Sitting of 30 March 1897

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  As amended, considered.

  PART IV. — FRANCHISE.
  21. From and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, the fifth section of the Dublin Corporation Act 1849 shall he repealed, and instead thereof he it enacted that the name of the occupier of any house, warehouse, counting-house, or shop within the borough of Dublin, the owner or immediate lessor of which is primarily liable to pay the poor rates leviable in respect of such premises shall be inserted in the rate-hooks, and the guardians of the poor, the Collector-General of Rates, or any other person or persons making out or striking any such poor rate, shall enter in the occupier's column of the rate-books the name of the occupier of such premises, and such occupier shall thereupon, so far as regards the qualification for the franchise conferred by the said Act or any of the recited Municipal Acts in relation to the municipal franchise in the said borough, be deemed to be rated in respect of the said premises.
  MR. EDWARD CARSON (Dublin University)said that he rose to move the omission of Clause 21. There were a number of Amendments standing on the Paper in his name, but they were all practically involved in the first Amendment. He objected to all the franchise clauses which altered the existing franchise of the Dublin Corporation. The Bill was a private Bill for regulating the price, to be paid for water as between the Dublin Corporation and various surrounding townships, and a portion of the Bill dealt with certain matters connected with the Fire Brigade. Opportunity had been taken of inserting in this private water Bill clauses dealing with the franchise of the Dublin Corporation—a matter which had nothing to do with the object of the Bill as promoted. Last year a similar Bill was introduced, and franchise clauses were inserted, but the House of Lords eventually threw out the franchise clauses. Without these franchise clauses certain hon. Members objected to the Bill, and it was lost altogether.

  83
  It was unfortunate that in these private Bills, dealing with purely local matters— which ought to be kept altogether apart from burning questions of controversy— year after year these questions of franchise should be introduced to the peril of the main object of the Bills. On the present occasion the franchise clauses would practically destroy altogether the very small Unionist minority which was represented upon the Corporation. ["Hear, hear!"] At the present time the Corporation of Dublin consisted of 60 members, of whom 49 were Nationalists and 11 were Unionists; and he should have thought that, having regard to the fact that Unionists paid a very large proportion of the rates of Dublin, even Nationalists would not have objected to a very small minority representation. ["Hear, hear!"] There were only sufficient Unionists on the Corporation to represent the views of those who differed from the great majority. The Nationalist majority could elect whom they pleased for the various offices; they could adopt whom they pleased for Lord; Mayor, and pay him a salary largely contributed by the Unionists. But the Nationalists were not satisfied that there; should be any Unionist representation at all on the Corporation—[Nationalist cries of "Oh!"]—and with that view they introduced last year certain franchise clauses into a Water Bill, and they now proposed to repeat the experiment in this Bill, if that were not the fact, he wanted to know why this Nationalist Corporation introduced these clauses at all! ["Hear, hear!"] At the present moment the franchise was given to all occupiers of any rateable tenement whatsoever, but; when the burgess roll came to be made; but, any name could be objected to which had not been upon the rate book for a period of 12 months. In all cases where the rateable value of a tenement was over £8, the names of the occupiers were put upon the burgess roll, whether they were entitled to be on or not, and very often considerable expenditure was incurred in having the names which ought, not to have been put on struck off. The present Bill proposed that the Collector-General and other persons who had the right to frame these lists, should put on every person whom they found in occupation, irrespective of their qualifications, how long they had been in occupa-
  84
  tion, or whether their rates had been paid or not. The result would be that upon this burgess list there would be hundreds, perhaps thousands, of persons who were simply weekly tenants, moving about from time to time; and the only way to get them struck off would be by the Unionist registration Societies serving notice, which must be heard before the assessors, after considerable delay and at great expense. There would be an impossible state of things created if these clauses were allowed to pass. For one Parliamentary Division of Dublin it cost £1,000 a year to keep bogus names off the burgess list, and they might imagine what it would cost to get the names off the lists for all the other divisions of the City. ["Hear, hear!"] The present system had worked well since 1849, and gave, a large majority to the Nationalists, but if this proposal were adopted it would be absolutely impossible, even at great expense, to deal with these small occupiers, who would be put upon the lists, and the few remaining Unionists upon the Corporation would be absolutely swamped. Under these circumstances he could do nothing but oppose these franchise clauses. Before the Committee there had not been a single word of discussion about these franchise clauses, and under these circumstances he asked the House to omit Clause 21.
  Mr. T. M. HEALYsaid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had told the House that the clauses in the Bill to which he objected proposed to put upon the burgess list of the City of Dublin persons who had not paid their rates, but he had not informed the House that he had himself given notice of his intention to move the omission of the very clauses which required persons to pay their rates before they could be qualified to be placed upon the list. It was scarcely fair for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to take that course, and then to complain that the Bill would enable those who had not paid their rates to be placed upon the list. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had also said that this was a proposal to sweep away altogether the Unionist minority upon the Corporation, but last year he had proposed a scheme under which the Unionist minority would have been preserved. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, had come down to that

  85
  House and had opposed that proposal. The franchise proposals in the Bill had not been inserted in that House or by the Committee upstairs. They had been inserted in the Measure with the approval of the great majority of the citizens of Dublin when the Bill was originally framed, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman objected to them he should have opposed the Second Reading of it. What would happen to this Measure, if the clauses to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman now objected were rejected. Why, the Bill would undoubtedly be lost. He had offered to the Conservative Party to introduce into the Bill his minority clauses of last year, but in doing so he had received no encouragement, from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Let them go high or low, they could not please the Conservative Party, and they would not even put for-trusted that the Measure as it stood ward any proposition of their own. He would receive the sanction of Her Majesty's Government. There was nothing to prevent the Conservative Party from obtaining a locus standi when the Bill came before the House of Lords, when they could be heard by counsel. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. T. HARRINGTONsaid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Carson) was entirely in error in stating that the Bill would alter in any way, even by a vote, the representation of the burgesses on the burgess list of the City of Dublin. The only difference his proposal made, and he contended that it was dishonest to attempt to make it, was that when a man claimed he must lose his day's work in order to go to the Court to establish his claim. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Party were taking advantage of that. If the Unionist Party in the City of Dublin had really nothing else to depend upon than this mere trick by which they propsed to deprive a certain class of the burgesses from getting on the burgess list without having to serve a claim that year, then he did not think it would commend itself very strongly to the citizens. [Nationalist Cheers.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of preserving the Unionist minority in the Dublin Corporation. The Unionist minority had this scheme before them and approved of it, but afterwards they
  86
  altered their opinion with regard to it. He had not been opposed to the Unionist minority having a fair representation. On the contrary he was strongly in favour of every Ward in the City having at least one Unionist representative, and time after time he had endeavoured to impress that fact upon his Friends. By it he thought they would get a much more desirable class of Unionist representation, by men representing the business and commerce of the City. They were entirely opposed to the business of the City being conducted on party and political lines, but it was because they would keep alive that system of party warfare in the different Wards that he should most strongly oppose the proposals of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be under the impression that, no matter how short a period of time a man occupied a house, he was entitled to get on under this arrangement; but such was not the case. The Bill did not alter the existing law; it was only the inclusion of a different number of persons in the operation of the law. He appealed to the House to agree to the proposals, inasmuch as by them there was not a single man added to the register who would not have had the franchise before. The qualification was in no way altered, and all that was done was to simplify the process of registration and make it automatic. [Nationalist Cheers.]
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid the point he wished to put before the House for its serious consideration was whether a private Bill, introduced for the purpose of increasing the water supply of a town, was the proper occasion for an abstract discussion like that they were engaged in. The House had a right to ask whether its time should be taken up day after day by the intrusion of these political matters into the ordinary private, legislation of the House. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid perhaps he might be allowed to intervene in the character of one, who for a very long time had been a resident burgess and taxpayer in the City of Dublin. In that capacity he earnestly pressed the House not to accede to the Motion of the right hon. and

  87
  learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University. He regretted, for the sake of Ireland generally, that the right hon. Gentleman could no longer be classed as a resident or taxpayer in Dublin. They regretted that as almost a national loss.
  MR. CARSON: I do pay taxes in Dublin.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMTHILLsaid the right hon. Gentleman had misconceived the object of these clauses which did not extend, or attempt in any way to alter, municipal franchise. They were altogether clauses of procedure framed for the purpose of getting rid of what had been felt to be a crying grievance. In order to qualify to be a burgess, the premises which were occupied must be rated premises and the rates must be paid. According to the existing practice when the premises were valued under £8, the occupier's name was not to be on the list at all. Very often it was impossible to tell who the owner was. The object of this Bill was to assist the proper officer to easily ascertain the name of the person actually in occupation of premises under £8, and enable that person to get the franchise in case it should be proved that the rates were paid. As the case stood now, these occupiers were frequently disfranchised, because the land-lord did not trouble, himself to pay the rates in time. Following the precedent of the English Municipal law, the franchise was extended to women, and very properly in his opinion. In the case of the Belfast Bill, and the Londonderry Bill, municipal and franchise clauses had been inserted into private Bills. Last year the minority clauses were struck out in that House, but the franchise clauses went up to the House of Lords and were struck out there under a Standing Order. They all knew that year after year promises had been given by one Government and another to remedy the defects in the Irish municipal law, but the matter was still indefinitely postponed. No reasonable argument had been advanced why the House should not endorse what the Select Committee had done. As to the objection which had been put forward in regard to the Unionist minority in the
  88
  corporation, he thought the House would fail in its dignity if it rejected a Measure otherwise unobjectionable merely on the suggestion of a supporter of a particular party, that that party might be injured by it.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONhoped the House would not reject these clauses which included one conferring the franchise on duly qualified women, and was inserted in consequence of the Instruction to the Committee which he had carried in the House. These clauses had been approved by the Committee which had considered the Bill. He ventured, on this occasion, to associate himself with hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Irish Cheers]. Belfast enjoyed a practical assimilation of the Municipal and Parliamentary Franchises, and women could there vote in municipal elections. He thought the proposals in these clauses were fair and reasonable.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central)said it was not the intention of the Government as a Government to take sides in this discussion or to attempt to influence the votes of hon. Members. Speaking for himself only he should support the Amendment —[Cries of "Oh"] —moved by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University. He did not take this course on the grounds urged by his right hon. Friend the Member for the Thanet Division. He admitted there were grave inconveniences in introducing such clauses into private, Bills. But that objection if it were to be taken should have been taken on the Second Reading stage and not on the Report stage.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid he did not raise that objection as a point of order.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid in the second place both sides of the House were to blame if blame were to be assigned anywhere in regard to this matter. Last year he had himself on behalf of the Government, opposed an Instruction which introduced this principle, and on that, occasion he was opposed by no less an authority in matters of propriety and order than the right hon. Gentleman the

  89
  hon. Member for the Bodmin Division, and he had the greatest difficulty in carrying his own Party with him on that occasion. Under these circumstances he could not support his right hon. Friend in opposing these clauses on the mere ground that this was a private Bill. So far as he personally was concerned on the other occasions when franchise clauses had been introduced into private Bills for Ireland, he had not raised any voice of dissent, but on all those occasions the effect of the franchise clauses which it was proposed to introduce, was to give representation to those who did not possess fair representation. Was that the case on the present occasion? The hon. and learned Member for Louth had admitted that Dublin was a fair case where minority representation would in itself be reasonable.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes, and the right hon. Gentleman did not support me when I proposed it last year.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he did not support the proposal on the ground, as he had already explained, that he had objected to a similar proposal when made in the case of Belfast. He had acted in the matter with perfect consistency. The hon. and learned Gentleman had admitted by his action that Dublin would be a suitable case for the adoption of minority representation. It appeared to him that the registration law in Dublin was very complicated and he was not quite sure that he understood it. But it appeared that the existing state of the law did give to the minority in Dublin the opportunity of obtaining representation which those clauses if they were passed would take away; and therefore on the broad and general ground that a representation less just than the present would result in Dublin, he would support the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, the Member for Dublin University.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid he thought the speech to which they had just listened the most reactionary they had heard from the right hon. Gentleman who officially represented Ireland in the House of Commons. They had gradually become accustomed to the attitude of benevolent neutrality which was now the favourite attitude of the right hon. Gentleman when any Irish proposal was made. And that from a
  90
  right hon. Gentleman who as he himself had declared had come into office with the determination to kill Home Rule with kindness! Those clauses proposed to do for the City of Dublin what had been done for every municipality in England by public and general Acts thirty years ago. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was a technical and complicated matter and that he was not quite sure he understood it. But it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman, holding as he did the responsible post of Chief Secretary for Ireland, to master the, subject and to give the House light and guidance in the matter. He was amazed that the right hon. Gentleman should have opposed those clauses. English Members would be familiar with their effect when he described them as compound householder clauses. It was put to the House as if the clauses were political clauses and as if they involved some question as between Nationalists and Conservatives. They did nothing of the kind. They were an attempt to give the poor man an interest in Municipal matters—to confer on the poor householders of Dublin a right which the rich householder there had long enjoyed, and which the Prince of Wales' Committee recommended seven years ago. The Bill did not confer the franchise on any single individual who had not at present a right to the franchise. Under the existing law the poor householder must lodge his claim and prove it in the Law Courts and the only thing those clauses did was to give the franchise automatically and to dispense with that necessity. The present state of the law in the City of Dublin was a gross scandal, as anyone would see who compared the existing burgess roll with the population, and then examined the state of things in that respect which existed in English towns. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet had said it was a scandal that Irishmen should be continually occupying the time of the House at private business with proposals dealing with the Municipal franchise. But the fact that those proposals had been made over and over again was a censure on the House for its neglect of Irish interests. The reform of the Irish Municipal franchise had come up for consideration many times in the House. In 1880 the Liberal

  91
  Party put the reform of the Irish Municipal franchise in the forefront of their programme, but the reform had not come yet and it was only by the action of individual Irish corporations in embodying reform schemes in private Bills that any improvement in the condition of things had been secured, with the result that there was hardly a corporation in Ireland that had not its Municipal franchise regulated by private Acts. Two years ago his hon. Friend the Member for North Louth succeeded in passing an Irish Franchise Bill through the House of Commons, but the first action of the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was to move the rejection of that Bill in the House of Lords and to have it thrown out. The action of the Chief Secretary in opposing those clauses was enough to drive Irishmen into the consideration that nothing but bombs and dynamite would get reform for Ireland.
  MR. RICHARD M. DANEsaid that he would not support the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University if he thought it would deprive any working man in Dublin of his municipal vote. But it was not so much a question of the alteration of the law as the alteration of the situation. Under the 21st Clause the Registrar General would have imposed upon him the duty of placing upon the voters' list the name of every person returned to him as in occupation, and when that name was placed on the list the person was entitled to remain on as a voter until he was put off by an objection.
  MR. TIMOTHY HARRINGTONsaid the duty of the Registrar General was not to put on everybody in occupation. The person put on must be the person in occupation of the rating. For instance, a person in occupation of a portion of a house or a room, could not be put on the list.
  MR. DANEsaid that there was probably no person in the United Kingdom who so thoroughly understood the Registration laws, as the hon. Member for the Harbour Division. He could understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to maintain the franchise clauses of the Bill because by them there would be put on the voters' lists, several thousand voters about whose occupation right the Registrar General would have no evidence.
  92
  The result would be that the Unionist Party in Dublin, of which he was an humble member, would be obliged to serve several thousand fresh objections. The rejection of the clauses would inflict a hardship on no man. Every man in occupation for twelve months was entitled to be on the list, and if he was not on the list all his Party had to do was to serve a claim for him.
  MR. W. FIELDsaid that the right hon. Member for Dublin University last year voted against the Bill because it contained no franchise clauses; and now the right hon. Gentleman voted against it because it did contain franchise clauses.
  MR. CARSON: The hon. Member is in error. I assisted to strike out such franchise clauses as were in last year's Bill.
  MR. W. FIELDsaid that when the Bill came from the Lords with the franchise clauses expunged, the right hon. Gentleman voted against it. It was evidently difficult to please the right hon. Gentleman. Ever since the Unionist Government came in, the Irish Members had been invited to bring in a Bill dealing with Municipal Franchise; but whenever they did, their proposals were always resisted by the Unionists. The Franchise in Dublin was very limited, and the desire was simply to obtain the same conditions as obtained in English municipalities. These franchise clauses had been placed before the citizens of Dublin, and were supported by the Unionist members of the Corporation.
  MR. CARSON: As I understand, they repented of it afterwards.
  MR. FIELDsaid that there was such a thing as contrition being too late. The Corporation had suffered a great hardship for many years by the Bills having been defeated on all sorts of frivolous objections, and by having been compelled to spend so much money in promoting successive Bills. He hoped the House would pass the Third Reading.
  MR.J. COMPTON RICKETTsaid that in the Select Committee before which the Bill came there was no opposition to the franchise clauses. The Bill was not in the ordinary sense a water Bill. It reconciled certain complicated differences between the Dublin Corporation and the

  93
  surrounding townships as to the water supply, but it was practically an omnibus Bill. The corporation had been before the House of Commons twice and before the House of Lords on the question, and they were entitled to some consideration. He did not know whether the House felt called upon to support its own committee—[Cheers]—but he was surprised at the attitude of the Chief Secretary, and he hoped that Unionist Members generally would be disposed to allow the corporation to get their Bill through, and not to drive the corporation back on the conviction that questions of this kind would be better treated in Dublin. [Cheers.]
  MR. JAMES O'CONNORrose to move the Adjournment of the Debate, in order to give the Chief Secretary an opportunity of considering whether he would support the Bill without the franchise clauses.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I could not accept that Motion. The Chief Secretary has stated his views as a private Member, and for the hon. Member, after the Debate has begun to draw to a close, to move the Adjournment of the Debate in order to allow the right hon. Member to have the opportunity of reconsidering his views would be an abuse of the rules of the House. [Cheers].
  MR. T. M. HEALY: On the point of order, Sir. There are five or six clauses remaining to be discussed, and there is a very important Debate coming on. We shall be entitled to discuss every one of those clauses unless the Motion for Adjournment be carried.
  MR. T. HARRINGTONsaid the promoters of the Bill were anxious that the Vote should be taken on the Bill as it stood. The proceedings would be regulated by the Vote of this clause. No further discussion would be necessary.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Further discussion will be necessary; and I shall discuss the other clauses.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have no business to consider what action will be taken on the subsequent clauses. I can only say
  94
  that this Motion for the Adjournment is an abuse of the rules of the House.
  Question put. The House divided:— Ayes, 178: Noes, 152.—(Division List, No. 153.)
  Bill to be read the Third time.

  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
  On the Order for Second Reading of this Bill,
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND, who had an Amendment on the Paper —that the Bill be read a Second time this day six months— said he opposed the Bill on the ground that, if carried, it would have a disastrous effect on the development of Uxbridge and the district. The line was not promoted for the benefit of local traffic, but was part of a scheme by the Great Western to try to obtain London traffic from the London and North Western Railway. The present main line from London to Swindon and Oxford passed 2½ miles on one side of the town, and the new line would pass 2½ miles on the other side, so that Uxbridge would be placed in a hole between two main lines. The place had never had a chance of having its traffic developed, and now it would be entirely ruined. There was, he contended, no real reason for the route of the proposed line; by coming near Uxbridge the gradients would be bettered instead of worsened, and the cost would be not much greater, while, such as it was, it would be easily recouped by the additional traffic they would obtain from Uxbridge and the district. The district they proposed to bring in was entirely an agricultural district. The policy of the Great Western had always been to destroy all local traffic if possible, and never to develop it under any circumstances whatever. He had in his hand a remarkable report brought to the, London County Council in regard to the manner in which the Great Western were accustomed to deal with suburban traffic in the neighbour-hood of London. It stated that there was much cause for dissatisfaction with the utterly inadequate service given by

  95
  the Great Western Railway in districts through which it runs, and that it had been evident for years past that this had acted as a powerful check to the development of districts compared with the other parts of suburban London. That report was dated 1892, and since that time they had not put one solitary workmen's train on their line. That showed the feeling of the district with regard to the working of the Great Western Railway Company. When the scheme was propounded it was taken up in Uxbridge, and at a large meeting, attended by about a thousand persons, representing every class and interest, held in the Town Hall, at which he himself presided, a unanimous vote was passed as to the way in which the fares at Uxbridge were inserted and the manifest inconvenience caused. At High Wycombe a meeting was also held, where it was stated that the chair industry upon which the town lived might be destroyed, and the town thereby injured. An important meeting was also held at Gerard's Cross, at which it was stated that the line would be most inconvenient to the inhabitants. He did not wish to press his Motion to a Division, but he was anxious that the question should be brought fairly before the Committee.
  Bill Read a Second time, and committed.

NOTICES OF MOTION.
  EAST INDIA (OFFICERS OF GENERAL LIST).
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: To call attention to the grievance of the Officers of the General List (Indian Army) in the matter of their pensions; and to move, That a Select Committee of this House be appointed to inquire into their case. —[Tuesday, 27th April.]
  EAST INDIA (OFFICERS OF GENERAL LIST).
  CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTS: To call attention to the grievance of the Officers of the General List (Indian Army) in the matter of their pensions; and to move, That a Select Committee of this House be appointed to inquire into their case.—[Tuesday, 27th April.]
  HABITUAL OFFENDERS (SCOTLAND).
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: To call attention to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Habitual Offenders (Scotland); and to move a Resolution.—[Tuesday, 27th April.
QUESTIONS.

  BRITISH TROOPS IN INDIA (HEALTH).
  CAPTAIN PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the remarkable variations in the ratios of admissions into hospital from venereal diseases occurring between the various garrison towns in India, as revealed in the recent memorandum of the Army Sanitary Commission and the Report of the Departmental Committee; and, whether, in view of the important bearing of these variations upon any proposals that may be made for checking these diseases, he will order an inquiry to be made into their cause or causes either in one or two selected cases or over the whole of the garrisons in India.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): The hon. Gentleman will see from the Dispatch which will be in the hands of Members on Thursday morning that I have already directed the Government of India to institute an inquiry of the nature suggested.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE (TUNBRIDGE WELLS).
  MR. A. S. T. GRIFFITH-BOS-CAWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can now state if an inquiry is to be held into the alleged inefficiency and costliness of the telephone service at Tunbridge Wells. Whether such inquiry will be a public inquiry; Whether opportunity will be given to the members of the local telephone committee, and other persons interested of giving evidence; and, whether the inquiry will be held by an official of the Post Office or by some independent person chosen for the purpose?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr R. W. HANBURY, Preston): Yes Sir. It is proposed to hold such an inquiry, and I assume without delay. As in other cases where a primâ facie case of inefficiency is shown, it will be a public inquiry at which the persons most interested will be heard, and it will be conducted by some independent person with legal or professional qualifications.

  POST OFFICE ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. LIONEL HOLLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will postpone taking any action in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Post Office Establishments, until an opportunity has been given in the House of Commons for discussion upon the subject; and, whether he will take any steps to ascertain the views of the various classes of Post Office servants upon those recommendations of the Committee which affect them?
  MR. HANBURY: I do not see any reason for delaying the enjoyment of the considerable advantages which Post Office servants will enjoy as the result of the recommendations of the Committee and the decision of the Treasury until the Report has been discussed here, which can hardly be till after Easter. The time fixed for the commencement of the increased payments is the beginning of the new financial year, and the delay of even a month would involve a loss to the officials concerned of about £12,000. The views of the various classes affected have of course already been fully stated before the Committee.
  MR. HOLLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General whether, in view of the fact that no mention has been made in the recommendations of the Committee on Post Office establishments of the original class of tube attendants employed at the Central Telegraph Office, he could state what the future position and prospects for promotion of 50 or so members of this class of postal servants will be; or whether they could be given the option of being transferred to the position of sorters, as
  98
  in the case of the tube attendants transferred to the sorters' class in August 1892.
  MR. HANBURY: It is not the fact that no mention is made in the Committee's Report of the class of tube attendants referred to by the hon. Member, the Committee having recommended that after four years' service, they should have the right to absorption into the postmen's class. It is understood that most of these officers would be ineligible for the situation of sorter. They have indeed all had the opportunity of competing for it.
  MR. E. HUBBARD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been drawn to the special claims of the submarine telegraphists, as stated on page 14 of the Report of Lord Tweedmouth's Commission; and whether the Government intend to bring in a short Bill, as suggested in that Report allowing these officers to count service for pension since the year 1870.
  MR. HANBURY: My attention—as Secretary to the Treasury—has been called to these claims, which have I think some foundation, and the best way of dealing with them is now being considered.

  LONDON WATER SUPPLY (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on the London Water Commission?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,: The terms of the reference are as follows:— (1) To inquire and report whether, having regard to financial considerations and to present and prospective requirements as regards water supply in the districts within the limits of supply of the metropolitan water companies, it is desirable, in the interests of the ratepayers and water consumers in those districts, that the undertakings of the water companies should be acquired and managed either (a) by one authority, or (b) by several authorities, and, if so, what should be

  99
  such authority or authorities; to what extent physical severance of the works and other property and sources of supply of the several companies, and the division thereof between different local authorities within the limits of supply, are practicable and desirable, and what are the legal powers necessary to give effect to any such arrangements; (2) if the undertakings are not so acquired, whether additional powers of control should be exercised by local or other authorities, and, if so, what those powers should be; (3) whether it is practicable to connect any two or more of the different systems of supply now administered by the eight metropolitan companies, and, if so, by whom and in what proportions should the cost of connecting them be borne, and what are the legal powers necessary to give effect to any such arrangement?
  MR. HARRY MARKSSt. George's-in-the-East)asked when the Metropolitan Water Consumers Bill would be introduced?
  MR. CHAPLIN: That Bill will be introduced, I hope, as soon as I see a reasonable prospect of proceeding with it, but I do not think there is any chance of my seeing that prospect before Easter.

  KINGSTOWN HARBOUR (BOAT ACCIDENTS).
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that some years since two men named Doyle, and a steward, and an officer's servant, of H.M.S. Belleisle, were drowned in crossing from the Victoria Wharf to the Belleisle, which was then guardship in Kingstown Harbour; also the two brothers of the afore mentioned Doyles, together with Ship Surgeon Gibbons, were recently drowned crossing from the same wharf to the ship Jason; whether an inquiry was held by the Naval Authorities regarding those disasters; and whether any precautions have been taken to avoid those preventible accidents by the more effectual supervision of boats plying for hire, especially at night? The hon. Member also asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that at an inquest held at Kingstown some years since on the bodies of the brothers Doyle, boatmen, and two men of H.M.S. Belleisle, who were drowned
  100
  while crossing from the Victoria Wharf to that ship, the Coroner's jury recommended that one of the harbour constables or an authorised watchman should be on duty at night while boats were plying for hire, and whether such recommendation was carried into effect; and whether arrangements will be made, to have a harbour constable or other watchman on duty until 12.30 at night?
  MR. HANBURY: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer these questions, as the Commissioners of Public Works are also the Harbour Authorities at Kingstown. I understand that the two accidents occurred as stated — the Belleisle, case on the night of the 1st February 1892, and the Jason case on the night of the 13th instant. The question as to inquiries by the Naval Authorities should more properly be addressed to my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty. I understand, however, that such an inquiry was held on the Jason case, with the result that the accident was ascribed, perhaps in part to the boat being overladen, but mainly to her being unseaworthy. In the Belleisle case the Coroner's jury did not recommend the appointment of a night watchman as stated in the question. They did recommend that there should be life-buoys placed on the east pier, and this was done. In the Jason case they merely brought in a verdict of accidental death. The question was referred to me too late to allow me to obtain a report from the Board of Works, but I see from the Harbour bye-laws that every boat plying for hire must be licensed by the Commissioners to carry a given number of passengers, and must be kept in good condition to the satisfaction of the Harbour-master. I have instructed the Commissioners to report as to the steps taken to enforce these regulations, and also as to the question of having a watchman on night duty.

  COUNTY COURT PROCEDURE (IRELAND).
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill on an early date dealing with the reform of the County Court procedure in Ireland, seeing that legislation on this subject has

  101
  been promised for the past 15 years, and that during that time practically nothing has been done to remedy matters; and, whether, in view of the fact that the Lord Chancellor, with five County Court colleagues, met a deputation of traders from the Dublin Mercantile Association in 1895, expressed sympathy with the views submitted to them, and promised to give them consideration with a view of introducing a Bill into Parliament, he will state if anything has been done in the matter since?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): The Lord Chancellor and Committee of County Court Judges met a deputation of the Dublin Mercantile Association in 1895, and discussed with them various matters in connection with County Court procedure, more especially as regards the more frequent sittings of the Recorder of Dublin, and in this respect the views of the deputation have been met by the appointment of three additional sittings of the Dublin Civil Bill Court each year. Arrangements are also being made for more frequent sittings of the Recorder of Belfast. As regards other matters discussed, the Lord Chancellor and the County Court Judges were by no means in accord with many of the views expressed by the Deputation, and I am not aware that any prospect of further legislation on those matters was then held out.

  QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE (HOUSEHOLD TROOPS).
  MR. E. FLOWER: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Bradford (Captain GREVILLE), I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, having regard to the heavy additional exhaustive duties which necessarily devolve on the Household Troops, both cavalry and infantry, in furnishing extra guards, sentries, and escorts during the Diamond Jubilee celebrations, together with the long hours of street duty on the 22nd June, he can see his way to mark this auspicious occasion by granting some small pecuniary emolument to the troops so engaged as compensation for the extra duties and the wear and tear of uniform thereby entailed?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,: The Household Troops, whose especial duty it is to provide guards and escorts on the occasion of Court ceremonies, are already in receipt of higher pay than other corps in corresponding arms of the service, and it is not proposed, therefore, to make any special distinction between the allowances issued to Household and to other troops on June 22.

  BELFAST LUNATIC ASYLUM (DEATH OF INMATE).
  MR. G. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with reference to the inquiry into the case of Mrs. Beggs, whose ribs and breast bone were found broken after her death in the Belfast Lunatic Asylum, whether he can now state the result of the Inquiry; whether any physical examination of her was made after her admission to the asylum, and if so, on what date, by whom, and what entry of it was made; and if he will say on what date the straight waistcoat was placed upon her, and if her ribs and breast bone were broken before or after that time?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The report of the Inspectors of Lunatics who held an inquiry at the Belfast District Asylum into the circumstances attending the death of Jane Beggs deals with the matter at considerable length, and was communicated yesterday to the Board of Governors of the Asylum. A superficial physical examination of this woman was made by the Assistant Medical Officer of the Asylum on the day after her admission, viz., the 6th January. She was also examined on the same date by the Resident Medical Superintendent. On the 8th January a further examination was made by the Visiting Physician. The result of the examination by the Assistant Medical Officer on the 6th inst. was as follows:—State of bodily health, healthy; heart, sound; lungs, sound; bruises on legs, arms, and sides, small scars in same positions, œdema of hands and ankles. The straight waistcoat was put on on the 6th January and was taken off on the 8th January. The Inspectors have not been able to ascertain definitely whether deceased's ribs

  103
  and breast bone were broken before or after that time, though in their opinion the weight of evidence favours the presumption that they were broken before that time.

  LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. M. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of fair rent applications received from the Counties of Down and Antrim respectively, and still remaining unheard?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In County Down 1,538 applications have been received which have not yet been listed. The applications on the current lists, now with the Sub-Commission for disposal, comprise 517 cases, and these cases are in various stages of progress. In the County Antrim there are 1,267 applications unlisted, and 323 cases have been listed for hearing, which will shortly be commenced.
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Land Commission has been directed to the cases of the tenants at Fearnaught, near Dromod, South Leitrim, who purchased their holdings some years ago from their landlord; whether he is aware that they have been paying each year three-fourths of the purchase money to the Land Commission and one-fourth to the landlord, and that the landlord has attempted to make the instalments payable to him a perpetual charge on their holdings; and whether he can state what steps the Land Commission are prepared to take to have the ownership of these holdings transferred to the purchasing tenants?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The sales referred to were carried out under the Purchase Clauses of the Land Law Act 1881, under which not more than three-fourths of the price could be advanced by the Land Commission. Advances of that amount were made on the 4th December 1882 to 20 tenants on an estate comprising the townland mentioned. These advances are now being paid by annuities calculated at the rate of 4 per cent. on the advance. The annuities have in all said cases been paid up to date. One-fourth of the
  104
  purchase money in each case was secured to vendor by mortgage charged on the holdings. This was quite regular. The ownership was vested in the tenant purchasers, but subject to the mortgages referred to.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the rent fixed by the Sub-Commissioners on the farm of Mr. W. J. Cuthbert, at Culmore, was raised from £79 15s. to £96 16s. by the Commission, on the report of the court valuer, the court valuer giving as his reason its proximity to a railway station, though at the Culmore station there is no siding or other means of loading agricultural produce; and, whether he will call the attention of the Land Commission to the desirability of considering in similar cases whether the station is in fact of any use for the carriage of agricultural produce?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The only holdings of W. J. Cuthbert which came before the Land Commission at their recent sitting at Londonderry were two holdings on which rents fixed at £13 15s. and £66 by the Sub-commission, were raised by the Land Commissioners to £15 6s. and £81 10s. respectively. In neither of these cases is there any reference to any proximity to a railway station at, Culmore in the court valuer's report.

  CIVIL SERVICE (SECOND DIVISION CLERKS).
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state how many clerks of the Second Division, lower grade, have been deprived, on grounds other than inefficiency, of promotion to the higher grade on their reaching salaries of £250 per annum; whether any clerks so dealt with have been subsequently employed in the performance of higher grade duties during the time the superior position and pay have been withheld from them; whether the heads of departments periodically review the cases of such clerks with a view of satisfying themselves that their promotion is not being unduly delayed.; and what means exist (if any) under the system of

  105
  automatic vacancies of promoting such clerks?
  MR. HANBURY: The Question appears to rest on a misapprehension. There is no right of succession from the lower to the higher grade of the Second Division. As often as a clerk reaches by increments a salary of £250 a promotion is made to the higher grade, hut the Order in Council requires that such promotion must be made on the ground of positive merit, and not seniority. On each occasion the claims of the whole Second Division staff are necessarily reviewed by the head of the Department, with whom, and not with the Treasury, the promotion rests. I am not aware of any case in which a clerk, after being refused advancement to the higher grade, has been required to perform duties peculiar to that Grade.

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND)
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if effectual means have been adopted to carry out the two reforms in Scotch prison administration urged upon Lord Balfour of Burleigh by a deputation of chief officers of Scotch gaols more than a year ago, namely, firstly, the levelling-up of the salaries of the governors, medical officers, chaplains and others to the scale of remuneration paid to similar functionaries in English and Irish prisons; and secondly, an increase of the inadequate staff of warders, especially in view of the association in some prisons of weak-minded prisoners with other criminals and without due supervision?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): In connection with the Prison Estimates for 1897–98, the Secretary for Scotland made certain proposals to the Treasury in regard to the medical officers, the chaplains, and the warders in Scottish prisons. The Treasury sanctioned his proposals as regards the appointment of two additional medical officers, but refused the increased pay to the chaplains on the grounds stated by the Secretary to the Treasury on the 25th instant, in reply to the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs. The recommended increase of seven permanent male warders and four occasional female warders was sanctioned.

  COUNTY CAVAN MILITIA.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether in future the County Cavan Militia are to be sent for annual training purposes to County Donegal; on what grounds this change has been decided upon; whether he is aware that the men proposed to be so transferred are many of them labourers employed in the neighbourhood of Cavan, to whom the change will mean a loss of employment for the rest of the season after disbanding; and, whether the order can now be revoked?
  MR. BRODRICK: The 4th battalion, Royal Irish Fusiliers, will be trained this year at Ballyshannon, as there is no range near its headquarters where it can fire with safety, and also for the advantage of being brigaded with other Militia battalions. Its future place of training must depend on where a suitable range becomes available. It is not understood how training at Bally-shannon can interfere with the men's employment during the non-training period; and the present order could not be revoked without sacrificing the efficiency of the battalion.

  POOR LAW UNION (IRELAND).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when he proposes to introduce the Bill for the amalgamation of Poor Law Unions in Ireland; and, does he propose to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee or to the Committee of the whole House?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I hope to introduce the Bill some day before the Easter Recess provided I am able to do so after Twelve o'clock. The Bill is one which should be referred, after Second Reading, to the Standing Committee on Law.

  PRISON VANS (COUNTIES).
  MR. JOHN HUTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many county prisons are supplied with prison vans for the conveyance of prisoners; and, whether he will direct the Prison Commissioners to supply such vans to all prisons, so as to avoid the

  107
  necessity of obliging un-convicted and convicted prisoners, male and female, to walk handcuffed and chained from the railway stations to the prisons?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY, Lancashire, Blackpool): Thirty-three out of the 56 local prisons are supplied with vans, and in all cases of conveyance of prisoners for which the Prison Commissioners are responsible, with only a few exceptions, the prisoners are conveyed either in these vans or in vehicles hired for the purpose. The few exceptions referred to, in which prisoners walk, are cases in which the distance is a few yards only. Possibly the cases which the hon. Member has in his mind are cases for which the Prison Commissioners are not responsible, but the police.

  GUN LICENCE (BALLYBUNION, COUNTY KERRY).
  MR. M. J. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that John H. Danagher applied for a gun licence at the Petty Sessions held in Ballybunion, County Kerry, on 14th August last; and that during the hearing of the application the Resident Magistrate used language impugning the character of applicant; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: it is a fact that John H. Danagher applied to the Resident Magistrate for a licence to keep a gun and that the application was not acceded to. I have already stated that the granting or withholding an arms licence is vested by law in the Resident Magistrate, who is the licensing officer of the district, and having made inquiry into the facts of the present case I am satisfied that the Resident Magistrate exercised the discretion conferred upon him in this matter in a reasonable manner. When the Resident Magistrate was requested by applicant to give his reason for withholding the licence, he stated it was on account of an outrage committed on the servant of the man who had taken the farm from which applicant had been evicted.

  CHILDREN'S METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what steps he will take, in establishing the proposed central poor law authority for sick children in the Metropolis, to compensate the Guardians of Shoreditch for the large expenditure they have undertaken with the sanction of the Local Government Board for the treatment at the cottage homesat Hornchurch of children suffering from ophthalmia and other diseases now proposed to be treated by the Central Board?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The Local Government Board are aware that the Guardians of the parish of Shoreditch have two cottages in connection with their cottage homes at Hornchurch in which children suffering from ophthalmia and skin disease have been placed. These cottages are not necessarily occupied by children of the classes referred to. When the Guardians proposed their erection they stated that they would be available for sick or healthy children as might be required. According to a return obtained last month, the Guardians had in the cottage for children suffering from skin disease 24 patients, and the accommodation was fully occupied. Apart from infirmary accommodation, the schools are already full, and the increased accommodation is already needed. Seven patients were occupying the cottage for ophthalmic cases, which provides accommodation for 24 children. The educational arrangements for the children are not satisfactory, and when the cases referred to are removed as proposed, the Guardians will have available for other children the accommodation thus set free. There is not in my opinion any ground for compensasation in the case. Under the scheme prepared by the Local Government Board, there would be provided an additional ordinary cottage home for 24 children, which is now utilised for seven ophthalmic cases. We are not aware precisely to what extent there is vacant accommodation in the school, but if there is any such accommodation, there are Guardians of other Unions who would be willing to avail themselves of it and pay for the accommodation.

  SEAL LIFE (NORTH PACIFIC).
  MR. H. SETON-KARR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Report of the Mission of Inquiry into Seal Life in the North Pacific of 1896 has yet been received; whether it is in contemplation now to frame new international regulations for preservation of seal life in the North Pacific; and whether such regulations before adoption will be submitted to the Government of the Canadian Dominion, and to those who have expert knowledge of the whole question?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,: The Reports of the British Commissioners have been received and are under examination; it is thought that some modification of the existing regulations may be found desirable at the end of 1898, the period fixed by the Arbitration Tribunal for their reconsideration; no revised Regulations will be adopted without previous communication with the Dominion Government.

  CUSTOM HOUSE, DUBLIN.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed to make such structural alterations in the Custom House, Dublin, as will destroy the beauty of the southern portico of the building by closing the arches; whether he is aware that the Custom House is much prized by the citizens of Dublin as one of the best specimens of architecture in the city, and that there is a strong and universal feeling against the proposed alterations; and whether, before allowing any alterations to be made, he will take time to fully inform himself of the views of the citizens of Dublin on this matter, and be guided in his decision by their opinion?
  MR. HANBURY: There will be no structural alterations which will destroy the beauty of the southern portico. I have the drawings and plans in my room, and shall be very glad to show them to the hon. Member.

  CRETE.
  MR. JOHN DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what precau-
  110
  tions the Government have taken to insure that the Christian peasantry of Crete shall not be subjected to famine by the blockade; and (2) on what grounds the Government justify the 3rd Article of the Proclamation, which forbids the landing of provisions for the interior of the island, while no restriction is placed on the landing of provisions and stores for the use of those cities where the Mahommedan population and the Turkish troops are congregated?
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, I wish to ask whether the Cretan insurgents, the so-called Christians—[Opposition cries of "Oh!"]—have robbed the Mussulman, population of their lands and their food; and whether a great majority of the Mussulman population in Crete are not at present exiled in the sea-coast towns, and in a state of semi-starvation?
  MR. CURZON: It is true that the Mussulmans from the interior have been obliged to leave their villages and are in occupation of the ports upon the sea coast, and it is true also that in some cases destitution unfortunately prevails amongst them. The Admirals are fully alive to the possible necessities, as regards provisions, of the peaceful inhabitants of Crete, and, subject to the difficulties inherent in the situation, have arranged to distribute certain food supplies where most required.
  MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the second paragraph of the Question.
  MR. CURZON: I did not answer it because the hon. Gentleman has not quoted the 3rd Article of the Proclamation correctly, [Laughter.]
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Admirals are acting on their own responsibility, or in obedience to instructions from their respective Governments, in preventing the landing of arms intended for Greeks and Cretans, whilst allowing the landing of arms intended for Turks?
  MR. CURZON: The Admirals are acting in accordance with the authority given to them by their respective Governments to take the measures which they may think expedient for restoring order in Crete. The blockade naturally

  111
  involves the prohibition of the landing of arms and munitions of war, if, in the opinion of the Admirals, they are likely to be employed for aggressive purposes or to prolong the fighting or disorder. The Admirals must use their discretion in relaxing this prohibition in cases where arms may be required for the defence of the towns under their protection. We have, however, heard of no arms being landed for the Turks.
  MR. T. C. H. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether one Sami Pasha has been permitted by the Great Powers to land armed Turkish troops and ammunition recently in Crete?
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I wish to ask whether the presence of the Turkish troops in the seaport towns of Crete is not necessary for the protection of the Mussulman refugees, and also for the safety of the Allied Forces. [Laughter.]
  MR. CURZON: It is a little difficult to answer such a question without notice. In answer to the Question on the Paper, Her Majesty's Consul reported by telegraph on the 27th instant that Vice Admiral Sami Pasha had landed at Canea, with provisions and ammunition, but not, as suggested in the Question, with troops.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether the Government have received from Rear Admiral Harris an official account of the bombardment by the international fleet of the blockhouse at Malaxa; (2) whether, when the fleet opened fire, hostilities between the Cretans and the Turkish troops had ceased, the ruins being crowded with both Cretans and Turks, so that, the bombardment at that time might have resulted in the most serious loss of life; (3) whether the shelling of the position was ordered as a punitive measure, or in ignorance of the real state of affairs at Malaxa at the time; and (4) whether Admiral Harris was fired upon when returning from Akrotiri from a snipe-shooting expedition shortly after the bombardment? In putting the Question, Mr. Roberts said the first two para-
  112
  graphs were replied to yesterday after he had put his Question down.
  MR. CURZON: I gave to the House yesterday the whole of the information that we have received from the Admiral on this subject. With regard to the last paragraph, Her Majesty's Consul telegraphed on the 29th instant that Admiral Harris, while out shooting near Akrotiri on the 28th, was fired at at close range by the insurgents.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the ambassadors at Constantinople have received a telegram from the Admirals commanding the allied squadrons in Cretan waters stating that in their opinion the Turkish troops must be withdrawn from the island; that the details of the proposed scheme of autonomy should be immediately published, with a declaration that the Governor should be a European; and, if so, whether representations have been made to the Porte by the Powers with a view to carrying out the opinion of the Admirals?
  MR. CURZON: On the 25th instant the Russian Ambassador at Constantinople communicated to his colleagues a telegram from the Russian Admiral in Crete, urging on behalf of the combined Admirals that a European Governor General should be appointed, with full powers and the necessary funds, and that the Porte should be asked gradually to withdraw their troops as the Admirals judged necessary. These recommendations have the entire support of Her Majesty's Government, who have lost no opportunity of urging their importance. They are at the present moment under the consideration of the Powers.
  CAPTAIN PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether it is the case that the British Admiral in Cretan waters has telegraphed asking for a further dispatch to Crete of an additional battalion of 600 men, and that, if this is correct and the Government intend to comply with the request, whether, as the work to be carried out is entirely dictated by the policy of an English majority in this House, he will urge upon the Government to send an English battalion, and not a Scottish or

  113
  Irish one—[Ministerial laughter and Opposition cheers]— the national sentiment of the former—that is the English—assimilating better with the proposed action, [Laughter.]
  MR. CARSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, may I ask whether in this respect the Irish army is a separate entity. [Laughter.]
  MR. CURZON: If the hon. and gallant Member will put his Question on the Paper, I will endeavour to answer it. May I say on this point that really the practice of putting Foreign Office Questions by private notice has lately acquired a very considerable and unreasonable latitude— ["hear, hear"]—and I hope the House will support me in declining to encourage, it. [Cheers.]
  CAPTAIN PIRIE: I beg to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, but I must say this is the first time I have put a Question after private notice.

  POST OFFICE SERVANTS (SUPERANNUATION).
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Post-master General, if the regulations of the Department admit of no superannuation for faithful servants grown too old for the service, and if there is no such fund provided by deduction from pay in younger days with Departmental aid applicable to the case of Michael Mally, who, after twenty-five years' service as postman between Tulla and Ballinahinch, County Clare, finds himself discharged by reason of advanced years with a grant of £5 only from the Rowland Bill Fund?
  MR. HANBURY: In accordance with the Superannuation Acts, pensions or gratuities can be awarded to those only whose duties have required that their whole time should be given to the public service, and there is no fund provided by deduction from pay of Post Office servants such as the hon. Member describes. Michael Mally was not, it seems, required to give his whole time to the service, and was paid during his twenty-five years' service out of an allowance to the Postmaster to provide for a delivery of letters. It is feared, therefore, that his case will not come within the scope of the Acts, but some further inquiry is being made on the subject.

  PARCEL TRAFFIC (ENGLAND AMERICA).
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that the American Postal Regulations give express authority for the sending of live bees in wooden boxes, closed with a wire screen and protected by a movable wooden lid, as samples of merchandise to the British Colonies in Australia, to Canada, British India, to every country in Europe (except Great Britain, Russia, and Turkey), to the, South American Republics, and to the Colonies of Spain and the Netherlands: and, having regard to the fact that Mr. Hewitt, the bee fancier of Sheffield, only desires like facilities for the dispatch to British Colonies of the queen or mother bees he breeds, and not for a swarm, whether the matter can be reconsidered under similar precautions against the danger of the escape of such queens into a mail bag?
  MR. HANBURY: My hon. and gallant Friend has slightly overstated the case; but it is true that several countries as well as the British Colonies which he mentions admit live bees by post from the United States. There is, however, a rule of long standing in the British postal service that living things should not be sent by post; and if an exception is once made to the general rule, it is obvious that it might be necessary to extend that exception to animals less innocuous than a stingless queen bee. But the Postmaster General will take the opportunity which the Question affords him of considering whether it is desirable to maintain or modify the rule, and, if so, in what way.

  VOLUNTEER CAMPS (ALDERSHOT).
  COLONEL DALBIAC: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if it has been decided to deprive the Metropolitan Volunteers of the advantages derived for many years past of training at Aldershot with the Regular Forces in the August Bank Holiday week, in provisional and other battalions; and, if so, on what ground this decision has been arrived at, and if it can be reconsidered?
  MR. BRODRICK: Eleven battalions of the Metropolitan Volunteers have

  115
  applied to go to Aldershot in August and all will be allowed to train there if the claims of corps from other parts of the country make it possible to accede to their applications.

  ALLOTMENTS ACTS.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, with regard to the acquisition by parish councils of land by compulsory purchase in proceedings under the Allotment Acts, whether it is the case that a large amount of work has been thrown upon the Local Government Board in prescribing by order the details of the procedure with regard to preliminary notices, local inquiry, and many such matters; whether orders were made after much consideration prescribing the adaptations of the Allotments Acts, and, in the case of compulsory hiring of land for allotments, the adaptation of the Lands Clauses Acts; and in how many cases, since the issue of the series of Orders in May 1885 to every parish, district, and county council, the provisions thus carefully considered have been put in force with regard to the compulsory purchase of land, and in how many with regard to the compulsory hiring of land for allotments?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The answer to the first and second Questions is in the affirmative. No Order for compulsory purchase of land for allotments, under Section 9 of the Local Government Act 1894, has been deposited for confirmation with the Local Government Board. As regards Orders for compulsory hiring of land for allotments, 27 in all have been deposited with the Board. Of these, 12 have been con finned, 2 have been disallowed, 6 have been found invalid, 1 has been allowed to drop, and 6 are under consideration.

  LAND LAW IRELAND ACT 1896 (RULES).
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the rules provided for in Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1896, have yet been issued?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,: The rules referred to have not yet been made.
  MR. DILLON: I am given to understand that calculations have been made in some cases and notified to tenants. How can that be unless the rules have been made?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: The rules have not been made.

  ARMY DESERTERS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, according to the Return of the Inspector General of Recruiting, the number of deserters was 3,357 for last year; if his attention has been called to the case of the man who admitted enlisting and deserting from the East Yorkshire and fourteen other corps in succession; and whether, owing to the prevalence of this practice, he will consider the possibility of marking, by vaccination or otherwise, every officer and private on joining the Army?
  MR. BRODRICK: The number of deserters in 1896 was only 1,819, which is a fairer criterion than the number of desertions. Such a case as that referred to is mentioned in a magazine as having occurred apparently 13 years ago, but the references are too vague to be traced. The practice of marking was deliberately abandoned; and as the loss by desertion is shown to be annually decreasing there is no present ground for seeking to re-introduce it.

  QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE (COMMEMORATION MEDAL).
  MR. R. T. HERMON-HODGE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of issuing a Jubilee shilling which shall serve the purpose of a commemorative medal and at the same time pass as current coin; or, if not, whether he will cause the proposed Jubilee medals to be issued in two sizes?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,: It has been decided to issue in reduced size copies of the medal to be struck in commemoration of the completion of the 60th year of the Queen's reign. Due notice will be given in the newspapers of the price at which they will be obtainable, which will be fixed as near cost price as possible,

  117
  together with full information as to the steps to be taken in order to procure them. There will be no issue before the month of June.

  ESTATE DUTY (LATE EMPEROR OF RUSSIA).
  MR. H. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is a fact that the late Emperor of Russia had, on his death, large sums at the Bank of England, and that the Estate Duty was not paid on these moneys; and whether, in the case of Sovereigns having moneys in this country on death, no Estate Duty is paid on them; and, if so, could he explain to the House the grounds of such exemption?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The matter referred to has been fully explained to the Public Accounts Committee, who will, I presume, make a report upon it if they think fit. As it happened in the time of my predecessor, I think, if the hon. Member still finds it necessary to ask a Question on it in the meantime, he had better wait till the Member for West Monmouthshire returns to his place, which we all hope may be soon.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (MEMBER AND PRIVATE SECRETARIES).
  MR. C. W. CAYZER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it is by his directions that notices have been posted on the doors of two rooms hitherto set apart for the use of Members and their private secretaries, stating that they are now to be used for conferences only, that this leaves only one room for Members and their secretaries, and that one room is quite inadequate for Members and their private secretaries; and whether he can arrange to provide other accommodation either for conferences or for Members and their secretaries?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. A. AKERS-DOUGLAS,: My answer to the first inquiry of my hon. Friend is in the negative. I do not think that any additional accommodation can at present be provided for these purposes within the limits of the space at the disposal of the
  118
  House; but I will bear in mind the need for further accommodation, and gladly meet it when in my power to do so.

  IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. RICHARD M. DANE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is now in a position to state what provision will be made in the new time table for the acceleration of the mails between Dundalk and Enniskillen?
  The HON. MEMBER furtherasked, whether any decision has yet been arrived at respecting the arrival and dispatch of mails between Enniskillen and Bundoran and the intervening district?
  MR. HANBURY: AS already explained in answer to previous Questions in the House, the Post Office would not be justified in calling upon the railway company to run a special train at the public cost from Dundalk to Enniskillen in connection with the day mail train from Dublin, and the same remark applies with even greater force to places beyond Enniskillen, such as Bundoran. The Secretary in Dublin has, however, been instructed to bring before the railway company the strong desire expressed by the inhabitants of the district for an improvement of their day mail service, in the hope that they may see their way to run a suitable train, but the Department has not yet been made acquainted with the decision of the company.

  MONEY ORDERS.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is prepared to reduce the cost on money orders not exceeding £1 from 3d. to 2d.; if so, how soon will the change be effected?
  MR. HANBURY: I stated in this House on the 18th instant that the Government was prepared to make this change. I hope it will come into force on the 1st May.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE (ENGLAND AND ISLE OF MAN).
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is a fact

  119
  that an application has been made by the National Telephone Company for the use of the telegraph cable between England and Douglas, Isle of Man, for telephone purposes; whether he is aware that there is in the existing cable, which consists of five wires, two which are practically never used; whether a telephonic service could be arranged on those two unused wires without delay; and whether he is aware that the subscribers in the Isle of Man to the telephone service were promised that communication would be established at an early date with Great Britain?
  MR. HANBURY: No such application can be traced. There are three wires in the existing cable, not five, and they are all used for telegraph business. Even if available, they would be quite unsuitable for a telephonic service. So far as the Postmaster General is aware, no promise of the kind described by the hon. Member has been made.

  PORTUMNA RAILWAY.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the Portumna derelict railway cost over £100,000 to construct; and (2) whether the Government will give a grant of £37,000 to re-equip the line and clear it of incumbrance?
  MR. GERALD BALFOLR: I under-stand that the cost of construction of this line was £80,000, of which the sum of £12,000 was advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners. This loan has never been repaid. As regards the second paragraph, I have already informed the hon. Member that in no circumstances can the Government, under the Act of last year, contribute more than one-half of the cost of re-constructing the line, which has been estimated at £24,000.

  JUDICIARY (IRELAND).
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in accordance with his pledge that any Irish savings will be credited to Ireland, the amount of the savings made by not filling up the existing vacancy in the Irish Judicial Bench will be paid to an Irish account; what
  120
  was the amount of saving to the Treasury in Irish judicial retrenchments since 1875; and will such amount be also brought to a special Irish account for redistribution on Irish services?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My statement was not retrospective, and referred to judicial and legal expenditure. I had in my mind the present vacancy on the Irish Bench, and possibly others. Legislation would be necessary, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland proposes to introduce a Bill on the subject.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the saving that is now going on from day to day be paid to the credit of an Irish account?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I cannot answer that.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (WATER SUPPLY).
  SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HART-LAND: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will agree to the Return of the amount expended by the London County Council on negotiations and inquiries with respect to the purchase of the London Water Companies which stands on the Paper this day?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am not aware of an objection to this request, and I shall be willing to agree to the Return.

  TULLAMORE GAOL.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will inquire as to the condition of health, dietary, and general treatment of a man named John Smith, who was confined in Tullamore Goal for a month, was released on the 26th ultimo, and died nine days after, as alleged, from the effects of diarrhœa brought on by broad and water diet while in prison; and whether he has any objection to give the medical officer's record of the result of his examination of this man's condition of health on his reception, and at subsequent examinations, with the dietary ordered, whether in hospital or not?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have made inquiry into this case, and have

  121
  no reason to believe that the allegation in the first paragraph is accurate. I am willing to supply the hon. Member with a copy of the medical records, if he desires it.

  ARREST FOR DRUNKENNESS (OMAGH).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of a young man named John Gormely, who was arrested for alleged drunkenness in the streets of Omagh on the 19th ultimo, and brought before two local Justices on the following morning without notice to Gormely's father, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment; whether, seeing that the Petty Sessions of Omagh were held on the 22nd ultimo, he will explain why Gormely was not summoned to appear there, or before a Resident Magistrate, instead of being thus tried in camera; whether it is usual for local Justices to deal with police charges in private within two days of the sitting of local Petty Sessions Court, and give such sentences as three months; and, whether he will advise the police authorities of Omagh to have recourse to the Petty Sessions with such cases in future?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The prisoner, who is an old offender, and who absconded on previous occasions when summoned to Petty Sessions, was arrested in his father's presence for being drunk and disorderly. Gormely assaulted the police on the same occasion. He was sentenced to one month's imprisonment on the first charge, and to two month's imprisonment for assault on the police. Before sentence, his family, when requested to supply him with clean linen, refused to do so, alleging, as a reason, that he had previously assaulted his father, mother and brothers. The case was heard in the Petty Sessions Office at the Court House, to which the public had access, and was not heard in camera. Cases of drunkenness and disorderly conduct have been similarly disposed of on market day held on Saturday, though the Petty Sessions are held on Monday, and where it is known that the accused would not appear if summoned.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Did the right hon. Gentleman approve of this system?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must not discuss the matter.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman order in future that these questions will be brought before the petty sessions, and not tried by a private tribunal?
  [No answer was given.]

  INSURANCE OF POOR PERSONS.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is aware that, in the case of the death of poor people in many big towns of England, whose relatives have insured them for the purpose of getting a small sum for burial uses, it is the custom of the insurance agents to call upon the friends of deceased, and, having represented to them the delay for inquiry and certifying purposes which must take place before a payment is made, offer them a sum much smaller than the amount insured for in satisfaction of the full amount of the policy; and that in most cases, owing to their poverty and the necessity for an early funeral, these people frequently commute their claims for a small sum paid down; and whether some steps, by legislation or otherwise, will he taken by the Law Officers of the Crown to put a stop to this practice?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,: I have no information respecting the practice referred to in the Question of the hon. Member. It does not seem to me a matter which can be dealt with by legislation or legal proceedings. If the hon. Member will communicate to me any specific case, I shall be glad to consider whether any action can be taken.

