous effect on the whole of the landed property throughout Ireland, and, if they were to save the landlords from the ruin that was impending, whatever they did must be done quickly.
EARL SPENCER: I do not propose to enter into a defence of the Land Act of 1881 or of the Land Act which was passed last year by Her Majesty's Government, but I should like to make one or two observations with regard to statements made by various speakers. The noble Marquess opposite has spoken of what he appears to fear to be the approaching ruin of Irish landlords. I agree with much the noble Marquess has said as to the influence which one class in Ireland has on another, just as one class in England has on other classes who live on the land. But when we hear of the approaching ruin by the reductions of rent of the landlords in Ireland, I would venture to point out that exactly the same thing might be said of the landlords of this country. ["Hear, hear!"] This comes home to me with great force as an English proprietor of land of some extent, and though I cannot go into the deductions that have been made in Ireland, I know that in this country the deductions since 1879 far exceed, on the great bulk of estates, the deductions quoted by the noble Marquess. The deductions are enormous. I know estates where certainly the net rental has diminished over 60 per cent. I know others where a large diminution in the net rental has taken place. That is, larger than any deductions that have been quoted from Ireland. I am not for a moment going to say that the position is exactly the same, but at the same time, if you are talking of the coming ruin of landlords in Ireland on account of the heavy reductions of rent, I am
910
afraid the same argument will apply with equal force to the landlords in England. We hear a great deal of prairie rental in Ireland. I will venture to say that on estate after estate in England the present rent which the landlord receives is only an interest, and a low interest, on the improvements which he and his immediate predecessors have made on the estate, and that he practically gets no rent from the land at all. I do not wish to pursue this subject, but I only thought it was right to give a note of warning. I do not wish to do it with any disrespect to the Irish landlords. I fully admit, and I always have admitted, that there are many Irish landlords who have done their duty to their tenantry as well as any English or Scotch landlords—["hear, hear!"]—but I thought it as well to point this out, otherwise a very false impression might arise. The noble Duke opposite made some very strong remarks indeed with regard to the Land Commissioners in Ireland. He talked of them as "falsely called Judges," and, though I could hardly believe my ears, I rather thought he called their action arbitrary and licentious. ["Hear, hear!"] I should have liked to ask the noble Duke, who I am sorry to see is not now in his place, to point out where the license in their action has been, and I should like to know who these Commissioners are. The noble Duke did do honour to the three first of these Commissioners. They were submitted to Parliament, and he apparently approved of them. I happened to know them very well when I was in Ireland from 1882 to 1885, but he said that the appointment of their successors had been a series of—I think he used the expression—political jobs from beginning to end. I should like to know who has appointed the present Commissioners. Two out of the three who were new to him had been appointed by the Government presided over by the noble Marquess. ["Hear, hear!"] I think it is only fair to the Land Commissioners to answer those statements of the noble Duke. With regard to the question on the Paper, I should like to say that the noble Duke with great diplomacy alluded only to the Land Act of 1881, and not to the most recent Land Act. No doubt he avoids some pitfalls in asking his question by putting it in that form, but I would venture to lay this

911
down, that it is impossible at this time of day to discuss the principles or the administration of the Act of 1881 without discussing the principles and the administration of the Act of last Session. I rejoice to hear that the noble Marquess does not intend to appoint a Commission at present, and he gave some very weighty reasons for it. My friends on the Bench where I sit would certainly oppose with all the strength we have—we have very little power, I confess—in this House the appointment of a Commission or of a Committee, especially of this House, to inquire into the administration of the Land Acts. It seems to me that you are doing what children sometimes do—pulling up a plant to see how it is going on. That process kills the plant, and I hope the noble Marquess will not attempt to follow that example in this case. I will venture to say our great object should be to strengthen and make as impartial as possible this tribunal, which is, after all, a judicial body. I venture to think that by having these inquiries time after time, and immediately after an Act is passed, you throw a considerable odium on the Commissioners, and you destroy their impartiality and their position. You must remember this—that if one side attacks these Judges the other side will do the same, and they will be put in an exceedingly invidious position, derogatory, I think, to their judgments and to the position which they ought to hold as Land Commissioners in Ireland.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNsaid he had not intended taking any part in the Debate until he had his attention drawn to the remark of the noble Earl Spencer, in which he compared the condition of English landlords with that of Irish landlords. He well remembered that when he asked a question in their Lordships' House on, he thought, the 17th of last July, he pointed out the substantial difference between the case of the English and of the Irish landlords. In Ireland the reductions were made on grass land as well as on other lands, while in England, if he understood the case correctly, the great reductions were made, broadly speaking, on wheat land and not on grass land; and on that occasion he did not remember that there was any dispute as to the facts and figures which he laid before their Lordships. It seemed