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS (QUESTIONS).
  SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury which Minister of the Crown is responsible, in the absence from the country of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and of the Prime Minister, for the answers given in the House of Commons to Questions upon Foreign Affairs?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I am rather surprised that a gentleman of the right hon. Member's experience should ask a question such as he has

  123
  put on the Paper. Of course, in the first instance, my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary is responsible for the answers which he gives, and no man is more capable or qualified to bear that responsibility. [Ministerial cheers.] In the second place, the Government of which my light hon. Friend is a Member is responsible for his action, as it is for all other actions of those who compose it. I hope that answer will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman, whose knowledge of Parliamentary traditions I should have thought might have saved him from putting such a question. [Ministerial cheers.]
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any occasion within this century when the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary were together out of the country. [Laughter.] And is he not aware that on such important matters as those with which we are dealing it is usual for the House of Commons to have its information given on the direct authority and the responsible authority of a Cabinet Minister? [Opposition cheers.]
  SIR C. DILKE: Is it not the case that when the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary were absent during negotiations for the Treaty of Berlin the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the present Lord Cross, acted as Secretary of Foreign Affairs in their absence?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, I believe it is true that Lord Cross did on that occasion sign the Dispatches, as one Secretary of State may always do in the absence of another Secretary of State. I do not see, however, how that is relevant to the present issue.
  MR. J. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I ask as a person of Parliamentary inexperience— [laughter]—in reference to this matter whether the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs is a Minister of the Crown at all? Is he a Minister of the Cabinet, or is he the personal appointment of Lord Salisbury?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! These inquiries are travelling some distance from the original Question.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. J. MORLEY: May I ask the First Lord of the Trea-
  124
  sury what business will be taken on Thursday, and can he indicate to us the general course which will be taken next week?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As regards Thursday, the first business will be the Military Works Loans Bill. The second business will be the conclusion of the Debate and the proceedings connected with the Second Reading and the reference to a Committee of the Scottish Public Health Bill. The third business will be the Military Lands Bill. As regards Monday, I cannot at present give a definite reply, but my hope is that on that day the resolution authorising the Bill to deal with poor School Board districts will be the first order. [Cheers.]
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: To what sort of committee does the right hon. Gentleman propose to refer the Scottish Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Grand Committee on Law.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND (FINANCIAL RELATIONS.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY moved—
  "That the order for resuming the adjourned Debate on Financial relations (England and Ireland) have precedence this day and to-morrow of the notices of Motions and of the other Orders of the day."
  SIR C. DILKEprotested against this further encroachment on the time of private Members. No word of notice or explanation of this Motion had been given to the House. He did not wish to make any personal grievance of this matter in regard to the taking of the following day, which was a Wednesday, but as regarded the principle, there had been increasing inroads on the Wednesdays, which properly belonged to private Members. In regard to Tuesdays, it might be said that, private Members were themselves to blame for the encroachment of the Government, because of the large number of counts out which had taken place on Tuesday evenings. But private Members were not to blame, because there was so much uncertainty as to whether they were to have this time or not, and as to the subject which was to be considered. He instanced the Miners'

  125
  Eight Hours Bill as one in which a number of hon. Members were interested, and for which facilities should he given. Although he did not propose to divide the House, he must protest against this encroachment on the time of private Members.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he had expected that the First Lord would have offered some palliation for the onslaught the proposed to make on the time of the House. He entered his protest against the course adopted. He remembered no Session in which so many demands had been made for the time which belonged to private Members. That was done not in favour of a Government Bill, but in favour of another private Member's Motion. The Irish Members were entitled to the concession of proper time for the discussion of the Financial Relations Motion, but the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House ought not to have been generous at the expense of private Members, but ought to have made the concession out of Government time. In the second place, it seemed to him that the Motion was altogether unnecessary. The chief Government Bill of the Session had been disposed of, and, so far as he could see, there was nothing to make Government business pressing, and he therefore protested against the course now being taken as most unfair to private Members. There was one Motion down for to-night, which had aroused great interest among the working classes, calling for a codification of the laws relating to labour, and which he would have had the opportunity of moving only for the Motion now before the House. During the present Session and the last Session many classes in this country had their interests fully attended to by the Government. One class alone had had no opportunity of formulating its demands, and that was the largest class of all. It was but little consistent with the projects of social reform on which the Government, with its great majority, had come into power, that on the one occasion a representative of a working class constituency had the opportunity of putting forward a demand in favour of that class, he should have been set aside and deprived of his opportunity.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE, who had a Motion on the Paper that night to call attention to the
  126
  grievance of the officers of the General List (Indian Army) in the matter of their pensions, complained that it was only that morning he was able to obtain from the public Press a knowledge of the intentions of the Government in regard to the business for that night. But before the House decided upon this question, he thought they were entitled to have a pledge from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that he would not again take away from them the opportunity of discussing the Motion which was first in his name on that day's Paper, which opportunity had been already five times taken away from them by the action of the Government in appropriating the days of private Members.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERalso thought the House should have an assurance from the Government that, as this Tuesday was taken on account of the general desire which had been expressed to discuss the Financial Relations question, on every Tuesday in the near future private Members would be allowed to exercise the rights which the Standing Orders conferred upon them. He would point out that there was a Motion of great importance in regard to the food supplies of the country down for discussion on Tuesday next, and he hoped that day would not be taken by the Government.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that two criticisms had been made upon the policy of the Government —one personal and the other general. It had been said that he had shown scant courtesy to private Members in having put down the Financial Relations Motion for that night and to-morrow, and in having given but too short a notice of the intentions of the Government in that respect. He thought the accusation of the scant courtesy should have been the very last to have been brought against him. [Cheers.] But then, one never knew what was in store for him. [Laughter.] He would point out to his hon. Friend the Member for Horsham that on Thursday last he stated distinctly that, while he hoped the Debate on the Irish Financial Relations might be confined to one night, he felt himself bound by a pledge he had given early in the Session not to put an undue restriction on the limits of that Debate. He regretted his hon. Friend was deprived of his opportunity of discussing that night

  127
  the Motion which stood in his name, but he was rather consoled by the thought that his hon. Friend had been fortunate in securing the first place on this day four weeks, and he trusted that when this day four weeks came—[An HON. MEMBER: "That will be Easter," and laughter]—unless they were better employed elsewhere—[laughter]— his hon. Friend would have the opportunity he desired. With regard to the more general aspect of the question, he would point out that, though the Government had been attacked as if they were sacrificing the time of private Members for the convenience of Government business, he was sure the course they had taken in allotting that night and to-morrow to the discussion of the important question of Irish and Scotch Financial Relations rather than to the private Members' Resolutions and Bills on the Paper for those days, was with the approval of the overwhelming majority of private Members. ["Hear, hear!"] It would have been in the power of the Government, at the expense of the dislocation of important public business, and the detriment of the interests of poor Board Schools—the Bill for which they proposed to introduce on Monday—to have taken the Debate of the Irish Financial Relations yesterday, to allow two days to intervene, and to go on with it again on Thursday, to allow two days more to intervene, and resume the Debate on Monday. But, apart from the undue strain which it would place upon Government time, the inconvenience of such a course would be admitted by every one who desired the conciseness and continuity of Debate. Absolutely no course was open to them other than the course they had pursued, and if, in pursuing it, he had been, most, unfortunately, guilty of discourtesy to any Member, he could only express his regret, saying at the same time that full notice had been given of the intentions of the Government, both in regard to that night, and as far as possible, in regard to to-morrow.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the right hon. Gentleman had referred to that day four weeks. Would the right hon. Gentleman undertake that that day four weeks would not be a holiday, and, if not a holiday, that the House would sit. It was said that the course taken by the Government was only robbing one private Member to pay another
  128
  —robbing Peter to pay Paul—but some of them would prefer Paul to Peter. He held that there was no excuse for the action of the Government at that time of the Session. The Government got the Bills without discussion; they got the Estimates hand over first; and he was daily expecting a letter from the Whips earnestly requesting his absence that day. [Laughter.] The effect of taking private Members' time persistently, and of depriving them of fair opportunities of debate, would be that they would fall back on opportunities and methods which all Ministers, and particularly the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, regarded as illegitimate—reductions in Ministers' salaries and questions. Private Members had a great grievance, and if anything were to be done to remedy it, they must join together and have a Private-Member leader of their own. [Loud cheers and laughter.] He saw many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who would be well qualified for such a position, and whom he would be glad to follow. [Laughter.] This constant filching of private Members' time was bringing to nothingness the settled orders regulating the procedure of the House; and if it were to go on, he hoped the House would alter the Standing Orders, so as to bring them into accordance with the wishes of both Front Benches. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS.
  CANALS PROTECTION (LONDON).
  Bill to provide for the Protection of Dangerous Places on Canals in the County of London, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Holland, Mr. M. M. Bhownaggree, Mr. Buxton, Mr. Macdona, and Mr. James Stuart; presented and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed.— [Bill 181.]
  SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2).
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Salmon Fisheries in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Seton-Karr, Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Dane, and Mr. James Roche; presented, and read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Tuesday, 13th April, and to be printed.— [Bill 182.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [29th March],
  " That, in the opinion of this House, the Report and Proceedings of the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations of Great Britain and Ireland establish the existence of an undue burden of taxation on Ireland, which constitutes a great grievance to all classes of the Irish community, and makes it the duty of the Government to propose at an early day remedial legislation."—(Mr. Blake.)
  And which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "House," to the end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words,
  "so long as the Exchequers of Great Britain and Ireland remain consolidated, all portions of the United Kingdom must be regarded as forming one country for fiscal purposes, and, if any genuine and tangible grievance does exist, it can only be satisfactorily removed by so adjusting the present fiscal system as to render it just and equitable to all persons in whatever part of the United Kingdom they may reside."—(Mr. Whittaker.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKE, who was received with Nationalist cheers, said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his eloquent and very powerful speech, had made an appeal to those on the Ministerial side of the House which was received, as it deserved to be, with enthusiastic acquiescence. The right hon. Gentleman declared unmistakably for the Government that they would never consent to a political separation between Great Britain and Ireland; and that they would never permit a fiscal separation between the two countries. He was glad to hear that declaration, in which he entirely concurred, and for which the Unionist Party had been lighting for years. But within the limits of that policy there was much to be said with regard to the
  130
  present condition of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland. He could quite understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer—upon whom would fall the responsibility of framing any Measures to remedy a proved grievance—asking for more definite and detailed information. But the right hon. Gentleman had also declared his desire to do full justice to the claims of Ireland under the provisions of the Act of Union and the Act of 1816. The right hon. Gentleman, as the responsible Minister, was entitled to claim more time and more information, in connection with this important subject, at the hands of the Party of which he was one of the trusted Leaders; but the present Debate was partly for the information and guidance of the responsible Minister. The new Commission was not yet appointed, nor were its terms of reference settled, and as one who believed that the inquiry which had already taken place had established beyond dispute the fact that Ireland was now placed under an undue burden of taxation—[Nationalist cheers]—he wished to offer to the House and the Government some considerations with respect to the subject of the inquiry. He could quite understand the position of the hon. Member for the Spen Valley. The hon. Member was a Home Ruler, and the denial of the Irish case and the refusal to Ireland of the redress claimed were inducements to Irishmen to press on with the claim for Home Rule which the hon. Member would like to gratify. But it was much more difficult to understand the position of the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"] Perhaps it was part of the national disinclination to agree with anyone else upon any subject, and especially with anyone of the same nationality. [Laughter.] But for those who were opposed to Home Rule, and were convinced that the policy of the Union was the only one which could be pursued with safety and advantage to this country or to Ireland, other considerations must come into play. The speech of the hon. and learned Member who moved the Motion dealt with a large range of history; but the hon. and learned Member did not strengthen his case by the elaborate reference to the history of Irish finance. That question could be speedily disposed of. It was

  131
  true that in 1800 Mr. Pitt and Lord Castlereagh made calculations as to the proportionate capacity of Ireland for bearing financial burdens, and those calculations turned out not to be correct. But no one would suggest that there was anything more than a mistake in that. Properly speaking there was hardly a mistake; for some years afterwards Mr. Grattan said that the expectations formed by Pitt and Castlereagh had been disappointed by circumstances which no one could possibly have foreseen—the enormous and extravagent cost of the war which was then going on. But if in 1800 a mistake was made in regard to the proportion, and if the proportion which Ireland was called upon to pay was in truth a larger contribution than her means would allow her to give, the answer was that there was no real hardship because Ireland never paid the excess. [Cheers.] From 1816 until 1853, so far as he knew, there had been no real complaint by any representative of the Irish people with regard to the proportions between the two countries during those years. The real grievance began—and undoubtedly there was a grievance—in 1853. Now, in regard to the Commission, there was no doubt as to the intention with which it was appointed. In intention it was appointed to promote a Home Rule Bill. It was a packed Commission, in regard to questions of policy it was not a fair Commission, but at the same time he could not help saying that in the reports of the different sections they had recorded not merely the opinions of the members themselves in some cases upon certain disputable points of policy, but they had recorded conclusions of fact which did not rest upon the authority of members of the Commission at all, but upon an authority which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the last person to challenge or controvert. The strength of the Irish case in this discussion was that it did not rest upon the conclusions of the Commissioners with regard to taxable capacity at all; it rested upon the question of the proportionate wealth of Ireland as compared with this country. Suppose it to be ascertained that the wealth of Ireland as compared with the wealth of this country was as 1 to 20; he presumed no economist would
  132
  deny that the proportion of capacity for bearing taxation must be say, as 1 to 30. It must be a very different figure, because it had become an axiom of taxation now that in fixing taxable capacity you ought first to make some allowance for the necessary expenditure of the individual before you deal with the question of his income which was liable to taxation. They might then for the purposes of the present Debate leave apart the difficult and obscure question of taxable capacity, because when the Commission came to a unanimous resolution that the relation between Ireland and Great Britain was as 1 to 20, or 1 to 21, they were dealing with statistics which appeared to them to indicate the wealth of the country and not making allowance for reductions of income in Ireland and England respectively of an amount which would leave a taxable residue after that. But when they had got rid of that question what remained to be dealt with? Why, practically the whole information that the Commission had used in their reports was given to them by one witness of supreme authority, not only in consequence of his official position and of his own great authority, but because he came before the Commission not to speak for himself alone, but for the collective experience and judgment of the Treasury which he represented. If they lost to-morrow all record of the reports of the Commissioners themselves, and if they still had the first and second volumes of the reports of evidence, the first containing that most elaborate memorandum by Sir E. Hamilton upon the financial history and present condition of Ireland, they should find in that practically all the facts with which they wanted to deal. When they had ascertained that between 1853 and 1860 there were alterations made in the fiscal system of this country which resulted in increasing the burdens upon Ireland by something like two and a half millions a year, an increase made at the very time when Ireland was suffering from one of the most terrible famines in her history, let them turn to a table proposed by Sir E. Hamilton showing the history of the financial relations of Great Britain and Ireland since that date. Beginning with 1849–50 before the change of taxation occurred,

  133
  this table showed that on that date the total taxed revenues of Great Britain was £2 7s. 8d. per head. In Ireland the total taxed revenue was 13s. 11d. Then came the great alteration in taxation. In 1849–50 in Great Britain it was £2 7s. 8d.; in 1859–60, £2 10s.; in 1869–70, £2 5s. 9d.; in in 1879–80, £2 0s. 5d.; in 1889–90, £2 3s. 4d.; in 1893–4, £2 4s. 10d.; so that at the end of this series of years each person in Great Britain paid is. a head less in total taxation Take the Irish figures. In 1849–50 it was 13s. 11d.; in 1859–60, £1 5s. 4d.[Nationalist cheers]; in 1869–70, £1 5s. 5d.; in 1879–80, £1 4s. 11d.; in 1889–90, £1 9s.; in 1893–4, £1 8s. 10d.; so that while during that series of years the British contribution had diminished by 3s. a head the contribution to taxation in Ireland had increased from 13s. 11d. to £1 8s. 10d. [Nationalist cheers.] That was not a question of the conclusion of the Commission. [Nationalist cheers. was the carefully-prepared evidence of the Treasury on this point; and he did not think it was possible to read these figures, and to know anything about the history of Ireland since 1850, without realising that there had come upon the people permanently crippled by the famine, and who had not, so far as they could see, actually to this day recovered—[Nationalist cheers]—the effects of the changes which were made in 1853–60 in the continuance of the burden, while upon Great Britain, which had been advancing from year to year with magnificent prosperity and in creased resources in the means of its people, there had been actually a diminution of taxation. ["Hear, hear!"] It was not only, of course, the famine that crippled Ireland. There had been put before the House, in the earlier passages of the speech of the hon. and learned Member who moved this Resolution, certain most interesting statistics tending to show the poverty of Ireland. In answer, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as every Chancellor of the Exchequer and every Irish Secretary had said for the last 40 years in that House, "Oh, there is a story of prosperity to tell on the other side. Look at the savings banks—[Mr. T. M. HEALY: And the postage stamps]; look at the number of sheep and cattle." He remembered hearing in that
  134
  House about 30 years ago the second Sir Robert Peel, speaking as Chief Secretary, boasting of the number of sheep and cattle the people possessed in Ireland; and he remembered hearing Lord Salisbury, who was then sitting below the Gangway opposite, beginning his speech:—
  " Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt the right hon. Baronet wishes the inhabitants of Ireland were all sheep."
  [Nationalist laughter, and cheers.] They had had this kind of declaration from the Treasury Bench for many years, and he was not surprised to hear the reference to the savings banks. But he was surprised to hear quoted, as evidences of the prosperity of Ireland, the increased prices paid for tenant right in that country. Considering the increasing prices paid for tenant right were really prices paid for an interest carved out of an estate which belonged to the landlord, it was curious to see that the transfer of a property from one proprietor to another should be quoted to the House of Commons as an illustration of the advancing prosperity of the country. [Nationalist cheers.] He did not think that the statistics which the hon. and learned Member gave could be disposed of in this fashion. They were statistics of most serious import. The population of Ireland was still diminishing; it had diminished by far too large a proportion for many years past; and unhappily, there had gone out from Ireland the youth and the strength of Ireland—[Nationalist cheers]—to find a home in other countries, and to leave behind a population whose lack of industrial force and capacity were too painfully indicated by some of the statistics quoted as to the proportion of blind in Ireland, the number of lunatics, and the increase of pauperism. Those were statistics to give one pause when one thought of the too cheerful condition of the population of Ireland. There was another part of those statistics which seemed to him to be very serious. Births and deaths were unsatisfactory enough, but Ireland was a country celebrated for the morality of its people; and if they found in that country such statistics as they had with regard to the marriage rate, it showed that the burden of poverty was pressing upon the people in a way

  135
  which checked among them the development of that family life which was the strength of a nation, and to a great extent the happiness of any people. [Nationalist cheers]. Statistics of that kind were of the most serious force, and he did not think they were to be met by some quotations from savings banks returns or postal receipts. [Nationalist cheers.] The House could not stand aside and refuse to make inquiry; nor did the Government propose to do so. The real question in this Debate was whether there was to be a further inquiry at the desire of the Government with regard to certain matters which it was necessary to ascertain. But no one could suggest a single question contained in the first paragraph of the reference to the new Commission which had not been fully and completely answered by the officials of the Treasury on the best information they could possibly obtain. [Nationalist cheers.] The amount of Imperial expenditure on Ireland was not a matter of controversy; it was laid before the House every year, and they had obtained the amount of local expenditure in each of the three kingdoms in a complete table. Then they were to get the true revenue of each of the three kingdoms; but the moment the figures were before them it was merely a subtraction sum in order to answer the question put in the first reference. Upon these very questions a great amount of labour had already been expended by the representatives of the Treasury. In 1890 a Select Committee was appointed to consider the Financial Relations of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the first three paragraphs of the reference to that Committee practically covered the whole of the first paragraph of the reference to the Commission now proposed by the Government. On 18th August 1890 the Committee reported that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) and the Secretary to the Treasury had undertaken to collect information and to have returns prepared. The figures were prepared and were now available, and, together with the table prepared by Sir E. Hamilton and a Report which bore the name of Sir J. Hibbert, and was issued in 1893, they supplied a complete answer to the questions embodied in the reference to the new Commission. With
  136
  the figures supplied from these authoritative sources it was perfectly easy to calculate the percentage of Ireland's contribution to the Imperial expenditure from the year 1889–90 down to 1890. The average contribution for that period was 3·44. He could not understand what additional information the Government could possibly want, or where they were to go for it. [Nationalist cheers.] The First Lord of the Treasury said himself on 16th February, "As all the information that can be obtained about the estimated taxation of Ireland and Great Britain was laid before the late Commission, it may be assumed that the new Commission will not find it necessary to go into that again." Now, the figures which showed a percentage of contribution to the Imperial expenditure of 3·44 had been seized upon by the opponents of the Irish claim as if they absolutely disposed of it. The argument was that the Irish claimed to pay taxes in the proportion of one to 20, but that, as a matter of fact, they were only contributing to the Imperial expenditure in the proportion of one to 32 or 33. Sir David Barbour said in his report —
  "On the assumption that the 'taxable capacity' of Ireland is one-twentieth of that of the United Kingdom, Ireland paid in 1893–4 about 23 millions sterling more them she would have, paid if the total revenue taken from her had been in proportion to her 'taxable capacity.' In the same year there way expended for Irish purposes about 3¾ millions in excess of what would have been admissible if the expenditure for Irish purposes had also been in proportion to Ireland's 'taxable capacity.' On the whole account Ireland may be said to have been a gainer in 1893–4 of about one million sterling, or that, in other words, after meeting the expenditure for Irish purposes, she contributed about one million less towards Imperial purposes than she would have done if her contribution for Imperial purposes had been in the proportion of her 'taxable capacity.'"
  Sir David Barbour seemed to think that that disposed of the whole question, and the Edinburgh reviewer took much the same view, for he said:—"Had it not been for the legislation of 1853–60 the contribution of Ireland would be very little greater at the present day than it was in 1817. The total increase would be considerably short of a million. But, however formally correct the equalisation as actually carried out, it does seem from the point of view of true equity and practical wisdom to have been not

  137
  only singularly inopportune, but, having regard to all the circumstances of the time, really unjust." But it seemed to him that this proportion of one to 32 was highly disputable. The representatives of Ireland upon the Commission, it was true, did not greatly resist its acceptance, but they explained that they attached comparatively little importance to it, because, in their opinion, the calculation was irrelevant. The Irish representatives were, however, perhaps remiss in allowing the figure to pass unchallenged, because there was very good reason for believing that this alleged contribution of only one-thirty-second to the Imperial expenditure was a loose calculation altogether. But if he were objecting to the claim of Ireland in this matter, and anxious to refuse to consider her case upon the ground that there was no grievance of this kind, he certainly should not appoint another Commission, for a new Commission would probably examine the figures more exhaustively. They had some means, however, of correcting the calculation themselves. The distinction between payments for local services and the amounts contributed to the Imperial revenue began in 1890 in the reference to the Committee then appointed, and the Treasury, in the Report which they then supplied, dealt with "Imperial Services, English Services. Scotch Services, and Irish Services," and said that, expenditure on the National Debt Service and expenses incurred under the National Debt Redemption Act, the Naval Defence Fund, Army Services, Ordnance Services, and Navy Services must be regarded as strictly Imperial. They also said that the expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Fund included items which were clearly Imperial or which could not be divided between the three Kingdoms. Lord Welby's name appeared upon this Paper as that of the Treasury official who supplied the information, and, of course, Lord Welby was not likely to quarrel with his own classification before the Committee. The classification had so clearly and I distinctly the strongest authority of the Treasury, that ha did not think the Government could expect that any further investigation of the matter would alter the figures to the detriment of Ireland, but it might possibly alter them
  138
  the other way. [Nationalist cheers.] If, for instance, the cost of the collection of taxes, the Lord lieutenant's charges, the large expenditure with regard to education in the Queen's Colleges, and a large proportion of the cost of the police were made Imperial charges, it would very largely alter the figure with respect to Ireland. The Edinburgh reviewer, in one of his most interesting passages, concluded that if reasonable adjustments were made a sum of three-quarters of a million would be taken from Irish local expenditure. If they made the allowance which the reviewer suggested, it would be found that Ireland contributed to the Imperial expenditure a proportion of one twenty-second, which was very little short of the full contribution which anybody had suggested that she ought to make. There were other considerations which ought to be borne in mind, and if this new Commission was to be appointed it would be as well to take some note of the extent to which moneys voted by Parliament, whether for English, Scotch, Irish, or Imperial purposes, were expended within England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not think the calculation was legitimate at all for reasons which stood apart from the discussion, but if they dealt with the matter on the footing that there were three taxable areas to be considered, and were endeavouring to ascertain the burden upon these areas, it was obvious that the question how much expenditure took place within those areas was a most important question. Of the money expended on the public services in Ireland he should think a good deal came to England, but of the money similarly expended in England he was afraid very little flowed over to Ireland; and he hoped the Commission would be entitled to examine what proportion of the sums voted under each head were actually expended in the country to which the amount referred. The second question in the reference was how the expenditure on Irish local services for which the State wholly or in part provides, compares with the corresponding expenditure in England and Scotland, and whether such Irish expenditure might with advantage be readjusted or reduced. Surely they wanted no Commission about that. They had already the figures with regard, to Irish local expenditure, and it

  139
  seemed a little absurd to refer to a Commission the question whether Irish expenditure might with advantage be readjusted or reduced. The question had been reported on by the late Commission. Lord Farrer and his colleagues said,—
  " We are of opinion that the excessive expenditure of Ireland, although it may be no justification for the excessive taxation of Ireland, was at once a pecuniary loss to the taxpayers of Great Britain, and a cause of demoralisation to Ireland."
  No Commission they could have would recommend more strongly than that the readjustment or reduction of Irish taxation. Suppose the new Commission were to report that the expenditure upon the civil government in Ireland was moderate in amount, reasonable in character, and produced an effective and a satisfactory result in economical and good government, the House would tear up the report with ridicule. He knew the reasons of much of this extravagant expenditure. Hon. Members opposite had said that so long as this country dealt with them in a way which they did not approve, incurring expenditure which they did not desire to sanction by their votes, they were determined to get all they could; and as long as they were being taxed so heavily, they meant to get as much back as they could, and did not mind very much whether it was the salary of an unnecessary Judge, or was expended in any other way. The way in which the House had dealt with Irish expenditure had been perfectly grotesque. ["Hear, hear!"] Last night the Chancellor of the Exchequer; said that, if hon. Members opposite would assist in making a little reduction in the excessive cost of the judicial establishment in Ireland, he would promise that they would have the full advantage of every shilling of the saving.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: He denied that to-day.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-CHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,: No, I did not; I adhere to every word of that statement. I said I could not deal with matters of the past, and that I was only responsible for matters of the future.
  SIR E. CLARKEsaid he would give an illustration of the way in which we dealt with the expenditure in Ireland.
  140
  Not many years ago, a judgship fell vacant while a Government was in power which did not know whether it would last very much longer. The Judge was not wanted, and the appointment was kept vacant for two years. When that Government was out of power a most estimable friend of theirs received that Judgeship. [Laughter and Irish cheers.] But not an hon. Member opposite suggested that the Judgeship should be put an end to. [Ministerial laughter.] The third paragraph in the terms of reference to the proposed Commission I was very important, as it recognised that the Act of Union was still in force, and was a most important acknowledgment of the case of the Irish Members. It acknowledged the right of the Irish people to come with the Act of Union and the Act of 1816 in their hands, and to claim, if they could show good cause in the circumstances of their country, to have exemptions or abatements. The question now had passed from the region of Treasury investigation and of financial fact to a most controversial discussion of political matters. He greatly regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should propose to take three Judges from England, Scotland and Ireland to serve on the proposed Commission. He hoped they were not going on with the practice of withdrawing judicial officers from their proper work to put them on Commissions with which they had nothing to do, and upon which their authority would practically be of no use at all. [Irish cheers.] The House must construe for itself the meaning of the words in this reference, and they would construe them, he believed, not in a technical or niggardly spirit, but with the desire to give, full effect to the pledge which was contained in the Act of Union and the Act of 1816, as to the separate treatment which Ireland should receive. He would call attention to some weighty words which were spoken so late as the 12th of March by the Prime Minister, in reply to a deputation of Irish landlords. He said—
  "Royal Commissions are of two kinds; they are either machines of investigation conducted by men who are neutral and impartial—and I am afraid that kind of Royal Commission is excluded by the circumstances of the case, because the controversy has gone on so long, has embraced so wide an area, that almost every person of intellectual competence is known to

  141
  have proclivities on one side or the other—or they are cases of Royal Commissions, of which we have had several instances in recent years, where neutrality is attempted to be obtained on the principle on which a chemist gets neutrality in the drugs that he compounds—that is, by putting together the extreme forms of opposite qualities. The men of the most, violent —I will not say violent, but of the most pronounced opinion in opposite directions are put together, and it is expected that a neutral and just report will come out of that contrivance. As a matter of fact the Royal Commission really becomes nothing less than a ring within which the opposing combatants fight out their differences, and they present what Mr. Gladstone in a very celebrated speech described as a litter of reports. I do not think, therefore, that you will gain very much by going for a Royal Commission."
  [Ironical Irish Cheers.] What Commission was it they were going to have in this case? If it was only to obtain financial facts, they did not want a Commission. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave directions to the Treasury officials he would have within the next week reports upon all these points given by persons whose authority would never be questioned, whereas he would gain nothing if they were filtered through the different Members of a Royal Commission. It would be far better to have these questions fought out in that House, rather than within the limits of a Royal Commission. ["Hear, hear!"] The question raised by the third paragraph of the terms of reference was a serious question of policy, and not a question of fact at all. They had got all the facts, the question was, whether in dealing with Ireland, they were entitled to set off the expenditure of the local services in Ireland against her general contribution. It was perfectly clear that the scheme of the Act of 1816 was that such taxes as Parliament might think right being imposed, the produce of those taxes should come into a common fund, and out of that fund the expenditure was to take place by one authority, which was the authority of that House. He thought the expenditure upon payment of the police in Ireland was as much an Imperial charge as anything else that appeared on our accounts [Irish cheers.] When he heard the conflicting views which were put forward, he asked himself with some wonder which were the Unionist views? [Ironical Irish cheers.] if this were properly to be called Irish expenditure, be could see no escape from
  142
  the conclusion that it must be governed by Irishmen according to Irish ideas. [Irish cheers.] It was because he believed that it could not properly be called Irish expenditure at all, and that it was all Imperial expenditure that he himself protested against the attempt to cut and carve up the accounts of our great Imperial State and open separate accounts, with debit and credit, for Ireland and Scotland, as if they were mere branches connected with us, but were not part of the one Imperial whole. He felt very strongly that whilst it was necessary in order to fulfil our treaty obligations to Ireland, that we should carefully regard the condition of Ireland, and endeavour to deal fairly and generously with her, in her need, if need be proved to exist, we should absolutely refuse to cut up the account of our Imperial expenditure. He would add in parenthesis that there was this fatal Haw about the calculation. They were trying to split the taxation as if it did not matter how large was the, tax they imposed, so long as they spent it upon the population where it was raised. ["Hear, hear!"] According to that theory they would be doing Ireland, in her poverty and trouble, no harm at all, if they were to impose three millions more taxes per annum upon her, always provided that they doubled the number of her police—[Ironical Irish cheers]—-and gave her more Judges —[Irish cheers]—and for the special benefit of the landlords gave her an army of Assistant Commissioners. He believed that the figures and documents to which he had referred established an undue bunion of taxation upon Ireland. Two answers were made to the demand of Ireland for a redress of that burden. One was the extraordinary attack which was made upon the Irish people in regard to their drinking. It seemed to him rather pharisaical for Englishmen to be talking about Ireland in this matter as if that country was afflicted and consumed by a passion for intoxicating drink. There was no doubt that the amount of drink consumed in Ireland was far less in quantity per head of the population than the amount of drink consumed in this country. [Nationalist cheers.] In England the amount spent upon intoxicating drink was £4 2s. per

  143
  head, as against £2 16s. per head in Ireland; and everyone knew that from, crimes generally associated with the excessive consumption of intoxicants, such as crimes of gailianty and violence, Ireland was singularly free. [Nationalist cheers.] It was true that in Ireland an average of one gallon of whisky was consumed per head of the population every; year, but when they remembered that in England an equal quantity of spirits was consumed, in addition to an enormous quantity of beer, which was not taxed to its full alcoholic extent, it was hard that this attack should be made upon Irish people. When one came to examine the figures, it was seen that there was no ground whatever for the charge of drunkenness that was made against them. It was said also in answer to the Irish demand that what Parliament had to deal with was not the Irish question only, but a general question, and that the trouble which had afflicted Ireland as an agricultural population was a trouble which had afflicted other agricultural populations as well. That was perfectly true; and it was for the agricultural Members of the House to consider, in dealing with fiscal affairs, how far the commercial policy which had been followed—this country had acted in diminishing the value of agricultural land in bringing very heavy burdens of trouble and poverty on the people. ["Hear, hear!"] This was a very large question, no doubt; but he did not observe in the proposed reference to the new Commission it should be investigated. But even if it were so, that would be no reason whatever why Ireland should be called upon to wait when there had been a demonstration that she had been unfairly treated in fiscal affairs, and that the wrong she now suffered under required some amendment. [Nationalist cheers.]The matter, of course, was a very difficult one, but he thought they were dealing with it in a comparatively happy time. During the first seven years of his service in this House, there were great and strong passions and animosity shown between one side and the other, and many bitter things were thought and said, and undoubtedly many hard blows were given during the Home Rule fight. But he trusted that those sears were healed, and that they were able to discuss this matter with some consideration for each other. He hoped
  144
  the House would address itself to the consideration of Ireland's needs and troubles with a desire to do justice to her. ["Hear, hear!"] If Parliament insisted, as they did insist, upon maintaining the political union between the two countries, they could only justify that insistance by carrying out that which they had again and again declared to be the principle of their action—the just treatment of Ireland by this country. [Nationalist cheers.] He hoped they would all, in dealing with this matter, be able to give to Ireland that security upon which she was told to rely a century ago—the security of the liberality, the justice, and the honour of the British people. [Cheers.]
  SIR THOMAS SUTHERLAND)said he approached the question from the standpoint of one who had been actively engaged in the work of the Royal Commission. In order to explain his position more clearly, he should state that it was not until after he had accepted a position on the Commission that he had an opportunity of making himself acquainted with the terms of reference. As a member of the Commission, he naturally supposed it would be so constituted as to do justice, not only to the Irish, but also to the English people. He presumed that under the terms of reference there would be a general inquiry, that the Commissioners would not be directed, as it were, to conduct a one sided investigation; and that they would have a free hand as to the evidence. But he had been too sanguine, as the reference, in the view of the majority of the Commission, appeared intended to pave the way for a separation between the Exchequer of Great Britain and Ireland. He did not profess to be able to determine what were the intentions of the late Government in framing the reference on the particular lines on which it was framed; but the result was that the majority of the members of the Commission felt that their freedom of judgment was fettered, and that they were bound to pursue the inquiry on certain lines, he might almost say, towards a prescribed end. They, the majority, were in consequence bound to assume certain theories which appeared to be of a somewhat novel character. For instance, it was held that for the purposes of the inquiry the individual taxpayer

  145
  had no existence whatever; that they were bound to leave out of sight the specific character of the taxes levied and paid; and to treat the whole question simply and solely as a dispute between two nationalities in respect to their respective quota of taxation. It could not be too clearly borne in mind, when dealing with this subject, that but for the great, difference between the debt of Great Britain and the debt of Ireland, the fiscal union of the two countries would have taken place at the same time as the political union in 1800; and that it was solely out of consideration for Ireland—so that she might not be saddled with a, great debt—that that arrangement was not carried out for 16 years afterwards. The difference between the two countries in 1816 was this—that while Great Britain was in a position to meet her enormous debt and gigantic expenditure, Ireland was reduced to a position of almost insolvency. The amalgamation of the Exchequers was brought about in the interest, not of Great Britain, but of Ireland, in order that 84 millions of debt standing against Ireland might be transferred to the shoulders of the taxpayers of this country. Thus the quota system came to an end. From 1816 to the present time the taxpayers in England, Scotland and Ireland had simply been the taxpayers of the United Kingdom and in no sense the taxpayers of the respective countries. Lord Farrer in his Report frankly stated why he took a new departure—it was because Mr. Gladstone had introduced two Home Rule Bills; and the reference appeared to Lord Farrer's judgment to be restricted to that point of view. Practically, Lord Farrer had drawn up a new Home Rule constitution. But the light in which he felt bound to regard the question was this—whether, as between the taxpayers of Great Britain and Ireland, there was an injustice done in the method of levying taxes which would admit of a practical remedy. The majority of the Commissioners having adopted the separate entity theory, naturally sough to devise a principle of taxation to correspond with it. The evidence was all in that direction; but it was noticeable that the downtrodden taxpayers never put in an appearance from first to last. Excepting the official evidence
  146
  the whole of the evidence was that of statistical experts—extremely interesting and speculative, but suited rather to the consideration of philosophic societies, which played with millions as boys would marbles, than to that of practical politicians. He doubted whether the whole of this voluminous evidence added anything to the knowledge acquired from the Home Rule Debates as to the comparative wealth of the two countries. As to the taxable capacity of Ireland compared with Great Britain, Mr. Sexton put it at 1 to 36; and Sir David Barbour said the proportion might be 1 to 16 and was not more that 1 to 20. But even if the taxable capacity could be ascertained with certainty, it would lead nowhere, unless Parliament were prepared to impose taxes on areas instead of on individuals. And such a proposition it was hardly worth while to discuss. While the majority of the Commissioners agreed up to a certain point, there was a tremendous cleavage among them when they came to giving practical effect to their views. Mr. Childers said, "Let the consumers be overtaxed if you will, but give compensation to someone else." Lord Farrer said, "Perish the idea of doles. Let Ireland tax herself." Lord Farrer omitted the obvious consideration that if taxation were reduced, consumption might increase, and the people be more overtaxed than ever. But Lord Farrer anticipated that a lower revenue should be obtained for Ireland, and remarked that it was hopeless, in the circumstances, to expect any contribution from Ireland to the Imperial Exchequer. At that suggestion Lord Welby was scandalized, and wrote a separate Report, saying that it was not only necessary for Ireland to continue to make a contribution to the Imperial Exchequer, but that it should be a larger contribution. Sir D. Barbour said that Ireland ought to pay at least a million more than now. He did not deny that there was certain reality in this separate entity question, which was justified by the Act of Union and the legislation of 1817 to a very limited extent—namely, that abatements and exemptions should be granted to Ireland, and to Scotland as well, accordingly as circumstances appeared to demand. But the Commissioners were so bent on making larger demands, that they did

  147
  not condescend to notice the claim of Ireland for abatements and exemptions. Supposing that the constitution of the country were changed so that entities and not individuals were taxed, the necessary corollary would be that expenditure would most rigorously have to be taken into account, in order to determine the contribution of each country to the Imperial Exchequer. The Commissioners were required to state the amount of Imperial expenditure to which Ireland should equitably contribute. Mr. Childers, in his draft Report, ignored the question; but there was a singular unanimity among the Irish witnesses upon it. They said that Irish taxation must be regulated according to Irish separate ideas, but that Irish expenditure was not a local but an entirely Imperial affair. If Irish expenditure, instead of being high, had been low, there was little doubt that these witnesses would have reversed the reasoning before the Commission, and declared that the low expenditure was an entirely Irish affair. In Scotland the revenue was high and the expenditure was low, and if ever the question of the separate taxation of England, Scotland and Ireland became a question of practical politics, there would be a very serious quarrel on this point between the Home Rulers of Scotland and Ireland. The expenditure in Ireland might be extravagant, and might require revision. In that case, it became clear that Mr. Childers's idea of adding £2,500,000 to the expenditure of Ireland seemed almost grotesque. It was also true that there was absolutely no economic drain from Ireland in regard to taxation. Ireland received back in local and Imperial expenditure every penny she contributed to the revenue—a very different case to that which obtained in Scotland, where the expenditure was very low, and the balance of revenue contributed to the Imperial Exchequer was very high. But if the expenditure in Ireland was extravagant, Parliament was responsible for it, and he held that extravagant expenditure did not and could not justify unfair or unjust taxation. Was the taxation of Ireland unjust? On that question it was absolutely impossible for him to get over one simple fact which constantly stared him in the face—namely, that taxation was
  148
  a personal burden, and that its justice or injustice could only be determined on individual and not on collective grounds. He disbelieved in the idea of separate taxation of any portion of the United Kingdom, because he was certain it; would pass the wit of man to devise a satisfactory solution of what each country ought to contribute to the common; purse. Mr. Gladstone never intended to put forward the idea that there should be no contribution to the Imperial Exchequer, but that was the main essence of the majority Reports, and the meaning of it was that some millions would have to be transferred, if the majority Reports were acted upon, to the shoulders of the taxpayers of Great Britain. Was the taxation of Ireland unjust? Between 1800 and 1850 there was an enormous variety of taxes levied in Great Britain which were never applied in Ireland at all. Between 1800 and 1816, Great Britain raised 265 millions of war taxes from which Ireland was entirely exempted. The case of direct taxation indeed, had been given up, but a great deal had been interpolated in the Reports in order to give the effect of showing that a hardship had been imposed on Ireland by the burden of the Income Tax. He contended that the masses of the people in Ireland had derived great benefit from the burden as well as the masses of people in Great Britain. With regard to indirect taxation it was and must be admitted that it weighed heavily on the humble classes, and the question might be raised whether direct taxation ought not to be carried further, and a greater alleviation brought about for the benefit of the humbler classes, in wiping out the duty on tea, and so on. But the weight of indirect taxation was a poor man's question and not by any means exclusively an Irish question. There were many poorer people on this side of the channel than in Ireland. Indirect taxation in Ireland, what did it amount to? as nearly as possible 5 millions, and of that 5 millions 4½ were obtained on spirits, beer and tobacco. The spirit duty per head paid by people in Scotland amounted to the noble and generous figure of 17s. 6d., whereas the consumer in Ireland only paid 10s. 9d., and therefore any alteration in the spirit duty was very much more a question affecting

  149
  Scotland than the people of Ireland. What was a man's taxable capacity in the matter of whisky? There were a great many hon. Members who professed and no doubt carried into practice their teetotal principals. They might have a large taxable capacity but they did not avail of it, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not able to get hold of them in connection with whisky at any rate, but they had every reason to hope and trust that in the Death Duties they were piling up something which would come in usefully hereafter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In plain and intelligible language the crux of the whole Irish case was to be found in the consumption of beer, spirits, and tobacco; but that consumption was by no means excessive in comparison with the consumption in England or Scotland. The taxable capacity in connection with these commodities could only be gauged by the consumption, and it was impossible to devise any other means for imposing that taxation. It would need n stronger case than could be found in the evidence of the Commission to transfer the taxes on these commodities from Irish to British shoulders. He thought that the Commission had been misled by the particular character of their reference, and he was opposed to anything approaching a debtor and creditor account between Great Britain and Ireland. He was convinced that the financial relations of Great Britain and Ireland could remain on no other footing except that of a common revenue and a common expenditure. He did not take any narrow view of the responsibilities and duties of that House in connection with Ireland, and no one could lament more than he did the backward state of the country, which was alike a reproach to Britain as to the Irish themselves. He should always be willing and ready to stimulate enterprise in Ireland by any legitimate means whenever the Irish were able and willing to help themselves. He hoped that the Irish people would look at this question with an endeavour to find out what was the whole truth regarding the financial relations between the two countries. ["Hear, hear!"]
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
  MA.JOR JAMESON (Clue, W.)said he had listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Longford and the masterly manner in which he had supported the Motion now before the House, and he failed to see that either the hon. Member for Spen Valley, who moved the Amendment, or the hon. Member for North Down who seconded if, had shaken one iota of the volume of evidence so plainly laid before the House by the hon. Member for Longford in support of his Motion. And if this matter was treated by the House as a matter of business, and of hard facts, he thought they would arrive at the same conclusion as the Royal Commission did, that an undue burden of taxation on Ireland undoubtedly existed. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment appeared to consider that he reason Ireland was unduly burdened by taxation was because Irishmen consumed too much, whisky and smoked too much tobacco. But he had been unable to controvert a single argument or a single finding, cither of the Royal Commission or the hon. Member for Longford; and the hon. Member for North Down's speech in seconding the Amendment, appeared to him to be, from first to last, an apology to Inland and his constituents for the position be took up. It was hardly necessary to point out that the Commission whose Report this Motion was founded on was essentially a financial one. It was formed to report on financial facts, and if they had searched the world through, he believed they would not have found a better one, or one composed of more hard-headed men of business and brilliant men of figures. They had an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer in Mr. Childers, a great statistician in Lord Welby, one of the greatest English bankers in Mr. Currie, an European celebrity in Sir Robert Giffen, and another Treasury official, deeply versed in Irish finance, in Sir Robert Hamilton, an Irish banker in Mr. Slattery, and the head of one of the few Irish industries left to us in the Tory Member for Belfast, Mr. Wolff. It was true, that probably out of these 15 gentlemen, eight believed in Home Rule; but then, one of the greatest principles of Home Rule was that it must tend to the financial prosperity of the

  151
  country to which it was applied. But, putting questions of politics on one side, he held that no one could reject the facts and figures of one of the ablest Royal Commissions that was ever appointed. he proposed to deal only with those points on which the Royal Commission were practically unanimous, namely: (1) That Great Britain and Ireland must, for the purposes of this Inquiry, be considered as separate entities. (2.) That the Act of Union, imposed upon Ireland a burden which, as events showed, she was unable to bear. (3.) That the increase of taxation laid upon Ireland between 1853 and 1860 was not justified by the then existing circumstances. (4.) That identity of rates of taxation does not necessarily involve equality of burden. (5.) That, whilst the actual tax revenue of Ireland is about one-eleventh of that of Great Britain, the relative taxable capacity of Ireland is very much smaller, and is not estimated by any of us as exceeding one-twentieth. As regarded the first point—namely, that Ireland and Great Britain must be considered as separate fiscal entities, he did not think it was necessary to dwell. He believed the House was practically agreed on this point, and he commended to hon. Members opposite the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, who said:—
  "I do feel fettered and limited by the terms of the Act of Union and the Resolution of 1816. When I find in the Terms of the Act of Union and the Resolution of 1816 that Ireland and Scotland were both recognised as taxable entities, whose circumstances were to be considered, then I think, taking one's stand upon the Act of Union itself, we are bound to give consideration to this Irish cause."
  Speaking not only as a great legal authority, but also as an English statesman, who had never made political morality and honour subservient to political expediency, the hon. and learned Member had absolutely given, his adhesion to the first, and, he thought he might say, to all five of the facts, on which the Royal Commission, was agreed. As regarded the second conclusion, that the Act of Union imposed upon Ireland a, burden which, as events showed, she was unable to bear, they found Mr. Pitt in 1799, when introducing the Act of Union stating: —
  "That the British Government did not seek the Union from a pecuniary motive. The Measure would infuse a large portion of wealth into Ireland, and supply its want of industry and capital. The zeal, the spirit, and the
  152
  liberal policy of Great Britain gave ample proof that there was no ground for the apprehension that they would tax Ireland more heavily, and no foundation for the idea that Ireland would be subjected to an increase of taxes and a load of debt."
  How had these assurances been fulfilled? Between the years 1800 and 1817, the taxation rose from two and a half millions to over six millions; in 1816, the average rate of taxation was over four and a half millions, and during those 16 years in which they were guaranteed by the so-called liberal and generous policy of Great Britain that there should be no increase of debt, the debt of Ireland rose from 28 millions to 141 millions. They also found that during the first 96 years of the Union, the taxation of Ireland had been raised from the two and a half millions which. Ireland was assured was the limit of taxation, to over seven millions per annum; and, while Irish taxation at the Union was only 10s. per head, it was now no less than £1. 8s. 10d. per head. These were some of the blessings of the Union, which he was certain every Member of this House would consider Ireland was unable to bear. Now as regarded the third question, on which all the Members of the Commission were agreed—that the increase of taxation in 1853–1860 was not justified. The hon. Member for Waterford had stated that most of the enormous increase in taxation during this period was made by Mr. Gladstone. This was so, but he asked Irish Members to recollect that this very Royal Commission, whose finding they were now discussing, was Mr. Gladstone's last legacy to the Irish people. The retracing of his steps, and entirely changing his policy towards Ireland during the last five years of his Parliamentary career was a noble act of a most noble life. They found that during those seven years nearly two and a half millions per annum was added to the taxation of Ireland, and this at a time when the population of Ireland was rapidly diminishing and her wealth being gradually drained away through a universal policy of Free Trade having been forced upon her by the alteration made in the fiscal system of Great Britain. During this period a tax which had been somewhat severely commented on to the disadvantage of the Irish people, namely, the tax upon whisky, was raised from 2s. 8d. to 10s. per gallon. The impression conveyed by the First Lord of the

  153
  Treasury in a speech he made at Manchester, that there was no grievance as regarded Ireland, was quite incorrect. They would find that in England there was £4 2s. spent on intoxicating liquors per head, and in Ireland £2 13s.; but the Englishmen only paid 15s. 6d. taxation on £4 2s., while the Irishmen paid 13s. 6d. on £2 13s. He should like to explain this in a very simple way to the House. Take the alcoholic strength of a glass of beer, and also take a glass of whisky and reduce it to the same alcoholic strength as the glass of beer. The reduced mixture of whisky paid six times the amount of taxation as the glass of beer. This he thought thoroughly refuted the theory of the Member for Spen Valley. Now what were the facts? They took a poor agricultural country like Ireland, which had always been able to produce sufficient food products, not only to supply themselves, but had also been able to export a large quantity of surplus food products to Great Britain, and they practically ruined the only industry they had left, by allowing foreign supplies to be freely imported, forgetting that foreign countries had not to pay local and Imperial taxation, into the Treasury of England, and that Ireland had. The late Mr. Childers, one of the most brilliant advocates of Free Trade, in commenting on Sir Robert Peel's policy of abolishing duties on foreign corn and the importation of live and dead stock, wrote: —
  "The change is usually considered to have been advantageous to a population, the greater bulk of which had to depend, not upon agriculture, but upon manufacturing industry and commerce. It is evident the change has not been so advantageous to Ireland."
  This was the opinion of a great Free Trader, himself an Australian. He felt certain it flashed through his great and kindly mind that Australia would not be at this moment one of the most loyal props of the British Empire had she been robbed and plundered like Ireland, by denying to her fiscal independence, and forcing her to accept a fiscal system for which Nature had utterly unfitted her. He did not think that any Member of that House could help agreeing that first having ruined the agricultural industry in Ireland by allowing all foreign food supplies free entry into Great Britain, it was utterly unjustifiable to raise the
  154
  hideous taxation they had piled on his unhappy country by taxing almost the only commodities Ireland imported in order to raise the 78 per cent, of the taxation they impose on them, or in other words, while in England about 50 per cent, of the taxation was a tax out of the wealth of the country, and 50 per cent, only was a tax on consumable commodities, in Ireland 78 per cent, was a tax on consumable commodities, and was levied out of the very bodies of the people, who had no proportionate wealth. He did not consider that any Member of that House could differ with the fourth conclusion of the Royal Commission. In the celebrated speech of Mr. Pitt in 1785 he said: —
  "He most earnestly entreated the House not to be carried away by the idea that a poor country, merely because she enjoyed some exemption from taxes, was therefore able to cope with a rich and powerful country. The fact; he was ready to contend was by no means so; on the contrary, the smallest burthen on a poor country was to be considered, when compared with those of a rich country, by no means, in proportion with their several abilities; for if one country exceeded another in wealth, population, and commerce in a proportion of two to one, he was convinced that that country would be able to bear nearly ten times the burdens that the other would be equal to."
  They had the best testimony to the truth of the finding on this point by the Royal Commission by the fact that the graduation of their own Income Tax was an example they always had before them, and on the justice of which all great financial authorities were agreed. The fifth and last conclusion of the Commission was that while the actual tax revenue of Ireland was about one-eleventh of that of Great Britain, the relative taxable capacity of Ireland was very much smaller, and was not estimated by any of them as exceeding one-twentieth, and as corroboration of this finding, which collectively was given by every member of the Commission, and which was the maximum that they agreed Ireland could be called upon to pay (" although several are of opinion it is far too high a rate to exact'") they took as the best tests: —(1) Assessment as to Death Duties; (2) assessment to the Income Tax; although they acknowledged that all the other tests, viz., gross receipts of railways, 1 to 24; savings bank deposits, 1 to 19; money orders, 1 to 17; postal orders, 1 to 20; taxed commodities, etc., which

  155
  they had earnestly inquired into, fully corroborated the two tests they had selected. Among all the tests taken by the Commissioners there was one very interesting test that might with some advantage have been dwelt on, and that was the effect of the taxation imposed on Ireland for naval and military expenditure. He thought they might take it as an axiom that military expenditure was intended to preserve the capital value represented in the different countries making up the United Kingdom, and that naval expenditure was intended to safeguard the ocean highway for the merchant ships of the United Kingdom, and therefore this tonnage of the foreign trade of Ireland and Great Britain might fairly be taken to represent the amount of cost that should be borne by each country. Taking the capital value as the test of military expenditure, and the tonnage value as the test of naval expenditure, Ireland would fairly have been called on to pay 1–33rd of military expenditure and l–60th part of the naval, or the average for both would fairly be 1–45th of naval or military expenditure. He would take an average year, 1888. The total expenditure on the Army and Navy was £31,000,000. Now l–45th of this amount, equal to £700,000, was a fair proportion for Ireland to pay; whereas the average charge allocated to Ireland for Naval and Military expenditure had equalled £1,992,000, or nearly three times the £700,000 that could fairly be charged against Ireland. To show the importance of this charge for three periods, he found the total charges for Civil Government, and Naval and Military expenditure in 1795 was £2,508,867; Naval and Military expenditure, £1,553,193, or 61·9 per cent,; in 1800, total charges, £0,854,504; Naval and Military expenditure, £2,757,193, or 40·2 per cent.; in 1893, total charges, £3,242,000; Naval and Military expenditure, £l,666,000, or 51·33 per cent.; or the average Naval and Military expenditure for the last 96 years was about 51·4 per cent, of total charges to be met by taxation on Ireland, or nearly three times her proper allocation; or, during the last 96 years over £100,000,000 has been charged to Ireland for Naval and Military expenditure in excess of what she ought to have paid. He thought that no Member of the House who had carefully read
  156
  the fair way in which the Commissioners had argued out the question, could help agreeing that they had given every possible advantage to the claims of England, and, if anything, their Reports erred in tenderness towards the claims of the predominant partner. With that view they preferred to take the assessment as to the Death Duties in preference to the assessment as to the Income Tax, because the latter would be more to the disadvantage of Ireland. Now the Income Tax was the test taken by Lord Castlereagh in 1800 as the best criterion of the ability of the two countries to bear taxation when this Union was brought, about. He would ask hon. Members opposite to note paragraphs 90 and 91 of Mr. Childers' Report. It must carry conviction to the hearts of those who represented large agricultural constituencies. Those paragraphs were: —
  "(1) The change is usually considered to have been advantageous to a population the great bulk of which had to depend not upon agriculture, but upon manufacturing industry and commerce. It is, we think, evident that the change has not been advantageous to Ireland, a country in which there is but little trade or manufacturing industry, as it has been to England, that, although as consumers, the Irish population may have gained in some cases by the abolition of duties on food stuffs, yet that, on the other hand, as producers chiefly dependent upon agriculture, they have lost in a far greater degree by the cheap prices in the British markets, produced, at least in part, by the free and untaxed supply of foreign corn, live stock, butter, dead meat, cheese, eggs, and other articles of food, and that, at the same time, the taxation of, and the enhancement of spirit duties, changes effected partly for the very purpose of facilitating the remissions of taxation and question, and also in order to 'lighten the springs' of the manufacturing industry, in which her share is small. (2) Ireland being a country mainly inhabited by agricultural producers, could support its present population upon corn and meat produced there without having recourse, under ordinary circumstances, to a foreign supply of these articles, and could, at the same time, export a surplus of these food stuffs. The population of Ireland consumes a rather large amount, in proportion to its wealth, of spirits, tea and tobacco. This being so, it does not appear that a fiscal system which raises no revenue from foreign food stuffs, but does raise a large revenue from spirits, tea and tobacco, is advantageous to the population of Ireland, although it may be advantageous to the population of the United Kingdom, looked at as a whole. It may even perhaps be said that just as Ireland suffered in the last century from the protective and exclusive commercial policy of