912
to him a most extraordinary thing to have the Prime Minister of England, in answer to a request for an inquiry into the working of the Act of 1881, declaring as an excuse for not granting it immediately that there was very great difficulty in finding men who could be trusted to impartially deal with this matter. That was one of the most extraordinary declarations he supposed he should ever hear in that House. He should have thought that there were so many people in England who wanted to do justice, that the difficulty would be to select them. It was here simply a case of the Act of 1881 having gone astray in the working. He did not wish, any more than other noble Lords, to reflect on the honour or ability of the Sub-Commissioners. He dare say they did their duty to the very best of their ability; but he wanted to ask, when they found a concensus of opinion amongst some of the most learned people in Ireland on Irish land matters, that there was great difficulty in reading what the law actually was and how it could be carried out, was it wonderful if they found men who were not learned in these matters, who found it really difficult to know how they could keep themselves within the four corners of the Act? He earnestly hoped that if any inquiry were granted it would not be made by a Committee of their Lordships' House, because he felt that the responsibility of the decision should rest on people against whom it could not be said, however wrong it might be to say it, that they were landlords, and, therefore, biassed in their decision.
The EARL of KIMBERLEYsaid that the noble Viscount seemed to think there had not been large reductions upon grass land in England. Though he did not come from a district where grass land was plentiful, he knew that the reductions of the rents of some of the best grass lands in England had been extremely large.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: Are those reductions for 15 years?
The EARL of KIMBERLEYsaid that, speaking as a landlord, he would be extremely glad if he saw any probability of an early change which would be likely to bring back the rents they had received previously. The only other remark he wished to make was as to the

913
observation of the noble Marquess that in many cases the tenants complained of the decisions as well as the landlords. Was that not an argument in favour of the partiality of the Commissioners? There was nothing better known than that, in matters of this kind, when neither party was satisfied, the probability was that the best decision had been arrived at.
THE PRIME MINISTER: Is it not possible that a decision is in one direction in one case and in another direction in another case?
VISCOUNT CLIFDENsaid the case of England was altogether different to that of Ireland. In England, reductions were the visitation of God, and were arrived at by bargain between the landlord and tenant, but in Ireland the reductions were made by a most unprincipled tribunal. He said this wittingly and willingly, he might almost say, on the instructions of the noble Marquess at the head of the Government. [A laugh.] The noble Marquess had said they were to speak out. He meant to speak out. [The PRIME MINISTER: "Hear, hear!"] In England if the sun shone and prices improved rents would go up. In Ireland never under the iniquitous Land Commission. A more improper tribunal for the purpose than the Land Commission was never thought of. They would like a commission of experts, but, if that was not obtainable, he hoped the noble Duke would move for a Committee, for that, at all events, would elicit some information.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid the noble Lord professed to be carrying out the advice given by the noble Marquess. He did not understand that advice to be that the Irish landlords should abuse the land tribunals; but that was what the noble Lord had done in very strong and vigorous language. The noble Marquess suggested that the Irish landlords should make known their wrongs, but wrong was not established by the use of strong language in regard to those who had to administer the law. ["Hear, hear!"]
The DUKE of ABERCORN, in reply, said he thought an Inquiry by Commission, whether Royal or not, would be far preferable to an Inquiry by a Committee of their Lordships' House, and he suggested that the best Commission that
914
could be found would be a Commission of three Irish Judges. What was wanted was an Inquiry that would elicit sound evidence. Get true evidence from the witnesses; and he could not but think that the most powerful Commission would be one such as he suggested.
The EARL of ARRANsaid it was very necessary that the Inquiry should take place speedily, for it was not only that rents were being reduced every day, but that tenants, in view of the enormous reductions being made, refused to come to any settlement out of Court. That added greatly to the expense of the litigation which must take place on every estate, and which the landlords of Ireland were badly able to bear.
House Adjourned at Twenty-five Minutes past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'Clock.