  157
  Great Britain, so she has been at a disadvantage in this century from the adoption of an almost unqualified free trade policy for the United Kingdom."
  He looked upon the Report of Mr. Childers as one of the most remarkable efforts that ever had been made by any of the great financial statesmen of this country. Here they had a great Free Trader, a great financial authority, throwing over the dogma of Free Trade, and telling England plainly, in the interest of honour and of justice, that in forcing upon Ireland, a small agricultural country, the fiscal laws which their great and teeming population of workmen and artisans had forced them to adopt, they committed an act of financial dishonesty, and imposed a ruinous and an unjust embargo on the industry of the country they had forced into union with them. He could not imagine any phase of the great and useful life of the late Mr. Chiders more touching than this last act of his. They found him pointing out that the fetish of Free Trade he had so faithfully worshipped had brought ruin and unhappiness to Ireland, and at all cost to his own feelings, he had faithfully reported to the House his views and convictions. Surely no Member of the House could read unmoved the last effort of this honest and honourable statesman, at the close of a long and eventful Parliamentary career, with the very vista of a great eternity opening out before him and enabling him to point out, in no uncertain terms, that honour and justice demanded that the great burden imposed upon Ireland by this country should be removed, and that England should keep faith with the country she had entrapped into a disastrous union. [Nationalist cheer]
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETTsaid he was anxious to take part in that Debate, because he had already attempted to take part in it by way of Amendment, and he wished to explain the views he held upon the subject. He was not going to attempt to dive into those deep speculations which had been imported into this Debate, and which Mr. Edmund Burke, in another famous Debate on taxation, had called that great Serbonian beg in which whole armies had sunk. He was not going to mix himself up in Front Bench metaphysics or below-the-Gangway political economy. The Trish case might be summed up in two
  158
  very simple figures, and they were the only figures in which he was going to indulge. Ireland contributed about 1–11th. or 1–12th of the Imperial Revenue, and, by every test that the wit of man could apply, her capacity for bearing taxation was not more than l–20th of that of the United Kingdom. Now, on those two simple figures they all had a feeling that something must be wrong. He believed that the evil arose out of the incidence of our taxation; it might be inevitable, but unquestionably the existing fiscal system pressed hardly upon the poorest classes. The difficulty in Ireland was this, that she had a far larger proportion of the poorest Classes than any other part of the United Kingdom. As far as the economic position of Ireland was concerned, it was extremely simple as compared with that of England or Scotland. With the exception of a small area in the north-east of Ireland, the country was purely agricultural. It was always admitted, except for the purposes of the Agricultural Rating Bill Debates last year, that they were at present suffering from agricultural depression. From this cause the country was poor. Poverty was at the bottom of the whole trouble. He was inclined to agree with the dictum of Nassau Senior, that
  " Ireland is over-taxed because she is poor rather than poor because she is over-taxed."
  Of course, the English answer was, that the poor areas in England were suffering from the same grievance; but he could point out to the Government when they made that statement that the whole of their land legislation was based upon the difference between the different conditions of the agricultural population in Ireland and the agricultural population in the rest of the United Kingdom, but he did not think himself that the Irish people had any complaint as regarded that poverty that was natural and that was only incidental to agriculture. The poverty of which he complained was that for which England was directly responsible. Ireland's strongest case began at a period antecedent to that with which the Royal Commission dealt. It rested on the commercial restrictions imposed in the middle of the 17th century, and continued

  159
  nearly till the end of the 18th century, and on the laws against the Catholics. It was admitted that England's policy had been ruthlessly to destroy every trade and industry in Ireland which might compete with the industries of the English middle classes. The woollen trade was killed, and the linen trade was hampered. Froude declared that if those trades had been allowed to follow the natural course, there would now be four Ulsters in Ireland instead of one. The people were thus driven back to a pastoral life, but even their cattle, sheep, and butter might not be exported. Then the economic effect of the laws against the Catholics had been too little taken into account. Honesty was essential to the success of industrial and trading communities; but the penal laws made it absolutely necessary for the Catholics, and the Protestants who succoured them, to practise lying and concealment. One branch of his own family was Catholic, and in the past it had been necessary for them, in order to keep the lands of their Roman Catholic kinsmen, to swear that those lands were their own. It was perjury, but he could not blush for it. He came across a curious letter the other day from a, Protestant in Kerry who was in the habit of holding the title deeds for a Catholic friend—Maurice O'Connell, the uncle of Daniel O'Connell. At the expiration of the legal year, Mr. O'Connell wrote to his Protestant friend to ask him to make the statutory declarations as usual. The reply was: —
  "My Dear Maurice,—If I were a few years younger I would be as ready to oblige a friend as ever. But I regret that I am too near my end to perjure myself any more, even for so old and valued a friend as yourself."
  Talk of the "moral and intellectual" damages of the Boers for a mauvais quart d'heure at Krugersdorp!—what was the claim of the Irish people for centimes of such oppression as this? This was an old story in point of years, but the effects remained, and were visible to-day. The Irish people had been utterly demoralised by this system of Government. As to what was to be done now, there were several possible courses. There might, first, be a differential system of taxation, for which there were, however, few advocates. There might, secondly, be a change in
  160
  the fiscal system of the United Kingdom, so devised as to press less hardly on the poorer classes. That would undoubtedly remedy the Irish grievance, but he did not think there was any Irish Member who wished to wait for relief until that policy was adopted. By a process of exhaustion he came to the conclusion that the only course which the Irish could advocate was that a certain amount of money should be restored to them. ["Hear, hear!"] The question which seemed to him of most importance was, whether it was possible for England to deal with the problem of Irish poverty and make Ireland richer, and his view was that the simplest way to make Ireland richer was to attempt to improve the conditions of the agricultural industry. He had made a considerable study of the question of the elevation of agricultural communities in other European countries. Denmark and Wurtemburg had successfully solved the problem of elevating the conditions of—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I can not see that the observations of the hon. Member are relevant to the Amendment before the House, which relates only to the financial relations between England and Ireland, and not to the question how Ireland is to be improved.
  MR. DALY: Reduce the rents. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. PLUNKETTsaid they were all agreed on the Irish side that the present system of taxation pressed with undue weight upon the poorer country. ["Hear, hear!"] From Mr. Speaker's ruling he gathered that he could not speak on the Amendment he had put down, and, therefore, he would now state his general position upon this question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the previous night had stated the final decision which the Government had come to upon the question, and he should say that, so far as he was concerned, it was a matter of very great disappointment to him. He felt that the overtaxation of Ireland had been absolutely proved, and, therefore, he had thoroughly made up his mind that it was quite impossible for him to dissociate himself any longer from the attitude which had been taken up by the majority of the Irish Members. [Loud cheers.] In the Motion which had been proposed there were some phrases with which he

  161
  could not concur, but he felt that Ireland had a distinct grievance. He considered that the value which had been attached to their unity by the vast majority of the Irish, both Unionist and Nationalist, was so well founded, that he could not take the responsibility of opposing the Motion. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. J. C. BIGHAM (Liverpool. Exchange), in a, maiden speech, said his desire was that the subject should be approached apart from party bias, and in his opinion the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth, was evidence that there existed such a disposition on the Ministerial side. The hon. Member for South Longford (Mr. Blake) made two allegations in his speech —one that the burden placed upon Ireland was an undue burden, having regard to the Act of Union, and the other that the burden was an undue burden in existing circumstances. He asked the attention of the House to the 7th Clause of the Act of Union, which provided that in certain contingencies the Exchequers of the two countries might be amalgamated and that the expenses should, in that event, be defrayed by equal taxes imposed on the same articles in each country, subject to such exemptions and abatements as circumstances from time to time demanded. That was the bargain of 1800. It was said that the Act of Union imposed on Ireland in the first instance too large a contribution towards the expenditure of the United Kingdom. But Ireland did not bear the burden. Ireland borrowed money to discharge her indebtedness, with the result that when the Exchequers were amalgamated in 1817, an Irish debt of something like 112 millions had been incurred; thus, though it might be true that the Act of Union imposed upon Ireland a burden out of proportion to her ability to pay, the answer was that she shifted her burden on to the shoulders of the United Kingdom. In 1817 the large debt which she had incurred became part of the common indebtedness of the United Kingdom. No doubt Great Britain also borrowed during this period, and to that extent it might be said that one had to be set off against the other. But if Ireland's rights were to be dealt with according to the letter of tins law, as; it existed at the date of
  162
  the Union, she ought now to be contributing at the rate of 1 in 8 instead of 1 in 11 or 12, which she was in fact at this moment contributing. The Act contemplated and provided for changed conditions, and by Article 7 arrangements were made for future indiscriminate contribution by means of equal taxes. By the same section it was said that indiscriminate taxation of articles should be subject only to such particular exemptions or abatements as circumstances might appear to demand. What did this mean? It meant that, if the taxation of any article pressed unduly on Ireland it might be exempted or it might be abated as justice might require. That was the only right which Ireland now had under that Act, and if this Motion were pointed to such an exemption or abatement he could understand it as raising a possible grievance; but the Motion did nothing of the kind. He had not heard a word so far claiming an exemption or abatement of the taxes on any article whatever. In fact there was no grievance under the Act unless it were, an English grievance that Ireland did not pay the share which that Act originally provided she should pay. Was Ireland unduly taxed regardless of the Act and with reference only to existing circumstances? If she was, which he doubted, the blame did not lie, with any Conservative or Unionist Government. It lay solely with Mr. Gladstone. Carrying out the policy contemplated by the Act of Union suceessive Governments had remitted taxes on dutiable articles which were paid by Great Britain alone, but while relieving Great Britain they put no extra strain on Ireland. In 1819 the revenue of Great Britain was £51,000,000; the revenue of Ireland was £5,000,000. In 1850 the revenue of Great Britain was still about £51,000,000, and the revenue of Ireland still remained about £5,000,000. So that for the 30 years the proportion of contribution remained 1 in 11. It was not unimportant to remember that at the time of the Act of Union the proportion was fixed at 1 in 8, but as time progressed it altered to 1 in 11. In 1850 began the operation of the policy of Mr. Gladstone. He, however, did no more than follow out the policy of the Act of Union. He began then to raise the Spirit Duties in Ireland to the English level. He also put on Ireland

  163
  the Income Tax of which England had so far the exclusive enjoyment. It was Raid that when he put on that tax the right hon. Gentleman promised to Ireland that she should suffer from it for no longer than seven years. He had no doubt whatever that Mr. Gladstone made that promise and broke it. But who listened to the promises of Chancellors of the Exchequer [Ironical cheers.] Who were the foolish people who thought that these promises were made seriously 1 But at that time Mr. Gladstone had some justification for imposing the tax, because he took from Ireland a debt of something like £4,000,000, which had been incurred in the interests of Ireland. The result was that whereas in 10 years the British contribution increased by 20 per cent., the Irish contribution increased something like 60 per cent. By the imposition of the Income Tax on Ireland, Mr. Gladstone did, no doubt, cause the revenue of Ireland to be increased by something like 60 per cent., whereas during the same period the revenue of Great Britain only increased something like 20 per cent. In 1850 the revenue of Great Britain was £52,000,000; the revenue of Ireland was about £5,000,000; so that the proportion was about 1 in 11. In 1860 the revenue of Great Britain had only increased to £62,000,000, whereas the revenue of Ireland had increased from £5,000,000 to £8,000,000. That fact did not violate any provision of the Act of Union. He agreed, however, that it was an inopportune, and in that sense unjust, burden upon Ireland; but the question was whether time and the changes of the last thirty-five years had not removed the grievance which probably was created about 1860. ["Hear, hear!"] His answer was distinctly "Yes." In 1860 the revenue of Ireland was something like £7,700,000, her expenditure about £2,300,000, leaving a difference available for common purposes of something like £5,500,000; whereas, if they took the figures of 1893–94 they would find that while the true revenue of Ireland remained about the same the expenditure had increased to something like £5,600,000, leaving available for common purposes only £2,000,000. Therefore, although the revenue during all that period remained about the same, Ireland got back from
  164
  the common purse a difference of something like £3,300,000. During that time the revenue of Great Britain increased by about 50 per cent, from 60 to 90 millions, and thus, whereas Ireland was contributing one-eighth in 1860 she now contributed only about one eleventh. Although the state of things he had thus described, with Ireland's contribution varying between one in eight and one in eleven, had been in existence for nearly a century, it was now suddenly discovered that some great injustice had been done to Ireland during the whole of that period, and it was said that the proportion ought to be one in twenty. That figure had been arrived at by inquiry into a question of extreme difficulty, and the exact nature of which he did not quite understand—[ironical Opposition cheers]—an inquiry into what was called the taxable capacity of Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] The question was, even assuming that proportion to be the right one, did the present condition of affairs constitute a grievance? He answered that question in two ways. First he would point out that individuals paid the taxes and not areas. [Cheers.] Irishmen paid, he understood, less per head than Englishmen, the former paying £1 8s. 10d. and the latter £2 4s. 10d. If £1 8s. 10d. in Ireland meant more per pound of income to an Irishman than £2 4s. 10d. to an Englishman, the grievance, it appeared to him, arose because Irishmen chose to consume more dutiable articles. ["Hear, hear."] That did not appear to be an Irish grievance at all, but a grievance which applied to every poor man in the United Kingdom. [Cheers.] It could not be remedied by any legislation that was to affect Ireland alone, but if at all by legislation affecting the whole of the United Kingdom. [Cheers.] Was it to be remedied by shifting two-and-a-half millions of taxation from Ireland on to England? All he could say was that such a policy would be most unpopular in England and Scotland. [Cheers.] Would the poor of Great Britain tolerate it or support it? Had his colleague (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) been present, he would have asked him would the Irishmen who lived in the Scotland Division of Liverpool like it? [Cheers.] He was satisfied they would not. [Cheers.] They did not want two-and-a-half millions of

  165
  taxation shifted from Irish shoulders to the shoulders of Irishmen who happened to live in England. The revenue of Great Britain was something like ninety millions, of which thirty were appropriated for local purposes, so that to imperial taxation Great Britain contributed sixty millions, Ireland, therefore, contributed l–30th of the money required for Imperial purposes. She therefore contributed, instead of one in 20, one in 30. It might be said that a part of the five and a-half millions which Ireland received from the public purse, was, to some extent, Imperial taxation; but after making the fairest and fullest allowance for the difference between what might be called the amount of the Imperial taxation and the amount of the local taxation, they could not reduce the proportion that Ireland paid to less than one in 20, which was the standard, as he understood, fixed by the majority of the Commissioners. Irishmen, he knew, said that all expenditure was Imperial expenditure. [Nationalist cheers] They said:—" Why are you to differentiate between Great Britain and Ireland on the question of expenditure, and not to do so on the question of revenue? But what would be the result' If Ireland were only to contribute one in 20, her revenue would be reduced to something like four and a-half millions, and if she were to receive out of the public purse rive and a-half millions she would be receiving more than she contributed, and nothing would be left for Imperial purposes. It was true that Mr. Childers had stated that from the Imperial purse there should be handed over to Ireland something like two millions for the purpose of developing her resources. Ex hypothesi this would not remove the grievance, because it would leave the revenue in the ratio of one to 12, instead of one to 20, and the expenditure was not to be taken into account at all. So it was impossible, apparently, to relieve the grievance under which Ireland suffered by adopting the suggestion of Mr. Childers. The Irish Members said that the only true way to remove the grievance was by reducing their taxes. But how? He had not yet heard which tax was to be reduced. Unless Home Rule were intended to be the remedy he did not know what the remedy was, and he had listened anxiously to hear
  166
  what tax it was that Irish Members suggested pressed hardly upon the people of Ireland, and ought to be removed. He did not know of any. He thought he had shown that Ireland suffered really under no grievance at all; but if she did she had been suffering under it for a whole century—[Nationalist cheers]—and yet hon. Gentlemen opposite had only discovered its existence during the last few years. He could not regard the findings of the Commission as findings which were not dictated by Party bias. He did not question the honesty of the Commissioners, or their desire to ascertain the truth, but when they considered the composition of the Commission and the Reports which its members drew up, he could not help thinking that their minds were biassed by Party considerations, and that their Reports were the result of that bias. For that reason he thought that the further inquiry which the Government were about to institute was most desirable. If it were found that there was a real grievance, he felt sure that there would be a desire on his side of the House to do the best that could be done to remedy it.
  MR. J. J. CLANCYsaid that the speech just delivered was the kind of speech that almost filled Irish Members with despair. The arguments of the hon. Member had all been answered in advance by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth. He had thought that the speeches of the hon. Members for Longford, Waterford, and Plymouth had rendered it absolutely unnecessary to go over the main points of the Irish case once more. But after listening to the speech just delivered, he could come to no other conclusion but that the A B C of the Irish case still needed to be dinned into the skulls and intellects of hon. Members opposite. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!" The hon. Member had spoken of the arrangement of 1817, and of England's taking over the "Irish debt." By what right did the hon. Member call it the "Irish debt.?" He said that Irishmen borrowed the money. Ireland did not borrow it, but it was borrowed on Ireland's behalf by English Ministers, and by force of an English majority. In that transaction one of the principal stipulations of the Act of Union was violated—namely, the provision that all borrowing after the Act should be on the joint account.

  167
  By what right did the hon. and learned Member speak of Irish "debt?" At most two-thirds of what he thought proper to describe thus were a fraudulent and deliberate overcharge, which was forced upon Ireland by abominable means. [Cheers.] England in 1817 made itself partially responsible for her own overcharge, but that gave it no right either then or now to bring Ireland under British liabilities by a system of common taxation. [Cheers.] The hon. and learned Member had talked of the generosity of England in remitting four millions in 1853. Those four millions were released on the express condition that fresh taxation should be imposed, and fresh taxation was accordingly imposed which amounted up to the present to over twenty millions. [Cheers.] That was generosity with a vengeance! But that was not the worst. First, the annuities were remitted in return for fresh taxation imposed. But that was not the worst, for actually in 1887 an Act was passed by which they were now being repaid. [Cheers.] He did not know what others called that transaction, but he called it arrant swindling. [Cheers.] The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to-night to the drink consumed in Ireland. After the powerful and impressive speech of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, he (Mr. Clancy) really thought there would not be an Englishman in the House who would be bold enough to refer to the calumny again. [Cheers.] The hon. and learned Member had unfortunately read only one authority, the speech of the Leader of the House at Manchester, and he believed that authority, although he (Mr. Clancy) was of opinion that the Leader of the House had not read the Parliamentary Report, and although the hon. Member for Plymouth, had quoted the very figures which showed that if either of the two peoples were a drunken people it was the English people. Then the hon. Member went on to say that Ireland was not entitled to separate treatment. That was very good. But Ireland sometimes did get separate treatment. [Cheers.] Five or six times within the last few years she had got separate treatment. When the Probate Duty Grant was distributed was Ireland treated as part of the United Kingdom or as a separate entity? [Cheers.] In the division of the Probate Duty Grant Ireland was
  168
  distinctly recognised as a separate entity. Last year there was an Agricultural Rating Bill passed for England. If Ireland were to be treated as an English county, or a group of English counties, under that Bill her share would have been £800,000. What did she get? She got £160,000 on the ground that she was a separate taxable entity. Ireland had, in fact, not got that money yet. He had not the least doubt that in a fortnight's time the Chief Secretary for Ireland would come and save the British Exchequer a similar amount by devoting £160,000 to the endowment of the proposed Agricultural Board. He thought he had better leave the hon. and learned Gentleman. ["Hear, hear!"] He would only say in parting from him that he was perfectly certain he was the type of Englishman who, if he lived in the time of William III., would have said the extinction of the woollen industry of Ireland was a benefit to Ireland; who, if he lived in the time of the last century, would have approved of the practice perpetrated by English Ministers in regard to the pension list of Ireland. Perhaps he would like to know a little about it. It had some connection with the Irish Debt which the hon. Gentleman said was so generously taken over by England. It is largely composed of pensions for Englishmen and women. [Cheers.] There is a striking saying on this subject of John Philpot Curran which probably the hon. Gentleman never heard. He said that this list contained every description of person "from the excellence of a Hawke or a Rodney to the base situation of a lady who humbleth herself that she may be exalted." [Nationalist cheers and laughter.] The only thing he felt inclined to say about the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was that it was a rather curious thing for him to urge on the Unions. Party that the only solution of this question was Home Rule, considering how little that Gentleman and his Party were doing for Home Rule at present, ["Hear, hear!"] As to the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Liverpool, he was so much of an Imperialist he actually had no objection to being robbed if his robbery were necessary to the maintenance of the Union. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh' would bear him out when he said that the hon. and gallant Member

  169
  for North Down was not up to the mark of his constituents on this question. "Hear, hear!"] At least, he was a better exponent of the opinion of the Unionists of Ireland on this question than the hon. and gallant Gentleman. [Nationalist cheers.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer attempted to cast ridicule on the whole thing. The right hon. Gentleman said he would not follow the hon. Member for Longford, nor the hon. Member for Waterford into the retrospect they indulged in. It was dangerous ground for the right hon. Gentleman to touch on. ["Hear, hear!" If England had made no bargain with Ireland: if the contribution which Ireland was to pay was fair if Ireland voluntarily entered into a bargain to that effect, apart from the injustice of taxing the poorer parts of the United Kingdom more heavily than the richer, the Irish case would have very little ground. But when a solemn bargain was entered into in 1800, and if that bargain was forced on the Irish people by the most infamous means, by bloodshed and corruption—if the taxation was unfair in 1853, and if the result of that is now that Irish taxation was extortionate, he wanted to know what answer had the right hon. Gentleman to their complaint. [Nationalist cheers.] Let them judge the present by the past, and there was no answer to the Irish case. The right hon. Gentleman asked what tax pinched. All the taxes pinched. [Nationalist cheers.] They laid upon Ireland a burden which was too great for her to bear, and which she should not bear according to the terms of the bargain England made 97 years ago. Another question dealt with by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth was the question of expenditure. He had bought after the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman they might have seen sonic sense of shame developed on the Government Benches or, at nil events, that, some effort would have been made to answer the hon. and learned Member on the subject. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not intend to travel over the same ground, but he would mention a few points which he thought would strengthen the hon. and learned Member's case. Those who opposed the Irish case said that Ireland got back her over-taxation and more; and the test of whatever she received they took as what was spent in Ireland. The proposed Inquiry he had
  170
  resisted, but he was not afraid of it, because the classification of the expenditure was really the most curious piece of swindling ever practised on this Parliament. The Lord Lieutenant was surely an Imperial officer, but because the money was spent in Dublin the Lord Lieutenant's salary was put down to the Irish account. The salary of the Chief Secretary was put down to the Irish account, whether the right him. Gentleman spent his time in Dublin or London. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: "Blocking Irish Bills."] Even the expenses of the London Office were put down as Irish expenses. All the money voted for the Queen's Civil List was spent in. England, but that was not put down as to the English account. Oh, no. It was Imperial. As to Navy, be asked how many ships were being built in Ireland, Scotland and England respectively. The answer, as to Ireland, was that one vessel was being repaired there. The 20 millions spent on the Navy under the Naval Defence Act was all spent in Great Britain; but it did not go down to the English account. It was Imperial. The Speaker's salary was all spent in London. That was put down as Imperial. There was a curious item of £40,000 called the Exchequer contribution. It was established in 1890 to constitute a reserve fund of £200,000, was to be kept up until that sum was reached. Ireland had never got one penny of it yet, but it was put down to the Irish account. Surely the expenses connected with the Houses of Parliament were Imperial. But every penny of the money was spent in London. The same story was to be told in connection with many of the Government offices. The most audacious thing of all, however, was that the Office of Public Works and Buildings in Whitehall Place was put into the Imperial account. Mr. Samuels, Q.C., of the Irish Bar, although a Unionist, had written an unanswerable pamphlet on this question; and he summed up the case by saying that where the money was spent in Ireland it was sure to go to the Irish account, and where the money was spent in England it was sure to go to the Imperial account. If these accounts were made out even on the principle of charging to Ireland what was spent in Ireland, and to England what was spent in England it would be found that Ireland was overtaxed by two and three-quarter millions, the very sum estimated

  171
  by the Commission. It was said that the hon. and learned Member for Longford had not suggested a remedy. It was not for the hon. and learned Member to suggest one, but for the responsible Minister of the Crown. First, however, it was necessary to get the Irish grievance admitted. Speaking only for himself, he could make a suggestion as to a remedy. He, for one, did not wish to disturb the fiscal system of the Empire; and he thought that perhaps Ireland might be compensated by being enabled to get back every year in useful and productive public works the money by the amount of which she was overtaxed. After the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech it was time to speak plainly. He declared on his responsibility that if Ireland had the power the proper answer to that speech would be an act of war. [Nationalist cheers.] Men and nations before this had fought for much less. Ireland believed that in this matter England had acted deliberately in a cruel and heartless manner, and when this was demonstrated to the satisfaction of every reasonable and thinking man she was confronted with a non possumus worthy of the worst days of British oppression. He repeated, the only proper answer to that speech would be, if they could, armed insurrection. They could not, unfortunately, resort to that remedy, but there were other means open to them of trying to get some justice for their country. If the present Government and every future Government found a system of intelligent attention being paid to every one of their Bills, whether they concerned or did not concern Irish Members, and if they found as a consequence this Imperial Parliament dislocated and disarranged, they would soon come to have another opinion about Irish taxation. [Nationalist cheers.]
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONdeclared that he represented the attitude of the overwhelming majority of the Unionists of Ireland [Nationalist cheers.] [Mr. JOHNSTON: "Not in Ulster."] Yes, in Ulster; and what was more, there was not a single constituency from Cape Clear to the Giant's Causeway where he could not carry by an overwhelming majority a resolution in favour of the Motion, or at all events of the question before the House. The
  172
  speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was one of the ablest he had ever heard him deliver, and with a great deal of it he agreed—but he thought part of that speech was directed to giving a Home Rule colour and tinge to this financial agitation. He found it was nothing of the kind. If it was he should be the last person to have anything to say to it. He confessed to the House that he looked upon this matter simply from the Irish point of view. The hon. and gallant Member for North Down and the hon. Member for South Belfast looked upon it from the English point of view, which was a proceeding he could not account for. He was an Irishman and no one could deny that a Royal Commission—he did not care in the least for what reason it was set up—had been appointed by the House to examine into the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, and what he said was that that jury had given a verdict for Ireland. He was told he ought to reject altogether the conclusion the Commission arrived at, because that Commission was appointed by a Home Rule Government for a Home Rule purpose. He admitted it, but sometimes good came out of evil, and he did not see why he, as an Irishman, should reject the report of that Commission, founded as it was upon the best evidence that could be brought forward, because it was appointed by a Home Rule Government for Home Rule objects, when he considered the fact that they had knocked the bottom out of Home Rule and that Home Rule was not at the present moment in view on the horizon of practical politics. Therefore he looked upon this report of a Commission of undoubtedly very able men, founded on the best evidence that could be adduced before it, as a verdict deliberately given on the side of Ireland, His hon. Friend behind him, the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Bigham) in his excellent maiden speech, avoided the main point of the Irish contention. The hon. Member said he did not understand what taxable capacity meant. But it was upon that they founded the whole of their claim. He wished clearly to place the position he stood in and that he believed the Irish Unionists took up on this point. He did not contend that

  173
  Irishmen were overtaxed. He did not think they were, and that was why he could not follow the Amendment of the hon. Member for Longford. He did not see that they could say the Irishman was overtaxed, because he did not pay more than the Scotchman, or Welshman, or Englishman. But he said that Ireland was overtaxed according to the agreement entered into between this country and Ireland at the time of the Union, and that owing to the fact that their contributions to the Imperial revenue far exceeded the proportion they ought to pay, considering the vast wealth of their partner with whom they entered into the agreement, they had a perfect, right on these grounds to say that Ireland was overtaxed. What was the agreement? He knew a good deal about the matter because an ancestor of his sat in the Irish Parliament of that time.
  MR. MACNEILL: And refused a peerage rather than vote for the Union.
  COLONEL SAUNDEHSON: Yes; and voted against the Union. They could not help remembering that in those times it was with great difficulty that the Act of Union was passed. He need not go into details as to how it was passed, and the various inducements that were offered to many Members of that Parliament to gain their votes. But he ventured to say if hon. Members read the Debates which took place in the Irish House of Commons at that period, they would see that the great inducement offered the Irish House of Commons to accept the Union was that in joining their fate with the richer partner care would be taken that from time to time the financial condition of the two countries would be taken into consideration, and exemptions and abatements would be made to Ireland when necessary. He was a Unionist to the backbone, and he had an immense respect for the great Treaty of Union, but it was the duty of an honourable nation and an honourable Parliament to fulfil the obligations then undertaken. The logical position was this. The taxable capacity of Ireland bore a far different proportion to her revenue than was warranted by the capacity of the two countries —the one rich and the other comparatively poor. The result of the report of the Commission showed that the proportion Ireland ought to pay towards the Imperial
  174
  revenue was not one-twelfth, but one-twentieth. Thus the time had arrived, contemplated by the 7th Section of the Act of Union, to reconsider the position, to make exemptions and abatements, and to fulfil the contract entered into in 1800. He did not think anyone contemplated for a moment a different system of taxation in Ireland from that which existed in England. It would be contrary to common sense, and it would not be entertained by the House of Commons, because it would involve the finances of the country in hopeless con-confusion. Although an Irishman was not overtaxed, although he had not to pay more for his whisky, tobacco, or tea, than an Englishman or Scotchman, yet, when they took into consideration the leaps and. bounds by which this country had progressed in material wealth as compared with Ireland, it was time that consideration should be given in the House to her financial position. There would have been nothing to complain of had the revenue of Ireland not been violently increased in 1853; between 1817 and 1853, he did not think Ireland had anything to complain of; but Mr. Gladstone placed on her then a burden of two millions a year, and, as a set off, relieved her imperfectly of a sum of four millions which had been advanced. He would take this as proved, and did not think that hon. Members would attempt to deny it. He did not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night attempted to deny it, and he did not think that anybody on the Government Bench would say the result arrived at by the Royal Commission when they found that the taxable capacity of Ireland instead of being one-twelfth was one-twentieth, was inconsistent. Objection had been taken to the word "entity," as a word of foreign invention applied to the Eastern question, and he did not like the word. But if it was a financial principle of this country to tax areas, which it was not, but if it was a financial principle to do so, then undoubtedly the taxation of Ireland would have been reduced. He was not afraid of the word "entity,"' and in fact Ireland had been treated as an entity in many ways. Ireland was treated as a financial entity at the end of last year,

  175
  when the Agricultural Rating Act was passed, she was treated as an entity when the Church was disestablished, and again when landlords were disestablished, as they were not in this country. If Ireland was to be treated as the counties of Wiltshire and Suffolk might be treated why was she not so treated when the Agricultural Rating Act was passed? It was an argument sometimes used, which he regarded as absurd in the extreme. It was said if Ireland was a part of the Empire, as undoubtedly she was, why should not Ireland be treated as Wiltshire or any other county would be treated if it could be shown to be suffering from agricultural distress? But Wiltshire and Suffolk never had Parliaments of their own, at least not within historic times, and never made a treaty with England, therefore the argument that Ireland should be treated in the same way as Wiltshire or Suffolk was absolutely absurd. A solemn treaty was entered into with Ireland, and honourable men, when it was shown that the time had arrived for the reconsideration of the financial positions of the two countries, were bound to fulfil their solemn obligations. It was said this country had been very generous to Ireland, and in a way that had been so, but the generosity had almost invariably been at Ireland's expense. [Laughter.] Vicarious charity was a delightful virtue. When you wanted to satisfy Roman Catholics in Ireland you disestablished the Irish Church, sold her possessions, and converted her bishops into tramways and light railways. [Laughter.] When you wanted to satisfy Irish tenants you disestablished Irish landlords—[Laughter] —and soon they were to be disendowed altogether. This was a principle of generosity by which at any rate England had no right to expect the general thanks of Ireland, the fattening of one Irishman on another. [Laughter.] At last there was an opportunity for England to be generous to Ireland at England's expense. In every Debate it was attempted to be shown that Ireland had not much to complain of, and that cm the casting up of accounts it would be found that Ireland perhaps enjoyed rather more of the money voted by Parliament than either Scotland or
  176
  England. He looked upon that as a dangerous argument, and he was surprised that it should be used by Unionists. He could understand hon. Gentlemen opposite using it, for it was a Separatist argument. When the exchequers of the two countries were, amalgamated in 1817 it was distinctly laid down that all expenditure by the State in Ireland, in Gibraltar, or elsewhere, should be regarded as Imperial expenditure, and it was tending in a Separatist direction to draw up separate accounts for England, Scotland, and Ireland. That was why he was opposed to the instruction to the new Commission, because he looked upon it as tending in a Separatist direction. There was no necessity for a new Commission, for it had been already proved on the very best evidence that the taxable capacity of Ireland and her contributions to the Imperial revenues were not in fair proportion, and that Ireland was overtaxed in comparison with her richer sister. Some foolish things had no doubt been said in Ireland on this subject. One was that, if attention was not paid to Ireland's demand, Unionists would reconsider their ways and policy. There was no foundation for that statement. Irish Unionism was not to be bought or sold. ["Hear, hear!"] What was true was that never before in this century had a movement been supported with such unanimity in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] He could not himself accept the resolution of the hon. and learned Member for Longford as it stood, because he did not see how Irishmen, man for man, could reasonably claim to be treated differently from their fellow-subjects, and because he could not assent to the doctrine that Ireland had not the same interest in the Army and Navy as England and Scotland, To Irishmen the greatness of this Empire ought to be just as dear as it was to any Englishman or Scotchman. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "Who gets the booty?"] Without the Army and Navy where would Ireland and Ireland's commerce be? [Nationalist laughter.] He did not come to the British Parliament to plead in formâ pauperis. ["Hear, hear!"] It grieved him to hear hon. Members speaking of Ireland as if she had made no progress at all, and of Irishmen as if they were a set of beggars crying out for alms. He affirmed that

  177
  Ireland had made great progress, but that progress was nut as great as England's, and it was to rectify the difference that they asked for generous treatment at the hands of Parliament. Ireland's representatives asked this country to do that which it ought to be proud to do—namely, to fulfil the great and solemn obligation entered into at the time of the Union. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that he rose to rectify a statement which had been made more than once in that Debate. It had been said that the whole opinion of Ireland was unanimous on this question. He ventured to traverse that statement, not in Ins own name, but on behalf of his constituents. He should like the House to know that this issue had been discussed at great length by every single one of the public bodies with which he had come in contact in the City of Belfast. It had been discussed by the Belfast Conservative Association, the Primrose League, the Chamber of Commerce, and by the Ulster Liberal Unionist Association. These had not been mere perfunctory discussions, but in each case the matter had been referred to a competent committee which after due deliberation, had expressed its view in moderate, and he thought, reasonable terms, all of which were practically uniform in their tenour. What was the view taken by his constituents? He would read first the resolution arrived at by the Conservative Association, which was the most important political body in Belfast: —
  "Your Committee would caution the Unionists of Ulster not to be led away by the present agitation against the allowed over-taxation of Ireland."
  The Primrose League which was a body entitled to be heard as representing a considerable number of persons, said: —
  "That it is to be regretted that many Irish Unionists have accepted, apparently without due consideration, the report of the majority of the Commission on the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland. That it has yet to be shown that any individual living in Ireland is more heavily taxed than if he lived in Great Britain. That the proposal to establish the principle of separate taxable areas is most undesirable, and might be extended indefinitely. That any change in the fiscal system of the United Kingdom, involving reductions of duty paid in Ireland, and the consequent creation of Customs barriers between Great Britain and
  178
  Ireland has not been shown to be necessary, and from a Unionist standpoint would be most undesirable."
  He now came to the Chamber of Commerce, which had no political complexion, and the Chamber was quite clear on the subject. They declared: —
  "In our opinion Great Britain and Ireland must be treated as two countries having a common financial system. We are most strongly of opinion that to hold that for the present day and in the future Great Britain and Ireland must be treated as separate financial entities, except for the purpose of considering the particular exemptions or abatements to he made in Ireland whenever circumstances require them, would be contrary to the intention and provisions of the Act of Union. The foregoing facts and considerations do not afford grounds for advocating the adoption of a differential scale of duties for the two countries, but it would appear to us that these facts and considerations are sufficient to justify a claim upon the Imperial Parliament for special treatment, in the matter of wise and liberal expenditure in directions in which it can be arranged to be really reproductive."
  And lastly he came to what to his mind was the strongest and at the same time the most weighty of all the quotations with which he desired to trouble the House. That was the quotation which expressed the opposition of the Ulster Liberal Unionist Association, which contained many of the foremost leaders of thought in the North of Ireland. They said: —
  "We regret that use had been made of some of the finding's of the Commission to start an agitation in Ireland for redress of an imaginary grievance, and to give, rise to extravagant claims and expectations that can only result in disappointment and discredit. … We strongly object to any such plan as taking separate accounts of the revenue and expenditure of the different members of United Kingdom, with a view to proportional distribution, and we are unable to see that on such accounts any estimate can be arrived at which will support, the claim for remission to Ireland of any measured amount as due to her on balance of account with Great Britain. On the contrary, we think the result of such an investigation is to show that Ireland's contribution to common Imperial charges is smaller than her due proportion viewed by any standard of comparison …The statement that Ireland have been impoverished and drained of her means by over-taxation will not bear examination."
  He thought he had said enough to justify his assertion that there was a section in

  179
  Ireland opposed to the Motion, a section of which he did not wish to exaggerate the importance, which did not see eye to eye with the hon. and learned Member who introduced this Motion. He wished himself to endorse the view of the Ulster Liberal Unionist Association that nothing was gained by putting forward claims which were extravagant or raising expectations which could not be fulfilled. The only result, he concurred with them in thinking, must be disappointment and discredit. He believed that the claims as they had been presented that evening had been extravagant and had been presented in a way which those who presented them could hardly feel was calculated to attain the object they professed to have in view. He believed it was absolutely no good to hold a pistol at the head of Great Britain in order to make her disgorge what they were told were her ill-gotton gains. ["Hear, hear!"] He was certain from what he knew of the constitutional temperament of this country, that if they adopt the method of claiming, as a matter of right, something which Great Britain did not feel that it was her duty to give, they would fail absolutely in their object, and would do a great deal more mischief than good. He would like to state, what appeared to him, the extraordinary weakness of the case presented to the House. They had been told that Ireland was overtaxed—that Irishmen were overtaxed as compared with Englishmen and Scotchmen. They were told that the fiscal system of the United Kingdom was unjust to Ireland; they were told that the whisky duty was oppressive, that the Act of Union prescribed exemptions and abatements, and that. Irish expenditure was extravagant. What were the solutions that had been offered? Surely if a man was over-taxed, the way to give relief was to under-tax him. But no one suggested that they should take a brass farthing off the taxes in Ireland. He defied any Member to suggest a tax which
  180
  he would get half-a-dozen Members of his Party to agree to reduce. It was said individual Irishmen were over-taxed, but at the very outset, of the Report they were met with the statement that while the taxation in Great Britain was £2 11s. 5d. per head, in Ireland it was only £1 13s. 5d., or 18s. less. He believed the fiscal system was in; some respects injurious to Ireland and to a great many parts of Great Britain too, but the hon. Member for Dublin told them there was not the slightest intention of altering that system. No doubt in a certain sense the whisky duty was oppressive, but nobody proposed to take a penny of it off. The Act of Union prescribed abatements and exemptions, but who had suggested that any exemptions or abatements should be undertaken by the Imperial Exchequer? Lastly, they were told that Irish expenditure was extravagant, but surely if that were so the logical thing to do was to reduce it. He was strongly of opinion that it would be desirable and legitimate to use any retrenchment that could be made in Irish expenditure for the benefit of Ireland itself. But it was, he thought, most illogical to allege all these grievances and then not in one single instance propose to take the obvious steps to apply a, remedy. What it really came to was this, that if relief was to be given to Ireland it was to be given by extra taxation imposed upon Great Britain. That was the contention of hon. Members; they said there ought to be annual gifts to Ireland. That might he desirable, but it was a very odd way of giving relief to a Kerry or Clare peasant to pay additional salaries to officials in Dublin or Belfast. It had been said that Great Britain had robbed Ireland, but Lord Farrer, who had been foremost in supporting the conclusions of the Report, said that one thing certain was that neither England nor Scotland had made a penny out of the fiscal arrangement which was now complained of. What was the logical conclusion to which they

  181
  were irresistibly led? If it be true, and he thought it was, that the main propositions of the Commission, namely, that in view of her scanty means the taxation of Ireland was excessive, what was the natural way out of the difficulty? Ireland, an agricultural and poor country, was suffering from our present fiscal system. We had adopted the fiscal plan of putting the enormous bulk of our taxation upon the imported necessaries consumed in almost equal quantities by the rich and the poor, and the result was that we were putting' a considerable strain upon the resources of very poor men. If that were so, what was a, proper system of relief? If the taxes upon ten and tobacco, for instance, were heavy, if it was unwise or oppressive to raise revenue by taxes upon necessaries imported in very large quantities, surely the logical outcome was to take taxes off necessaries and put others on luxuries. If it were desired to raise revenue, he could easily furnish a list of articles which were neither necessaries of life nor raw material for manufacture, articles which would furnish, to a large extent, the revenue, which would be sacrificed if we reduced or abolished Hip whole or any part of the duties upon tea and tobacco.
  And, it being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  MILITARY LANDS ACTS (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  As amended, considered; read the Third time and passed.
  LABOURERS COTTAGES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 26th April.

  INDUSTRIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved the Second Heading of this Bill, which, he said, had met with no opposition.
  MR. CARSONsupported the Bill, which would be of considerable service. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. GERALD BALFOURdid not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, on the distinct understanding that it was to be referred to a Select Committee. He would not bind the Government to accept the principle of the Bill until they had bad on opportunity of considering the Select Committee's Report.
  Read a Second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

  COUNTY GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (IRELAND) (WOMEN) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  On the Motion, "That this House do now adjourn,"
  MR. VESEY KNOXasked what was the intention of the Government as to the future course of business? He thought it would be clear from the course of the Debate that night, that it would be quite impossible for anything like half the Members who had given time

  183
  and attention to the subject, to speak if the Debate was to be concluded the next night. He understood that his hem. Friend the Member for Islington, who took a great interest in this subject, as well as in the Military Works Bill, would not oppose the Second Reading of the latter if Thursday were given for the continuation of the discussion on the Resolution of the Member for Longford. Therefore it would not be a waste of time on the part of the Government if they would give Thursday as well as Wednesday to the purposes of Debate. He hoped that the Leader of the House would be able to say that another day would be given.
  MR. T. M. HEALYcontended that the House had been generous to the Government, not only in the amount of time given them, but also in the manner in which Government Measures had been treated; in fact, the Government had been singularly fortunate in the conduct of business during the present Session. The fact that the Address to the Queen's Speech was voted within a single week was partly due to the promise that was given of sufficient time in which to Debate this question of the financial relations. It appeared to him that in regard to a great historical Debate such as this, the concession of only one day of Government time was entirely inadequate, and he would firmly but. respectfully press upon the Government the advisability of giving up Thursday. Having regard to the interest which this subject had excited in Ireland, and the general volume of desire that there was to discuss it, he contended that they were entitled to the concession they asked for. So strong was the desire from all parts of the House to discuss this subject that, so far as they were concerned, the speeches had been confined to two hon. Members, that being due to the liberal desire on the part of the Chair that views should be presented fairly from both sides of the House. He therefore thought it was reasonable that Thursday should be conceded to them by the Government.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR Manchester, E.)said he had always recognised an arrangement made with the authorised spokesmen of the Irish Party as an arrangement which needed no endorsement, but he would point out the difficulty in which they stood. He admitted that the
  184
  House had been thrown into a difficulty by the inordinate length of the speeches which had been made. If any large proportion of hon. Members were, in addressing the House, to give an abstract of the various Reports of the Royal Commission, and were then to survey the financial history of England and Ireland from the year 1800, or perhaps earlier, to the present day, and to append thereto their own comments upon the present position of Ireland and its future prospects, it would be almost impossible ever to bring the Debate to an end. He himself had intended to take part in that Debate, and be had hoped that his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, who had had a great deal to do with the earlier stages of this controversy, would have been able to address the House that night. He had recognised, however, that that was impossible, and he had asked his right hon. Friend to take the place which he himself should otherwise have occupied in concluding the Debate on the following day on behalf of the Government. While he recognised the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite to make out the best case they could for the country from which they came, he hoped, in the interest, not of the convenience of the Government, but of the convenience of the House, the hon. Member for North Louth would not press his request which would upset a fixed arrangement, but would not have the effect of bringing before the country any possible argument that had not been already threshed out in the course of the Debate. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. LOUGHwas intensely sorry to hear that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to join in the Debate. ["Hear, hear!"] That, was a loss which they would not be able to make good hereafter. The subject was one of gigantic importance, and the Debate would be historic. There had been no opportunity since 1817 to discuss the question; and now that a Royal Commission had been working on the subject for two or three years, to grudge another day to the Debate seemed to him a false economy of time.
  House Adjourned at Twenty Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS BILL.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE),who, on rising to move the Second Reading of the Voluntary Schools Bill, was received with cheers, said: My Lords,— In moving the Second Reading of this Bill my task will be a much easier but perhaps a less satisfactory one than it would have been if it had been my duty to move the Second Reading of the Bill which was introduced by Her Majesty's Government last year upon the same subject. The present Measure is one which covers a very small scope. It consists
2
of only three provisions, contained in three very simple clauses, only one of which has met with very serious opposition in the other House, and only one of which, as I venture to think, will cause any considerable difference of opinion, amongst your Lordships. I need, I think, take very little of your Lordships' time in referring to what I may call the two minor provisions of this Bill—that which removes what is known as the 17s. 6d. limit, and that which refers to the exemption from rating of Voluntary Schools, The obvious intention of the 17s. 6d, limit which was to provide the means by which voluntary subscriptions should be maintained in proportion to the grant, has not been fully attained. The limit has acted rather as a discouragement to attempts to attain the highest degree of efficiency with the means at the disposal of the managers of the school than to attain the object with which it was proposed—namely, that of keeping up the subscriptions. It has also had the effect, I am afraid, of leading to some irregularities in the keeping of the accounts both of Board and Voluntary Schools, inasmuch as its tendency has been to offer

3
some inducement to showing in the accounts a larger amount of income, from other sources than the grant, than that which has actually been received. I think that is all I need say upon the subject; of the 17s. 6d. limit. As to the clause which exempts Voluntary Schools from the payment of rates, that is a liability winch has imposed an extremely unequal burden on, schools in various localities. In the great majority of cases schools have been rated at only a nominal amount; in some cases they have been rated at their full value, and every variety of practice has prevailed between those two extremes, thereby not only imposing a very unequal charge upon schools in different portions of the country, according to the disposition of the rating authority in regard to the schools, but it had also introduced an uncertainty into the financial administration of the schools which is extremely injurious to anything like sustained and prudent administration. ["Hear, hear!"] I think it is unnecessary for me to say more, on this occasion at all events, upon either of these two point. If they meet with any serious and full examination at your Lordships' hands that examination will probably be conducted more conveniently in Committee on the Bill than in a Debate upon the Second Reading, and I shall come at once to what I have to say as to the main enactment of the Bill, which is that of a provision, of a grant in aid to Voluntary Schools, and the arrangement which it is proposed shall be made for the distribution of that grant. As I have already mentioned, the Bill of last year was a very large one, and covered a very large portion of the field of education. That Bill intended to decentralise the administration of elementary education, and to establish a new education authority in counties and county boroughs, which it was hoped would be able to greatly improve the elementary education in rural districts and which would, both, in rural and in urban districts, have co-ordinated and brought into proper relations with each other primary and secondary education. That Bill provided a grant in aid for the relief of Voluntary and also of necessitous Board Schools, and it created a machinery for the distribution of that grant in aid. The Bill further proposed to deal in what was, at all events, intended to be a fair and impartial spirit—fair
4
both to members of the Church and to Nonconformists — with the grievances under which both felt that they suffered under the Cowper-Temple clause of the Act of 1870. While that, Bill was in no sense intended to cripple or limit the action of the School Boards, which we recognised had in the vast majority of cases been engaged in a useful and efficient work, it did give to the directly-elected representatives of the ratepayers certain powers of control over the expenditure of the School Boards, and it proposed to substitute for School Boards, under certain conditions, an educational authority in rural districts which it was thought was better adapted to the wants of those districts than the School Boards which had been established in 1870. Without entering into the merits or demerits of that Bill, it is sufficient, perhaps, for our purpose to-day to say that, whatever were its merits or demerits, it was at all events found too large a Measure to offer any chance of being successfully passed through the other House of Parliament in the conditions in which that House at present conducts its business. ["Hear, hear!"] That Bill did undoubtedly arouse the suspicions of the friends and supporters of School Boards. It was suspected of an intention which never existed, of being aimed at the usefulness and efficiency of the School Boards. Unexpected difficulties were found in the constitution of the new educational authority, and even some of the friends of Voluntary Schools appeared to view the constitution of that authority with a certain amount of jealousy. The grant in aid which was offered to Voluntary Schools and to Board Schools was insufficient in amount to arouse on the part of either of them that amount of enthusiasm and active support which would have been necessary to pass through Parliament a Bill so comprehensive and far-reaching as that one. When that Bill was withdrawn a pledge was given by the Government—a pledge was given especially to the supporters of the Government, who were in no sense committed to a wide-reaching reform of our educational system, but who were almost universally deeply committed to some measure of relief to Voluntary Schools—that at the earliest possible period in the present Session a Bill would be introduced

5
which should provide at least the same amount of relief to Voluntary Schools as the Measure which was withdrawn had done, and that that Measure should be so limited in its extent and scope as to avoid the danger of the risk of a second failure owing to the undue multiplication of the topics with which it should deal, or from the dangers to which it might be exposed from unnecessarily attacking any prejudices, scruples, or susceptibilities. ["Hear, hear!"] My Lords, the Bill which is now before you has been introduced in fulfilment of that pledge. [Cheers.] The Bill, whatever criticism it may be exposed to, I think it will be admitted, redeems, and does not do more than redeem, the pledge which was given. [Cheers.] It deals with Voluntary Schools only; and it does not profess to be anything in the nature of a complete reform of the educational system. It would be idle for the Government, which was responsible for the much wider proposals of last year, to maintain that this Bill does all that in our opinion might be done, or ought to be done, for the reform of education; but it does deal with one, perhaps the most urgent, portion of the educational system—that of the relief which is necessary, if not to maintain in existence and prevent the extinction of Voluntary Schools, at all events to maintain their efficiency, without which, neither Voluntary nor any other schools can usefully exist. ["Hear, hear!"] It deals with that portion of the question which is necessary to maintain the efficiency, if not the existence, of these schools, which are at present educating more than half the children of our population. ["Hear, hear!"] The case for the relief of Voluntary Schools is one which is not very easy to prove by reference to any general educational statistics. Educational statistics show that in the 20 years which have elapsed between 1875, when the Act had begun to come into full operation, and 1895 the cost of maintenance in Board Schools had increased by about, I think, l3s., while in Voluntary Schools it had increased by about 7s. The excess of cost of maintenance in Board Schools over that in Voluntary Schools had also increased from 5s. in 1875 to something a little over 11s. in 1895. Now if the expenditure by School Boards has not been and is not, as is contended by their
6
friends, an absolutely extravagant one, these figures show at least that, after making all allowance that ought to be made, and which can be made for better economy in voluntary over public administration, the difference between the cost of that education which is considered necessary in Board Schools and the cost which alone can be provided by Voluntary Schools, is greater than is possibly compatible with the full efficiency of Voluntary Schools, and the case that may thus be stated in general terms from general statistics is a great deal stronger if we take the case of schools in our large towns—in Liverpool, in Manchester, Leeds, and especially in London. The difference between the cost of maintenance in Board and Voluntary Schools rises from 12s. to 13s. to 19s. in London, and it is clear that in such a state of things, unless subscriptions are raised to a point which was not considered necessary in 1870, and which I do not think can be reasonably expected now, either these schools must cease to exist or must remain in a state of comparative inefficiency, or else some additional assistance must be given to them from public funds in some manner or other, ["Hear, hear!"] But, my Lords, it is unnecessary, in my opinion, for us in considering this Measure, to bestow labour on the case for Voluntary Schools. It has been fully admitted even by our opponents, fully admitted in the House of Commons' Debates last year, when we were assured over and over again that if we had confined ourselves to a simple Measure providing the necessary relief for Voluntary Schools we should not have encountered the opposition we did encounter. ["Hear, hear!"] Although the Opposition have found ample grounds for opposing what, in our opinion, is a very short and simple measure of relief to Voluntary Schools in the present Session, they still assure us that if our Measure had satisfied certain conditions of equity and equality, if it had been accompanied by certain safeguards for providing that relief should go to increased efficiency of education, and that the rights of parents of children should be respected—that in that case our Measure would have received no opposition from them. Therefore, I may take it that not only on this, but on the other side of the House it is universally admitted that under certain

7
conditions some relief for Voluntary-Schools is required at the present time. On the failure of the Bill of last Session the Education Department immediately took into consideration how this relief, which we consider indispensable, could be given, in what manner it ought to be given, and whether it could be given by some Measure both to Voluntary and Board Schools. We spent a great deal of time in the examination of a plan which I will only state without entering into any discussion of it. The plan we considered was whether it would be possible to approach this question from the point of view taken in the Act of 1870, in the 97th section of that Act, by which the amount of special aid which, is given to certain necessitous Board Schools is determined in proportion to the rateable value of the district combined with the number of children who have to be educated in the Board School. We considered whether it would be possible to extend that principle to Board and Voluntary Schools alike, whether by some increase of the limits laid down in that clause and by making the principle of universal application, we could deal in the same manner and on the same principle both with Voluntary Schools and necessitous Board Schools. When that proposal was exposed to full examination insuperable difficulties were found to exist, and it was found that so many additions to and modifications of the principle would have been required that the Measure would have been of a far too complicated character to offer any chance of being easily accepted by either House of Parliament. It was carefully examined by a small Departmental Committee, and in the conclusion of their discussion of it they stated that they did not regret that the plan had been proposed as a basis for a Measure, they did not regret that the attempt had been made, because the principle upon which the proposal was made appeared so reasonable and plausible that it was useful that it should have been fully examined to show why it was not applicable to the case now before us. I only refer to the scheme in order to show that we have endeavoured to approach the question not in the interest of Voluntary Schools alone, but in a spirit of perfect equality and fairness to ratepayers and to Board Schools as well as Voluntary
8
Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] The discussions that took place during the whole of last autumn and winter with which your Lordships are familiar, will have convinced you that almost insuperable objections would have attended a proposal for assisting Voluntary Schools by aid from the rates even if the Government had been, willing to adopt that principle. The experience we obtained in the discussion of the Bill last year proved that great difficulty would be involved in the attempt to create any new authority charged with the distribution of the grant, and even if possible, would have involved delay in the provision of relief to Voluntary Schools. In the opinion of all the inspectors whom we consulted, in the opinion, I think, of the best educational authorities, anything in the nature of a grant equally distributed all round to Voluntary Schools would have been found in a great number of cases to have been insufficient, and in other cases would have involved a waste of public money. After examination of all these proposals it appeared that the only alternative that was left was that we have adopted, of asking Parliament to provide a, certain sum as a grant in aid to Voluntary Schools, and to intrust the Department itself with the distribution of that sum, having regard to the necessities of each school and to the resources at its disposal. This is the principle contained in the first clause of the Bill. It is embodied in a clause which I think is as short and as simple as it is possible to conceive, and it is subject of wonder and almost of admiration how any Parliamentary ingenuity can have succeeded in prolonging discussion of the principle embodied in this clause in Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill for several days and in Committee for several weeks. ["Hear!"] It does indeed contain one important detail—that is, the recognition of the association of managers of Voluntary Schools, but that is not the principle of the clause; the principle of the clause is embodied in the first and second sub-sections, which enact in the first place that a certain sum shall be annually provided by Parliament for an aid grant, and in the second subsection that the aid grant shall be distributed by the Education Department in such manner and amount as the Department think best, for the purposes of

9
helping necessitous schools and increasing their efficiency, due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions. This is the substantial portion of the clause. All the other sub-sections which follow it are merely supplementary and subsidiary to that substantial provision, which provides a sum of money to be distributed on the responsibility of the Department, and on the responsibility of the Department alone, for the relief of the necessities of Voluntary Schools. Exception has been taken to the amount of 5s. which is named in the first, Sub-section. The naming of that sum has been described as misleading, because it appears to indicate that the sum of 5s. per scholar is to be distributed indiscriminately to Voluntary Schools, whereas that is not the intention. That is perfectly true, and if this grant in aid had been intended to be a temporary one—if it were asked for one, or for two, or for three years, all reference to 5s. per scholar in the clause would have been omitted. It would have been sufficient to have named in the Bill a certain sum to be placed at the disposal of the Department. But the sum of 5s. per scholar has been inserted in the Bill as showing the limit which it is intended the grant shall never exceed, and, at the same time, indicating the amount which it is hoped and intended that Parliament should annually provide and place at the disposal of the Department. The remaining sub-sections of the clause indicate only the manner in which the Department proposes to exercise the power intrusted to it and discharge the responsibility committed to it. No doubt Her Majesty's inspectors of schools have a very full and competent knowledge of the necessities of the schools within their districts. They have also a large knowledge, perhaps less complete, of the resources of the districts in which these schools are situate. But if our inspectors bad possessed all the knowledge which would have been necessary to enable them to distribute, under the Department, this grant, still we were of opinion that to intrust the distribution of the grant to them would have been to place upon them a great responsibility, to impose upon them an invidious duty which might, to some extent, have interfered with the efficient and proper discharge of
10
the other important duties of administration and advice, and of disposing of the ordinary grant which are already imposed upon them. We have, therefore, proposed to seek the assistance and advice of bodies which shall be representative of the managers of the schools themselves. We believe that the interest which they have in education and in the maintenance of the efficiency of education; we believe that the knowledge which they possess of the circumstances of the schools in various localities, and the knowledge which they possess, or which it is competent for them to obtain, of the resources of those localities, will enable them to give to us most valuable advice and assistance in this matter. Some attempts have been made to show that the administration of this grant, with the advice and assistance of these associations, will be nothing but an unseemly scramble amongst clerical managers for the largest share of this grant-in-aid which they can obtain. I think that something in the nature of an unseemly scramble might possibly occur if it were proposed that the, managers should come individually before an inspector or other official of the Government in order to obtain the largest share which he could of the grant which is to he disposed of. But while we have not attempted to prescribe the organisation or to define the constitution of the governing bodies of these associations: while there will probably be a great diversity among them both as to area and organisation; while they may include, some of them, all the schools in the county or other recognised area; or whether they may include all the schools in an ecclesiastical district belonging to one denomination; whether their governing bodies are chiefly composed of clerical or lay managers; whether they provide any representation of the teachers or of the parents—however much they may vary in their constitution and in their composition, we believe that the main interest which can actuate any such body, however it be composed, will be the interest of the efficiency of the schools which they represent. [Cheers.] And we believe that the importunate claim either of inefficiency or parsimony, or of any other character, will find but a very scant hearing at the hands of such a, body. If it be assumed that these associations will be mainly of a

11
clerical character, if it be assumed that they will chiefly be composed of managers who will have denominational rather than educational interests at heart, even then, I cannot conceive what advantage they can hope to gain from the attempt to administer this grant in any narrow, sectarian, or local spirit. ["Hear, hear!"] The Department are of opinion, Her Majesty's Government are of opinion, that the formation and the encouragement of these associations will possess other considerable advantages in addition to that of assisting us in the distribution of this grant. Some of these associations already exist, and have been found to work extremely well. Recognised as they now will be by the Legislature armed with the influence of exercising a considerable authority over the distribution of a large grant, their power of usefulness will be greatly extended and increased, and they will become capable of better work and a more extended influence. In the opinion of some of our most capable educational advisers, an organisation of this character in the management of Voluntary Schools has long been desirable. In the opinion of these advisers—perhaps I may give some offence by stating it—want of funds has not been the only, perhaps not the main, difficulty with which Voluntary Schools have had to contend, but the difficulties which have arisen from bad and inefficient management have been of at least I equal importance. While this Bill will not confer upon these associations, if they should come into existence, any powers except that of giving advice to the Department, while there is no intention of conferring upon them further statutory powers, I think there is little doubt that, if established with these powers of advice, they will very shortly acquire a certain moral power which will enable them to exercise a large influence over the schools in their associations, and to impose a considerable check upon inefficient management, and, by the pressure of well-informed experience, that it will be in their power to improve the management of many schools which may in times past have suffered either from ignorance or administrative incapacity or possibly from religious intolerance, which may in some cases have prevailed amongst individual managers and have injured the efficiency
12
of the schools. I hope in these observations that I have been able to point to some of the reasons why the provisions of this Bill have assumed so wide and general a shape, why we have not thought it necessary to insert in the Bill detailed instructions for the administration and formation of these associations, and why we have declined to accept amendments and minute instructions to the Department in the administration of this grant. We have made the provisions of this Bill wide and general, and we have declined to accept detailed amendments, deliberately and of set purpose, as being inconsistent with the principle of the Bill itself. We do not desire to ignore or to minimise the responsibility which this Bill places upon the Department. The Education Department is primarily charged with watching over and maintaining the efficiency of elementary education, whether in Voluntary or in Board Schools, and we think it would be idle to prescribe to the Department charged with that great duty instructions as to the special purposes which may conduce to that efficiency. We have declined, in dealing with the associations which we propose to encourage, to stereotype the conditions under which they are to come into existence or in which they are to conduct their operations. We attach the highest value to the principle of association of the managers of schools, but we acknowledge that it is as yet an almost untried principle and that the best form which it can assume can probably only be determined by experience. We are of opinion that the power which we retain of approving or disapproving of the constitution of the governing bodies of these associations will be a better guarantee than could be provided by any detailed instructions inserted in the body of the Bill that these associations will be formed in a manner which will be most conducive to the proper conduct of their duties. In the conduct of this Bill we have had further to bear in mind that so long as the Act of 1870 remains in existence, that Act, which is at present our educational charter, the Government is charged with yet another duty besides that of maintaining the efficiency of elementary schools; it is charged with the duty of maintaining the existence of schools which afford religious instruction to the children of our people. ["Hear, hear!"]

13
The defects of the Act of 1870 have been fully and freely admitted. I do not propose to enter into a discussion of those defects and inequalities at this time, but so long as the Act exists we must recognise that under it an absolutely uniform standard of education in every part of the country is impossible, that the standard must vary according to the circumstances of the locality—so long as education remains to any extent a charge, whether on the rates, on voluntary subscriptions, or on contributions from the parents by means of school fees, the standard of elementary education must vary according to the circumstances of the locality, and for this reason we have declined to accept amendments which would have imposed upon the Education Department a rigid rule that this grant shall never be applied to a reduction of subscriptions where, in the opinion of the Department, the resources of a locality or of a certain portion of the people are so small that it is not in their power to make more than a very limited contribution to the support of those schools in which religious instruction is such as they desire for their children. In such cases we recognise that so long as a certain standard of efficiency is maintained, without which the school would not be recognised at all, it may be our duty to administer this grant in aid rather for the relief of the subscribers and the parents than for the purpose of forcing up the standard of education in that locality to that which we may reasonably expect in more prosperous communities. The Department has recognised the two responsibilities which are placed upon it by the Act of 1870 and by the present Measure. They recognise that they are responsible, in the first place, to apply the Parliamentary grant and this grant in addition for the purpose of maintaining and improving elementary education, and next that they have an equal responsibility to discharge in giving effect to the desire of a large number of the people, a, desire to which Parliamentary sanction has been given, that schools in which religious instruction is given shall be preserved. [Cheers.] Having regard to this double responsibility we have felt ourselves bound to resist Amendments which would, in our opinion. have
14
hampered and fettered us in the discharge of the duties which have been imposed upon us. It is said that this Bill does nothing for necessitous Board Schools. That is a defect which I trust will be remedied in a very few days. We are aware that there are many Board Schools which stand in almost, if not quite, as much, need of assistance as Voluntary Schools themselves, and a Measure for their relief will, I believe, be introduced into the other House of Parliament, and I trust carried, within a very short time. I do not profess to say that the relief which that Measure will offer to certain Board Schools will be on the same scale us that which is proposed for Voluntary Schools in this Bill, or that it will be equally extended to all School Boards. If it is desired to raise, the question of statutory equality which is supposed to be enacted under the Act of 1870, I shall be perfectly ready, if necessary, to enter into that argument, but I do not think it is necessary for my purpose at the present moment. We maintain that no principle of statutory equality enacted by the Act of 1870 is infringed by this Bill, but we further contend that no such case exists for the extension of a grant in aid to all Board Schools, as has been proved to exist for a grant in aid to all Voluntary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] The larger number of School Boards, in our opinion, stand in no need of relief or, if they do, the relief is to a very large extent in the hands of those by whom the School Boards are elected. The case of the Board Schools rests upon a totally different foundation from that of the Voluntary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] The cases in which relief to necessitous Board Schools is an educational question are, we believe, extremely rare; in the majority of cases the question of relief to School Boards is rather a question of relief of certain ratepayers than a question of educational efficiency. ["Hear, hear!"] It is a question which we believe requires the consideration of Parliament, and which we propose at the earliest possible moment to bring under the consideration of Parliament, but we altogether deny that there is any similarity in the case of Voluntary Schools, and of the poorest Board Schools which would have made it incumbent upon us to attempt, to deal with them in

15
a single Measure. If it is said that this Bill does nothing for the ratepayers who are charged in some districts with a large part of the cost of education, that also is a proposition which I entirely deny. This Bill does a great deal for the ratepayers if it does not do it directly. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not believe it is disputed that, the total disappearance of all Voluntary Schools would involve a charge upon the ratepayers of not less than four millions sterling per annum. If, therefore, the extinction of such schools is prevented by this Bill the saving to the ratepayers in general may be measured by that amount. Another point upon which I wish to make one or two observations is the alleged inequality in the distribution of the grant between different districts in the country. It is said that the districts where Voluntary Schools educate the greater proportion of the children will receive, much, but those where the education of the children is simply conducted in Board Schools will receive little. That inequality in the distribution of this sum must no doubt be admitted, but we altogether deny that there is any injustice in this proposal, or that, whether it be inequality or whether it be injustice, it is inequality or injustice which is not inherent in the settlement of 1870, which even our opponents profess to desire to retain. The Act of 1870 recognised the existence of denominational and of undenominational schools, and it recognised the existence of the undenominational schools merely as a necessary supplement to the denominational schools already in existence. ["Hear, hear!"] As introduced the Act of 1870 would have sanctioned the application of a rate for the maintenance of denominational schools; as it was passed it withheld that aid. In substitution for the rate aid which the Bill offered on its introduction, provision was made by the State which it was supposed at the time would be adequate compensation for the withholding of rate aid. That compensation has not proved to be adequate. I do not believe that Parliament is prepared either to face the alternative of sacrificing the denominational schools, which, in my opinion, are approved and appreciated by a large majority of the parents in the country; neither are we prepared to invite Parliament to face all the controversy that would be involved in the proposal
16
to support these schools from the rates. The inequality to which I have referred, and which is complained of, rests upon and is the result of an inequality which is of a still more fundamental character —an inequality which denies to one class of schools that form of assistance which it concedes to another class. In wisely and prudently seeking to remove that inequality it seems to me that there is no right to complain of the minor inequality which is involved in the somewhat unequal distribution of the special aid grant. I do not think that at this stage of the discussion of this Measure it is necessary that I should detain your Lordships by further explanation, either of the provisions of the Bill or the principles on which it is founded. I have endeavoured to point out in what sense the Government, have understood the responsibilities which they propose to undertake in the distribution of this grant, and I do not think it is necessary that I should enter into further defence of the reasons which have induced them to decline the Amendments which have been so freely proffered by the Opposition in the other House. I thank your Lordships very much for the patience and attention with which you have heard my statement. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill. [Cheers.]
EARL SPENCER: I must congratulate your Lordships' House on the fact that the responsible head of the Education Department has introduced this important Measure to your attention. The Bill that, we have before us is a very remarkable document. It represents what I may call the self-styled council of perfection. Why do I say that? Because this Bill, in a perfectly unprecedented manner, has come up to this House without a line or a word being altered from the way in which it was framed when it was introduced in another place. I cannot for a moment think that this is a recommendation of the Measure. I think it is impossible, however wise, however experienced, the framers of the Measure may be, that thy should not be able to learn from an Opposition which cannot be accused of want of experience or stupidity some Amendment of the Measure. That is why I have so termed the Bill. The noble Duke has referred to the Bill as a very small Bill. No doubt it is a short Bill, for I venture to say that the first clause I alone contains as much material as would

17
in an ordinary Bill fill six or seven clauses. Before I go to the general discussion of the matter I would like to make some passing remarks on education. Our system of education in this country is very peculiar. There are the Voluntary Schools, which are denominational in their character, and which are supported by State grants and subscriptions, and there are the Board Schools, which are undenominational in their character, and are supported by State grants and the rates. Let us see how these two systems stand in the country. They exist side by side. There are in the Voluntary Schools 2,445,812 children, and in the Board Schools 1,879,200; and the total annual grant amounts to £6,232,750 for all elementary schools in the country. In the Board Schools the annual grant or fee grant amounts to £2,975,898, and for the Voluntary Schools £3,256,352. The annual subscriptions to the Voluntary Schools amount to £836,428—that is to say, the subscriptions for maintenance amount to about one-fourth of what the public grants may be. That is an important matter with regard to what I am now going to say. These Voluntary Schools are managed by denominational managers. That of itself is a, very remarkable fact—that such an enormous sum as that which I have quoted is being paid towards the maintenance of Voluntary Schools, and that that should be intrusted to these managers. I think you can hardly find a parallel for that in any other country. In 1876 the noble Duke said:—
" I am not surprised that my hon. Friend is dissatisfied with the present system. I must confess it is a remarkable and. I believe, an anomalous system. It is a system which places in the hands of religious bodies and private individuals duties and powers which in every other country in the world are considered as appertaining to the State and should be exercised by it. It is a system which has undoubtedly worked very much to the advantage of one denomination and to the detriment of others."
This expresses my meaning better than any words of mine. I will come to the question of the increased cost of education. In 1873, in Voluntary Schools it was £1 10s. per scholar, and in 1895 it was £1 19s. In Board Schools the cost in the same years was respectively £1 14s. 6d. and £2 10s. 2d. I think these
18
figures show that there is a strong necessity for giving additional assistance to the schools in the country from the State. ["Hear, hear!"] I come now to the Bill itself. It proposes to do that, but it proposes to give increased grants to Voluntary Schools alone. I will venture to offer to your Lordships some arguments to show why we feel it to be our duty on this side of the House to protest by our votes against the Second Reading of the Bill. We do not fin- a moment wish to destroy or starve Voluntary Schools. We consider them part of the settlement of 1870, and that it would be extravagant to supplement them by School Boards. We feel it would not be desired by a large number of the people; but what we do object to is that we have no certain guarantees, which we ought to have. One of these is as to the introduction in the management of some representative from the locality. Though there may have been some irregularity before, it is enormously increased by this Bill. The managers are often clergymen. I should be the last to attack the clergy; on the contrary, I wish to give my meed of praise to the work they have done in regard to education. I know cases where the clergy have so conducted their schools that Nonconformists readily send their children there, and make no objection to the management; but there are very great exceptions to that. ["Hear, hear!"] Managers in certain schools often impose conditions on their teachers and on the education given that are not in conformity with religious equality. [Cheers.] A master is appointed on condition that he will do some extra work, either play the organ or teach in the Sunday school. That at once limits the field from which teachers can be recruited, and then there is a grievance to which I attach importance indeed. There are 8,000 parishes in which there is only one school, and that is almost universally the Church school. There might be many bright and clever children belonging to Nonconformist, parents well fitted for the profession of teacher. How are these children to enter the profession? ["Hear, hear!"] I know one exception where, in a school managed by a clergyman, a Nonconformist child has become a teacher. In hardly any schools is this permitted, and therefore this noble profession is entirely closed to these able and clever

19
Nonconformist children. I feel that that is a very great grievance. ["Hear, hear!"] The introduction of representation on boards of management might not do a, great deal to cheek it, but I think it will do something, and for that and other reasons I desire that some representation should be introduced as a guarantee for the proper management of the schools before this grant is made. ["Hear, hear!"] I cannot understand why the clergy object to lay management. I know a good many instances in which it has been introduced without the least difficulty, and in which the clergy have worked admirably with laymen, but it appears that to introduce a condition of this sort to regulate those of the clergy who are narrow-minded is repugnant to the Church and those in authority, It seems to me that the clergy have at starting such an enormous advantage in their own education and in their experience in teaching that they will always hold their own and lead the school committee even if there are laymen upon it. ["Hear, hear!"] This point of the management of schools is one which we feel is of great importance, and we shall be extremely glad to see some change made in the Bill with regard to it. I now come to another point—namely, the inequality of treatment under the Bill. The noble Duke referred to it as the inherent result of the Act of 1870. I maintain that there is very great inequality, not only as between Voluntary Schools and Board Schools, but as between one part of the country and another. ["Hear, hear!"] I doubt extremely whether the argument brought forward by the noble Duke as to the addition to the rates there would be if the Voluntary Schools disappeared is an argument which will come home to those who suffer from heavy rates. They will not believe that Voluntary Schools are going to be done away with. If there is anything in what is said by those who urge the establishment of denominational schools, I cannot suppose they will drop their schools in the manner that is suggested. ["Hear, hear!"] In a speech which the noble Duke made in November 1895, in reply to a deputation, he said: —
"I presume that what is intended by this is an increased fixed grant all round. I do not conceive it is proposed by any legislation to depart from the principle of statutory equality as regards State aid 1o Voluntary and Board Schools."
20
I am aware that the noble Duke has made some explanation of this passage, and has put a different interpretation upon it; but I could not follow his explanation, and I confess that when I read that speech of his I thought he was alluding to the grant authorised by Parliament to be made by the Department to both Board and Voluntary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] If you look at this a little closer, you will see that a very grave injustice would be done by the Bill as it now stands. Under this Bill £611,701 will come to Voluntary Schools in England and Wales from the 5s. grant. If the Board Schools received the same grant —
THE DIKE OF DEVONSHIRE: They will not.
EARL SPENCER: If they did receive the same grant they would get £466,878. We are told that Board and Voluntary Schools are on a totally different footing. They are so, no doubt, in many respects; but if you have to regard the subscribers to Voluntary Schools who suffer from what is called an intolerable strain, surely for exactly the same reason you ought to have regard to the intolerable strain on heavily-rated localities. ["Hear, hear!"] Let us just look for a moment at the localities. London and Lancashire have about the same number of Board and Voluntary School children together. If you give 5s. all round, Lancashire will get £ 114,000 and London will only get £44,000, though it is rated twice as much as Lancashire. It is, in my opinion, exceedingly difficult to say anything but that that is an extremely unjust and unfair arrangement. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not propose to go into other questions at length. There is the question of the efficiency of the education, there is the question of maintaining voluntary subscriptions. Those are very important matters, but they are referred to in so vague a manner in, the Bill that I doubt whether we shall have any security that the increased grant will be applied to increase efficiency, or that the voluntary subscriptions will be maintained. I should deeply regret to see the total loss of voluntary subscriptions, and I think those who defend the Bill would regret it also. ["Hear, hear!"] I come now to a very important point—namely, the question, of these associations of management. The noble Duke himself has laid great stress on the importance of this provision,

21
and in another place the First Lord of the Treasury said he considered this almost, if not quite, the most important clause in the Bill. From Mr. Balfour's speech we may, I think, argue with certainty that the formation, of these associations must be considered compulsory. This is what he said:—
" I believe, therefore, as I said the other day, that the association part of the Bill, however much it may be attacked, is a part of the scheme from which I hope almost more than from any other part of it; and I trust that those who have to vote on the different stages of the Bill will look to this part of the Bill with special care and impartiality, and I am convinced they will think that the Government have come to a wise conclusion in this matter and that we ought to do everything we can where there is no party involved to force schools into association, from which operation so much is to be hoped in the cause of both secular and religious education throughout the country."
To this I could add words of the Vice President of the Council which prove that it is the intention of the Government that the Department should make these clauses compulsory. I think that is a very great and serious objection to the proposal. ["Hear, hear!"] You are creating a, new local authority. It may be called Voluntary, but it is a, new authority; and you are increasing that chaos of local authorities of which we have heard so much. What is the area over which the authority is to exist? I see in one speech it is stated at a million of population. In another it is to be diocesan; and other suggestions have been made. I notice that the National Society, forestalling the decision of your Lordships' House, have already come to a resolution on the matter, and they wish to have certain laymen on these boards. I venture to think that these associations, particularly when connected with a particular sect, will have a very had influence on the country. We may probably have Weslevan associations, and other Nonconformist associations, and, no doubt, Church associations. I should like to say a few words only on the last. I should regret exceedingly to see diocesan boards of this kind formed. I have the greatest possible respect for individual prelates of the Church, but I do look with some-suspicion and alarm at the increase given to the power of the higher clergy in mailers not religious. ["Hear, hear!"]
22
I believe the peoples are warmly attached to the religion of the country, but they share the views I have expressed with regard to clerical management. I should greatly fear these diocesan boards would give very much increased power to the higher officers of the Church. They will damage what is one of the great advantages in our Church—the independence or proportionate independence which our clergy have in various matters. This diocesan management will bring our Church more in the relation of other Churches who hardly allow their clergy to have any individual independence whatever. That, I conceive, in be a grave objection, But I will add other difficulties which I see. The pooling of the money to be given by the giant will cause endless friction and difficulty. How is this money to be settled? There will be perpetual friction as to what school is to get a large and which a small subscription and which no subscription at all. Some time ago, in my own neighbourhood, an idea arose of having voluntary associations, and there was the greatest possible jealousy on the part of many schools or managers I know of this proposal. What they felt was, that efficient schools would probably have to pay for weak and inefficient schools, and they had the greatest possible dislike to this idea. I have noticed, among many statements on the subject, a clear statement by a Churchman, who is by no means unfavourable altogether to the Bill—I mean Archdeacon Wilson, Vicar of Rochdale, who, in the Guardian on 11 November 1896, wrote:—
" I ask you, Is that (the distribution of grants) to be done by a voluntary body like a diocesan board of education? We shall need something almost the equivalent of a School Board to investigate the needs of all the different schools, to look into the question of the extravagance of or the economy of them, to determine what share of the contributions ought to be given in one of the hundred parishes that are in that School Board area, and to apportion the claims of some 60 different schools. This is an appalling work, and I ask at whose expense is this to be done? If this is to be done at the expense either of the rates or of the special aid grant, we are establishing another Church School Board, a Church educational department with a few representatives of the ratepayers placed upon it in the hope that they wilt be deluded into the acceptance of such a position of a Board which will have no real power over the treasurers of the schools or the managers of them."

23
That states clearly the difficulties which the creation of the associations will cause in different parts of the country. I have a further objection to make, which I make with some diffidence before the President of the Council, who has the latest information at his command. I object to the scheme of the associations on account of the position of Her Majesty's inspectors. The Education Department last year declared that they were so overburdened with work that they must devolve the distribution of the money under the Bill of last year on the shoulders of local bodies. This year the Education Department becomes responsible for the distribution of the money under the advice of the associations to which I have referred. If there is a difficulty, how is the Education Department to work? It will work through the inspectors of schools. They are the eyes and ears of the Department. I believe they will be throwing on the inspectors an entirely new duty. Hitherto they have had to decide on the educational quality of the school, on the sanitary condition of the school, and distribute all grants in accordance with, rules. Now they will be concerned in various disputes, such as whether a school is "necessitous" or not. Nothing can be more difficult than to define what a necessitous school is. There will be endless controversy about it. In one part of the Bill it refers to the difference in the grant between town and country. Will not that lead to endless controversies and a great deal of bad blood if you have to decide whether a town or country district is to have a larger rate, or between one village or another? I fear this may have a prejudicial effect upon the inspectors. Hitherto they have been held in the highest possible regard and admiration all over the country. But I fear they may lose some of the just influence they have as guardians of education if they are brought into contact with the many quarrels which I feel certain will arise under the distribution of the grant. My Lords, I am afraid I have detained you longer than I should have done on this Bill. We have no desire to starve or destroy Voluntary Schools. We recognise them as part of the educational system of the country, but we object to increasing their already large endowments from the taxation of this country without obtaining some representation on their
24
managing committees. We object to there being no guarantees for efficient teaching or the maintenance of subscriptions to the Voluntary Schools, and, lastly, we object to the Bill because it assists subscribers to Voluntary Schools without giving any relief to the heavily-rated supporters of Board Schools. [Cheers.]
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I was very glad indeed to hear from the noble Duke in his opening speech that he still held fast to the rule which had been followed in the other House and did not intend to encourage Amendments to be made in the Bill, chiefly because—and I think it is of great importance—this Bill should be passed speedily, as time is running on, and the schools are really suffering, and you cannot be too quick in letting them understand that the relief which it is proposed to give them will be given for certain and soon. I do not mean to say that there are not details in the Bill which might possibly be improved. There may be some which both sides would like to improve. Probably, though the Amendments which would be, and perhaps will be, moved on the opposite side of the House will not be quite the same as those which we on this side would like to move; there are various Amendments which possibly the Bishops may like to move, and I do not think Amendments of the same sort will be moved from the other side. I should be glad if the Bill passed just as it is. Although I admit there is a possibility of making improvements, I do not think any improvements can be made which are worth the delay that would be necessary in making them. We have come to a point at which a large number of the Voluntary Schools are really suffering a, great deal, and they are in much suspense and anxiety, and although they are much supported by the fact that the Government have introduced this Bill and carried it through the other House of Parliament, yet they cannot help feeling even still that the assurance on which they have to rely is not quite complete, and they are so keen about the matter that they are already earnestly considering if the Bill passes what kind of associations they ought to join in making. In regard to the associations, as president of the National Society I have thought it my duty to

25
encourage that society to put forward a kind of model scheme which the noble Earl who has just sat down has noticed in his speech, and which he seems to think will be making the Bill even more mischievous than it is already. The scheme proposed by the National Society, for the constitution of the associations, is simply this—that, in the first place, the area, should be one of considerable size, a diocese, or if a diocese contained more counties than one, a county; and in the next place, it should be initiated by the Bishop requesting the managers of the Church schools in each division of the diocese, rural deaneries as they are called, to meet together and settle whether they would join any such association or not; then that those who join should be called together to a further meeting, when representatives should be elected for each rural deanery, and those representatives should then meet and form the governing body of the association. It is pressed upon the managers of Voluntary Schools that it would be the right thing to arrange that at least half the representatives should be laymen, because we cannot afford to leave them outside. ["Hear, hear!"] It is to laymen we necessarily look, to a great extent, for voluntary subscriptions. The clergy, in many cases, have largely given out of their own diminishing means—["hear, hear!"]—towards the maintenance of their Church schools. But it is obvious that that cannot be the main support of the schools, and, in fact, if the diminution of the incomes of the clergy were to go further than it has gone that means of support would be seriously lessened, and very likely would, in many places, disappear altogether. We cannot afford to leave out the laymen; and I think you will find when these associations are being formed the position of the laymen will be well assured in all the governing bodies. It is suggested that the chairman of the governing body should be the Bishop or someone appointed by him. I am conscious, of course, that we run quite counter to the ideas expressed by the noble Lord, who does not like Bishops, except as personal friends, and he thinks the country generally does not like them. So far as I can judge I do not think that is the case. I do not think it is at all the case that the country are unwilling that the Bishops should take the leading
26
part in the government of all things with which the Church is concerned, and whatever may be said about the importance of education I do not think you will get out of the heads of Church people that religious education is a very important part of the education of the working classes. [Cheers.] Consequently, it is impossible for the Church to stand aside and say, "This is a secular matter, for which we do not really care. It is entirely your business. We, the Church, and we, the Bishops, the officers of the Church, are able to leave it entirely in your hands." The ministers and officers of the Church cannot take that line, and I do not believe an association with a Bishop at its head would be found by any means a bad form of association for the purposes for which such associations as these are proposed in the Bill. You will see from the sketch that I have given of the mode in which the associations will be formed, their truly representative character, the idea being that there shall be a representative in the governing body of every ten schools or every fraction of ten. If there were ten schools there would be one representative; if more than ten, there would be two, until you came to 20, and then there would be three. That is a simple mode of representation, and there cannot be great difficulty in securing that, upon that mode of representation, laymen should be elected upon the body. The governing body so formed would certainly be a very efficient body in judging of the needs of Church schools in the diocese or county with which they had to deal. ["Hear, hear!"] The clergy know each other well enough to know pretty well what is the need of the Church schools in each parish, and the more all these schools are brought together, you may depend upon it, the more will they begin to take an interest in one another's schools and that general interest in the education of the whole area to which the association belongs, which is more likely to improve the efficiency of the schools than almost anything else you can procure. (Cheers.] The thing which is wanted everywhere is that the schools shall know each other and shall profit by each other's experience. There are many cases in which the managers of schools do not really manage as well as they might, simply because they know so little about it, and if they are

27
brought into constant contact with other managers of schools, it has the tendency to increase the general knowledge and the general interest in education, and I have no doubt at all that these associations would have that effect. ["Hear, hear!"] There are such associations already at work. There is one, for instance, in my old diocese of Exeter, which has been going on now for some years. It was formed immediately after the passing of the Fee Grant Bill, which contemplated associations. The Bill did not allow us to make such associations as I should have preferred, but still it did give considerable powers to the managers to associate themselves with very good effect. There can be no question that in this particular diocese, where this association has been in existence for some time, it has worked with exceeding smoothness, and there has not been anything at all like the sort of description which the noble Earl has developed out of his own ideas, of scrambling for money, quarrelling with one another, and altogether departing from the purpose of making the schools as efficient as they can be made and from the purpose of dealing justly with the schools as compared with one another. All this fear that there will be a great deal of quarrelling within the association, I am quite confident, has really no basis of reality whatever, and you may be perfectly certain that when the associations are formed there will be a steady increase in the desire to work together, and a steady consequent increase in the efficiency of the education given. [Cheers.] I do not deny that there is a certain amount of difficulty involved in the distribution of the money, and I do not deny that now and then there will be those who will grumble a little at not getting as much as they think they ought. But it is the privilege of Englishmen to grumble—[laughter]— and they will not, on that account, fail to do their work. ["Hear, hear"] I have not any doubt at all it will be found that the Church schools would very greatly gain by being formed into such associations, and. in fact, I think that, even independently of having any money to distribute, there would be advantage in the mere fact that they were brought together in this way. But, of course, you could not bring them together to simply advise one another, and the ne-
28
cessity of advising the Department as to the distribution of the money will be the real thing for them to do, and I am quite confident you will not easily get any other machinery so thoroughly efficient for the purpose. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Earl asks the very important question,
"Why do the Church people object to having laymen upon the boards of management?"
I think he made a slight mistake there. We have laymen in almost every case where we can get them. [Cheers.] There are, no doubt, parishes where the clergyman is the sole manager, because really it has not been possible in some parishes to find laymen who will give either the time or the trouble or know enough about the matter to take part in such management. I may observe that the committees of management, which consist of the clergy alone, were the fruits of the Education Department itself. The Education Department drew up a, number of models of the forms of trust which were to be included in the trust deeds of all the schools that received grants from the Government. There was in no case of that kind that I know of a trust deed of that kind established, except when it was really very difficult, to establish any other kind of trust deed. It is not that there is any objection on the part of any Church people that there should be laymen on the managing committees. What they object to is, not that, but that there should be men who are not themselves Churchmen, and for this reason—that they have found by experience which cannot be questioned, that the important thing, if you are to give religious instruction in a school, is to see what sort of man is the master who is to be at the head of the imparting of this religious instruction. [Cheers.] The managers of the Church schools cannot afford to give up the appointment of the teachers, which is their one guarantee that the religious instruction shall be such in quality as they themselves desire. [Cheers.] It had been very often asked, "Why should you not prescribe the religious instruction to be given, and then leave it to the master to give it, without taking any pains to find out whether he himself believes in it or not? He may not believe in what you Churchmen think a funda-

29
mental article of faith, but he may teach that article though he does not believe it." Yes, he may; he may get the children to pass a good examination upon all these various points of doctrine; but what is the examination worth if meanwhile it appears that the children have imbibed from him a disbelief in one of the fundamental principles in what he has to teach? [Cheers. ] There is no question about it that if the teacher does not believe what he is put there to teach it has not the effect upon the children that we desire to produce in the slightest degree. ["Hear, hear!"] When I was at Rugby I had to teach the classical religions, and to teach all that boys ought to know in order to study classical books about Jupiter, Juno, Apollo, Mars, and all the other divinities with which in those days we were all familiar. But, my Lords, I should not like the Christian religion to be taught in the same way, because I will answer for it the boys who had instruction in that way from me did not believe that Jupiter, Juno, Mars or Apollo were existent deities at one time, who governed as the writers of classical literature suppose. But if we are to teach in that fashion I would rather leave religious instruction out. ["Hear, hear!"] I say you must secure that the teachers really believe what they have to teach, and if you do not secure that the teachers are thus competent to give instruction in that spirit, the Church managers will earnestly contend for being absolutely free to guarantee to all their subscribers that the teacher is a man who can be trusted, not only to teach boys to pass examinations, but to teach boys what has been revealed in the work of God, and so teaching them that, as far as human agency can secure it, the boys shall believe what they are taught. [Cheers.] For that reason we are very jealous indeed about the appointment of teachers, and it is for that reason, and that reason alone, that we stand out against the introduction of those who would not share that opinion with ourselves, into the managing bodies of our schools. ["Hear, hear!"] From this I am quite certain the great body of Voluntary Schools will not depart. I confess I was a little disturbed a while ago by the words used by the Vice President of the Council in a speech he made at Girton, near Cambridge, when he said he hoped
30
these associations would be comprehensive and would not be confined to anyone particular sect. Well, I hope just the contrary, and I am quite satisfied that anything which tends to bring Church schools under the immediate management of other than Church people, is a very serious thing indeed. I do not know anything which would more effectually kill the great body of Voluntary Schools than to do what very excellent people—and I am afraid there is a little touch of the feeling in the Vice President himself—are sometimes inclined to do, to try as much as they can to undenominationalise these Voluntary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] If you were to undenominationalise Voluntary Schools it is quite certain they would very soon perish, and for this simple reason, that the subscribers would immediately say, after you had got rid of all denominational peculiarities and particularities, "Why don't you have a Board and have a Board School? That is fair all round, and everybody will then pay; whereas at present there is this injustice that we, the subscribers, have to pay rates to keep up Board Schools, and we have to pay our subscriptions in addition to those rates to keep up our own Voluntary Schools." It is sometimes ludicrous to hear the way in which ratepayers are contrasted with subscribers. The noble Earl just now spoke of the poor ratepayer and the necessities of poor Board Schools. But if ratepayers deserve assistance surely Voluntary School subscribers deserve it, for they all pay rates, including the rates imposed for educational purposes. ["Hear, hear!"] It is an argument, I think, that will not hold water that the ratepayers more need assistance than Voluntary Schools. There is much said sometimes about statutory equality on this subject, and I confess I find a difficulty in understanding the meaning of the phrase so used. Naturally, one would say statutory equality means equality of position and finance under statute. But can it be said that there is this statutory equality under statute in the position of Board and Voluntary Schools? Voluntary Schools are supported by subscriptions—no statute requires these subscriptions. Board Schools are supported by public funds, and a statute compels the payment of rates for the purpose. There

31
is nothing in the nature of financial equality in this. There was in the Bill of 1870 an attempt made to produce something like equality. It was proposed that an extra grant should be made to Voluntary Schools to put them on a level with Board Schools, but as the Bill passed the House of Commons the clause was so altered that whatever grant was made to Voluntary Schools the same grant was to be made to Board Schools, so that equality disappeared with a few strokes of the pen. There is not, and never has been, any equality of Voluntary Schools with Board Schools in their financial position under statute. The noble Earl made other objections to the Bill on principle, and I do not know whether there may not be some truth in some of the things he has said in application to this matter. I am not prepared to say, for instance, that it would be a very evil thing if on the managing body of schools there were representatives of parents. I should object very strongly to representatives of ratepayers, because we get no money from the rates; but I should not object to representation of parents, but I should object to bringing that about by a clause in an Act of Parliament at this stage. Whenever we get beyond this stage, and I hope we shall not stop at this stage—["hear, hear!"]—when we get beyond this stage there will be many things to consider. As time goes on we shall want very considerable changes in our system of education, but at present we are feeling our way, and the first thing we have to face is the fact that Voluntary Schools are in serious danger, and we have to meet the danger with a measure of relief. Of course this does not exhaust the subject, and there is a great deal more to be said, but we must feel our way. I wish myself the Government had given 6s. instead of 5s., but they have gone as far as in their judgment they can; they are trying to see with how little they can do what has to be done, and they are right in those endeavours. They should try to avoid the spending of public money more than is necessary. I look upon this as a step in the right direction, but I trust that if we wait a little longer we shall have a great deal more to say. But I cannot help expressing my exceeding great regret that there should be any delay at all in providing the beginning of a real system of
32
secondary education. I am convinced that elementary education is suffering from the fact of the intrusion of secondary education into its province. There are a great many instances in which masters who are dealing with elementary education would deal with these subjects a great deal better in different sets of schools. A great many of them are quite capable of the position of masters in secondary schools, and if we had a good system of secondary education it would be the natural ambition of an elementary schoolmaster to raise himself to the higher sphere. But at present we have schools very seriously injured by the attempts to teach children what they are not yet in a position to learn; and the cost of masters is enormously increased to enable them to teach what nobody who really knows can call worth the money. The fact is you cannot go any further with what are called specific and class subjects without some preparation of the children. Sometimes it is said we do not teach so much here as is taught in Germany, and the answer to that is, our system is not so old as the German system, which has been at work for a considerable time. At present our children are much better educated than their parents, and the next generation will show a further advance, and I have no doubt the time will come when experts will admit that our masters teach and our children learn quite as much as is taught and learned under the foreign system. But now I am quite certain that a large proportion of the labour spent in teaching our children advanced subjects is really wasted, because our children have not had the mental preparation for taking in the instruction. My Lords, I hope the Bill will be passed exactly as it is and as rapidly as possible. [Cheers.]
THE DUKE of ARGYLL: I am not only a supporter of this Bill, but one of those who, in spite of its limited character, rejoice more than I can say that it has at last reached the safe haven of your Lordships' House. This Bill means a great deal more than those departmental questions which have been referred to. Earl Spencer has been answered with an authority to which I cannot pretend, and my most reverend Friend has blown to pieces the detailed objections of the noble Earl. I pass from these and look

33
at the Bill from the great principle it is intended to affirm. I must confess that— although of course with the great majority of the people of this country I have followed with more or less attention the detailed, prolonged, and, I am afraid I must say, the tedious discussions the Bill has undergone—I did not until a few days ago read the text of the Bill. When I read this short and simple Bill I confess I wondered how it could be that a Party professing to represent Liberal principles could find any ground of opposition. It is one of the most liberal Bills, with a liberality approaching almost to license, that has ever come before your Lordships' House. We hear that never has there been such a flutter as this Bill has caused in the Radical dovecot, how it has been inveighed against as an endowment of the Church of England, and raged at as a Bill to support sectarian education. Now, my Lords, it is a curious thing that from the beginning to the end of the Bill, except in one sub-section where it might fairly be left out, there is not a single word referring to the Church, or religion, or religious teaching, or anything sectarian. The Bill is for the support of Voluntary Schools, and those Voluntary Schools may be purely secular. There is nothing whatever to prevent the Department giving a grant, for instance, to a school supported by agnostics. If any of those gentlemen, who refuse to think that on the greatest subject of human thought there is anything to be known and anything to be believed, got up a school of their own—and why should they not?—that would be a Voluntary School, and it would be absolutely entitled, I take it, under this Bill to be supported by the State. There is absolutely nothing sectarian in that. The expression "Voluntary School," according to the definition in the Bill, means "a public elementary school not provided by a School Board." It must not be a school supported by the rates, but it may be a Voluntary School in connection with any other body, religious or non-religious. That is the principle of the Bill, and to accuse the Bill of being sectarian in its principle is a gross misrepresentation of its purport. It is a curious thing to my mind that the principle of the Bill is not expressly stated in any words within it. The principle of the Bill, as I understand
34
it, is this—"We, the State, have made ourselves responsible for the secular education of the whole of the people, and we will give money in support of all those who produce a well-educated child in secular knowledge, whether it is connected with religious bodies or not." That is not only liberal, it is absolutely indiscriminate. I can conceive many men who support religious education denouncing —and I am quite sure a few years ago it would have been denounced—upon this ground alone. The noble Earl opposite talked about inequality. There is no inequality whatever in the Bill. There is absolute equality as regards the principle on which the grant is given. This Bill is mainly opposed—do not, let us mistake it—by those who dislike religious education—["hear, hear!"]—and by religious education I mean education in connection with some definite school of religious teaching. There is no doubt about it. The Nonconformists have taken a violent part against this Bill, but the principle of the Bill is the principle which they are constantly enumerating—that the State ought to have no concern with religious education. But then if we push them we find their meaning of that is this—the State is to have nothing to do with religious education except to denounce it, or to boycott it, or to subject it to fine or penalty. They would propose that if a school comes up before those who are to give the grant and says, "Here we present you a number of children admirably taught in secular education," then the State should say, "Ah, yes, but are you also taught religion?" "Oh, yes," is the reply, "we are taught religion in our school." "Then go away; we have nothing more to do with you." ["Hear, hear!"] They wish to destroy religious education, and they wish public money not to be given to secular education, even when it is produced by those who are interested in religious education. My noble Friend Lord Herschell shakes his head. I do not say they put it in that way, but that is the result of their argument. They do not wish the public money to be given to schools which are connected with churches. How has it come about that Voluntary Schools are always considered and talked about, and in this Debate to-night have always been spoken of, as denominational schools? They might be not all denominational. The

35
noble Earl opposite said he objected to these schools, at least so far as he did object to them, chiefly because they were denominational. How has that come about? It is because of this—that the various schools of the Christian Church are in this country the only public bodies that will submit to the self-sacrifice of giving large sums of money out of their private pocket, besides their rates, for the purposes of education. More than one-half of the whole children of the United Kingdom are educated in denominational schools. That shows, so for as we go at present at least, that the parentage of the country is in favour of teaching religious along with secular education. ["Hear, hear!"] I entirely agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury that the only security you have for religious instruction is that the school shall be denominational—that is, established in connection with definite systems of religious instruction. I remember my noble Friend Lord Spencer some years ago making a speech in this House, in which he said that he was all in favour of religious education, but not in favour of the teaching of dogma. I do not think I followed my noble Friend on that occasion—
EARL SPENCER: The noble Duke did, and I remember that he said I was talking thorough nonsense. [Laughter.]
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Oh, well, that is very much my opinion now—[laughter]—but I will give my noble Friend my reason for it. I should very much like him to rise in this House and define to us religion which is without dogma. Remember that there is a God, that there has been, a Christ, and that there will be a future state. These are the primary truths of religion, and are they not all dogmas? Are they not contested by large sections of those who are nominally Christians? Undoubtedly they are, and unless you have a system of religious teaching which is connected with organised Churches—that is to say, organised bodies of men who hold particular views of Christianity and particular dogmas—I maintain with the Archbishop of Canterbury that you have no security whatever for religious education. I believe with him also that the Voluntary Schools would very soon be brought to an end if that connection were severed. My fear has been for some time that the Voluntary Schools would be destroyed by
36
the Board system. I believe they would unless you came to their relief. It is a tremendous power against the Voluntary Schools — unlimited rating—and you acknowledge yourselves that the rates are mounting to an alarming extent in many places. It is impossible that a large part of the community can go on maintaining their own schools, and paying besides these extravagant rates in favour of Board Schools. It is, therefore, for the interests of religion, and for the interest of the ratepayer that you should come in and relieve those who are supporting, at so large sacrifice to themselves, the only religious education which you have in the country. My own belief is that the tendency of Board Schools, of all schools supported by rates, is to the total exclusion of religion. I know very well that in many of the existing School Boards religion is fairly well taught. A compromise is effected, but you have no security for that continuing for a single year. I have been told, I believe on good authority, that in some of the Australian colonies it has come to this—that all the school books are carefully edited and every allusion to religion, even the very name of God, is expunged from them. That is a dreadful state of tilings—a state of things from which we are very far removed, but that it will come to it in the long run if we do not take some means to support Voluntary Schools I fully believe. I dare say some of your Lordships will hardly believe that story. I believe it because I have seen what has happened on the Continent of Europe, because what they called liberal principles in respect of religion have got a greater hold of the mass of the people than as yet they have in this country. ["Hear, hear!"] There is another danger about the unmitigated supremacy of the Board Schools, and that is the power which is going to be established over us by the teachers. The teachers have formed themselves into a syndicate or trade union, and they are furious and indignant if the slightest test or question is put to them as to what their religious views are. It will come to this, that not only will the religion of our people be at the mercy of the ratepayers—that would be bad enough—but it will be at the mercy of a syndicate of teachers, who consider it a point of honour that they shall believe nothing if they like. ["Hear, hear!"]

37
I look upon the passing of this Bill as a great epoch in the history of our educational system, I trust it will be followed by others, all tending in the same direction—perfect freedom to all parties, perfect equality as regards the Stale, but also equal payment to those who favour religion, nursing, it may be, the Churches to give you that which they can give, good secular and good religious education mixed. I should be very glad indeed to see the whole education of the country in the hands of denominational bodies, but there is one difficulty and objection which is fatal—you could not overtake the area. There are millions of men in this country who do not conscientiously belong to any Church whatever, and if you confine your support to the Churches you would, of course, leave out of your system altogether a very large part of your people. That is the fact that has driven us to the Board School system. Before I sit down I wish to refer to language used by one of my friends in regard to Scotland. Towards the close of last Session my right hon. Friend Mr. Mundella said:—
"Look at the education of Scotland; how admirable it has been; what, a great reputation it has had all over the world: how successful in educating Scotchmen in all the walks of life; a purely secular system."
My right hon. Friend added, "a system of universal boards, universal rating, universal popular control." Anything more grossly ignorant I never read. [Laughter.] There is a curious substratum of truth about it. It is true that in a literal sense there are universal boards, universal rating, and universal popular control, but the circumstances of the case are absolutely different and the effect is totally different. The education of Scotland has won its reputation under a purely denominational system. ["Hear, hear!"] It is some 300 years old, and it was started by the Reformers in inseparable connection with their idea of an Established Church. The schools were part of the Church. Each parish had its own school, and the governing body was the minister and the kirk sessions and the heritors. The schoolmasters must be all members of the Established Church. It was under that system that the Scotch education acquired its great reputation.
38
It may not be known to all your Lordships that there are parts of Scotland into which, as we Protestants say, the light of the Reformation never penetrated. There are at this moment parts of the Highlands of Scotland which are predominantly Roman Catholic There never was the slightest difficulty in the schools there about the education of the children. The conscience clause, so called in modern times, was in universal operation through the goodwill and good feeling of the people. The system in Scotland was changed, mainly in consequence of the break up of the Church of Scotland on the question of patronage. The management of the schools was thrown open to the ratepayers, but the schools are as denominational now as they were; they go on teaching their Catechism just as they did before, but, of course, anyone is allowed to leave when it is being taught. I am afraid that that system is totally inapplicable to England. If you had a universal system of School Board regulating the religious education of the country you would not be able to maintain, as we do in Scotland, religious education. I fully believe that if you do not come to the help of the Voluntary Schools, which are the only schools in which religion is effectively taught, a great calamity will happen to the people. I cannot help congratulating the Government upon the introduction of the Bill. I rejoice that for the first time they have put to a good use the great and glorious majority with which the people armed them at the last general election for the improvement of the social and political position of the country. [Cheers.]
LORD HERSCHELL: The noble Duke alluded to the good use to which the Government have put their majority in passing this Bill, but they were not able to obtain that majority's assent to the Bill except by the threat that if the independence which was exhibited last year was exhibited on this occasion the Government were prepared to resign.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Is not that a usual weapon of all Governments?
LORD HERSCHELL: It is a weapon of all Governments, but it is only a weapon of a Government with a majority of 150 when they know that that majority does not believe in the Bill they produce. The noble Duke said that, if you believe or do not believe, but, wish your

39
children to reach a certain decree of educational knowledge, you will equally get a grant. The Bill provides absolutely nothing of the kind. As to statutory equality, the noble Duke must have forgotten the provisions of the Act of 1870. The scheme of 1870 was what the noble Duke described it. We said, "Produce your educational results, and for equal educational results you will get equal grants." This had nothing to do with the religion taught in the schools, but that is altogether departed from here. Here the grant is given to only one set of schools: others might produce as good results, but they get absolutory nothing. The result, my Lords, is that this Bill is an endowment of denominational teaching out of the general taxation of the country. ["Hear, hear!"] It is the taxation of those who agree as well as of those who disagree, and it is compelling those who disagree with religious teaching to pay through their taxes for the support of this teaching. It would not be so if you gave the grants to all alike, but as soon as you take money from the general taxpayer and pay it only over to schools which give a particular religious teaching, you are using money from the public, and compelling them to endow schools the teaching in which they disapprove. I do not think the noble Duke appreciated the objection. Take the case of London. The Londoner has to pay his school rate. He supports a certain number of Voluntary Schools, and he has thus to provide by subscriptions and rates the education for the children. Lancashire provides for the same number of children, but Lancashire does it more largely by denominational schools. Lancashire, under this Bill, will get £114,000, while London gets only £44,000. London is called on to pay for Lancashire because Lancashire had chosen to prefer denominational schools. That is the long and the short of it. It was said just now that the people who support denominational schools all pay their rates. That is not so; and I say it is grossly unjust and unfair. How will the Bill work? In Hertfordshire the number of children is 33,816, and that county will receive £6,747. In Monmouthshire the children number 38,000, but that county, under the Bill, will receive only £3,200. Yet Monmouthshire will have to
40
pay as much in taxation as Hertfordshire; it will have to pay for education given in another part of the country. There is an urban district in the county of Glamorgan of 14,000 children, chiefly Board Schools; the district will, under this Bill, receive £13. Birkenhead, with 13,800 children, will receive £3,268; yet the Glamorgan district will pay just as much as Birkenhead. On what principle of financial justice can that be for a moment defended? ["Hear, hear!"] I could cite any number of these examples; the Return is full of them. Take Barrow; with 8,595 children, it will receive £723; while Bury, with 8,160 children, will receive £2,040—three times as much. That seems to me radically and utterly unjust. But, then, it is only necessitous schools which will get any grants at all. I wonder how many there are in London. I venture to say the case is worse than I have suggested. We are told, further, that there is another Bill coming to relieve necessitous Board Schools? Will that relieve Londoners? Certainly not. It will be a further dip into Londoners' pockets. I believe that the extreme unfairness of the Bill will be realised throughout the country. I think I heard the noble Duke say that, even where there was no deficiency at all, they might get a grant to relieve the subscribers from giving subscriptions. That is a very startling statement, and absolutely and entirely destroys the whole of the security which it had been said was obtained from the words "having due regard to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions." What the noble Duke has said would justify the doing away with subscriptions altogether. The Bill does not say "having regard to the amount of the subscription," but "having due regard to the maintenance of subscriptions." It does not insist or give the moans of insisting that a school district, which has hitherto ill-supported its schools, shall give more in future. It is only required to maintain its subscriptions. The most reverend Prelate sought to introduce an Amendment into the Report of the Education Commission in 1888, and in doing so he said that the duty of providing and maintaining a good system of elementary education is essentially a local duty. "We cannot recommend that in any case the grant from the Department shall exceed the amount provided on the spot." That

41
principle is utterly departed from and abandoned. According to the noble Duke, however minute the local subscriptions, it would still he perfectly proper to give assistance. Now, my Lords, there is another provision which I think is likely to create much difficulty, and that is, the power to fix different rates for town and country schools. There have been two versions of the purpose of that provision in the House of Commons, one that it is meant to give more to towns as compared with the country, and the other to give more to the country as compared with the towns. Both those explanations were given by Ministers, and we shall be very glad to learn here what is intended. It is said, my Lords, that everything is left in blank to be managed by the Education Department. It may be very wrong of us not to have complete confidence in the Education Department, which the noble Duke would desire us to have. I do not know that I should not have confidence if these matters were to be managed by the officials of the Department without outside control; but the Vice President was not allowed to introduce the Bill, and was hardly allowed to speak upon it, and obviously he will not be allowed to administer it. I have no doubt he will continue to hold the office of Vice President, but I have the strongest conviction that he will not be allowed a word in the administration of this Bill. By whom, then, is it going to be administered? I believe that in this matter, what I call the clerical party have obtained the upper hand, and I believe that unless the administration of the Vice President accorded with their views he would be powerless. I should not have been opposed to a grant of 5s. all round. I think that would have been the only just way of dealing with the matter, and the only way of meeting the real and substantial difficulties which do exist in certain cases. I think there is a hardship in the case of Roman Catholic Schools which ought to be met. There can be no doubt that Roman Catholic parents do strongly object to their children being educated in any other than their own schools, and theirs is the only case in which the difficulty can be met without hardship to others, because they are generally congregated together in towns, and in places where there are Roman Catholic Schools
42
there are other schools to which those who are not Roman Catholics can resort. I believe Roman Catholics would have been perfectly content with 5s. all round; but the Church of England would not. They say, "Give it to us, but do not give it to the Board Schools." I do not say the most reverend Prelates would say that, but I have seen it over and over again amongst the statements of those who have been speaking on this Bill; and, of course, everyone knows there is an intense jealousy of, and a bitter hostility on the part of many towards, the School Boards. The noble Duke alleged that those who oppose this Bill are opposed to religious education. There never was a statement further from the truth. Do the opponents of this Bill never put their hands in their pockets on behalf of denominational schools? It is absolutely and utterly without foundation to state that those who oppose this Bill withhold their support from denominational schools. It is alleged sometimes that Church of England schools exist because the parents of children prefer them to Board Schools. Not one tittle of evidence has ever been produced in support of that allegation. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Duke said that the existence of Voluntary Schools shows that parents prefer them. How does it show it? They have no opportunity of sending their children to other schools. In the greater part of the country they have no choice. ["Hear, hear!"] If the parents cared about it, there would, in my belief, be no need for this Bill; your schools would never have been necessitous. I have studied some subscription lists, and have found that the number of people who contribute is contemptibly small. The burden is put on a very limited number of shoulders, and that is the intolerable strain. ["Hear, hear!"] If that has not been the experience of right reverend prelates, their experience has been a very fortunate one. I do not believe that the laity of the Church of England do share the views of the Duke of Argyll about the religious teaching in Board Schools. I believe that the large majority of the Church laity would much prefer that their children should receive the religious teaching to be obtained in Board Schools, than the kind of sacerdotal teaching they would get in a good many Church schools. That may not be the

43
view of the Episcopal Bench, but I venture to think that that is a subject on which I am as capable of forming a judgment as are right reverend prelates, and I am absolutely persuaded of it. Only the other day I read a sermon by a reverend Father, as he styled himself, in which it was stated that there were 1,500 clergy of the Church of England who taught that regular auricular confession was more important than mere Bible teaching. That is the kind of teaching the people of this country would be bitterly opposed to, and the view that Nonconformists, aye, and members of the Church of England, are to be called upon to support schools where that is the teaching, will intensify opposition to a Bill which will support such schools, ["Hear, hear!"] Many members of the Church of England think that, having regard to the tender age at which children are taught in elementary schools, and the very limited time given to teaching religion in the day school, the simpler the teaching is made the more likely it is to have effect; and if the teaching is confined to the simple elements on which all Christians are agreed, more good will be done than by trying to make little Churchmen or dissenters of them. There are institutions which I know well, conducted on undenominational principles, with Churchmen and Nonconformists on the Committees—educational institutions, more difficult to manage than day schools, because the children are taken in to Board. There is simple family prayer and teaching, in which all are able to join. Hostile to the Church? Certainly not. There is scarcely a year but what many from the school come up for confirmation, and are amongst the best candidates the Bishop receives. Yet this school is conducted on undenominational principles, and I venture to say there go out from that institution children trained in religion as satisfactorily, and as truly religion has as noble an influence on their lives, as any Church school or institution in the world. The religious education in Board Schools, however it may be regarded by the Episcopal Bench, is by the majority of the electorate regarded as satisfactory. There is no evidence to the contrary. There is much in support of it. During the London School Board elections, in spite of the Archbishop of
44
Canterbury's letter deprecating the religious teaching in Board Schools, and his suggestion that the question of religious education was at stake, great majorities were won in the very districts of London where the most, people resided whose children went to the Board Schools. I have felt it my duty to vindicate—and I am speaking the mind of multitudes in this country in vindicating—religious teaching in Board Schools. They would much rather have such teaching than a great deal of the teaching which, unhappily, as they think, is now going on in Church Schools. Now I want to say a word about the position of the Nonconformists. All ideas of being just seem to depart when people are pursuing their own ideas about denominational education. What would the Bishops in this House think if members of the Church of England were in the same position as Nonconformists are throughout the country, who have no alternative but to send their children to Church. Schools? Where they do, the boy whose parents are known to be Nonconformists is subjected in many cases to petty persecutions. [VISCOUNT CROSS: "No, no!"] Does the noble Viscount speak for the whole country when he says "No"? I do not purport to speak for the whole country. Does my noble Friend mean that there are no such cases? I said "in many cases."
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CAN'TERBURY: There are very few.
LORD HERSCHELL: Well, we will take it that there are very few. Would it not be felt a hardship if in a large part of the country no member of the Church of England could be a pupil teacher in a school? I can understand the difficulties of the Bishops about schoolmasters. You do not always necessarily secure a teacher who believes in what he has to teach. A man calls himself a member of the Church of England or comes from a Church of England training college. A friend recently told me that an unsuccessful candidate for a position with which he was connected turned out, in spite of his excellent testimonials, to be an atheist. What is felt is that there is no security what the religious instruction in denominational schools may be. It may be asked, how is this affected by the present Bill? It was said in the other House, "This is the present educational system, and it is not made

45
worse by this Bill." But it seems to me that that is just what you do. You make it worse because, however much you may desire, to have a School Board, you cannot get it in any district, although the majority wished it, if there is sufficient school accommodation. If' you buttress up weak schools with public money, of course you diminish the possibility in those districts where the people are not largely supporting the schools of their disappearance, and the people having a School Board if they desire it. But you do this out of public money to which the Nonconformist contributes his share as much as any member of the Church of England does, and out of the money the Nonconformist contributes you perpetuate an educational system to an extent which is often hard and unfair. You are not giving the money equally all round, but divine it only to Voluntary Schools. I should not like it to be understood that intolerance or persecution of Nonconformists is found everywhere. But you find it in particular places, and where you find it the feeling it creates is not limited to the place in which it occurs.
VISCOUNT CROSS: The noble and learned Lord was speaking of it as a general system.
LORD HERSCHELL: It is part of a system, and would be fell to be part of a system if the case were reversed. The most reverend Prelate seems much amused that the Nonconformists should feel this to be a grievance. I am rather grieved, but I suppose I have no right to complain.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: If I said anything of the sort I should consider it my duty to apologise to the Nonconformists. But it never entered my head that I should be misinterpreted as the noble and learned Lord misinterprets me.
LORD HERSCHELL: The most reverend Prelate misunderstands me. I was not criticising anything he said. I did not mention his name or allude to it.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I beg pardon. The noble and learned Lord said, "The most, reverend Prelate seems amused." I thought he referred to something I had previously said. I could not help smiling at one of his arguments, for I was much amused at the logic the noble Lord indulged in.
LORD HERSCHELL: The most reverend Prelate is entitled to be amused just as the noble Duke is entitled to tell us on this side that we are ignorant and that what we say is pure nonsense. It is the privilege which those who do not agree with you are entitled to. But if the case were reversed, and I were to put it from the opposite point of view, I do not think the most reverend Prelate would have thought it so bad or been so amused.
LORD TALBOT DE MALAHIDEinterposed a remark which was understood to be that there were places where Board Schools existed, but where Voluntary Schools were not allowed to exist.
LORD HERSCHELL: There is no exclusion from the Board Schools of teachers of any religious denomination. There are many Church of England schoolmasters in Board Schools. But whatever exists in Board Schools does not exist in denominational schools. I have spoken of the injustice done by the Bill to Nonconformists because they are not represented, and naturally the audience in this House is not sympathetic on the subject. But, nevertheless, it is right and just that their views should be put before you, and it would be a great misfortune if it were thought—as I am afraid to some extent seems to be the case—that the undue hardships which they feel in connection with this Bill were regarded here either as ridiculous or unworthy of consideration. My great objection to this Measure is that it is essentially and radically unjust. ["Hear, hear!"] I know, of course, that it was passed by a great majority. It will pass into law; but the injustice and sense of injustice will remain. If there is anything that the people of this country have a deep-rooted regard for it is fair play, and what they believe to be justice. As I believe, this Bill is against that sentiment; it will not be a final settlement, and the day may come when those who rejoice at its passing may regret it was not founded on principles more equitable and just. [Cheers.]
THE BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid the noble and learned Lord had made pointed reference to Lancashire, and as he knew himself something of the circumstances of the schools there, perhaps he might be allowed to say a few words in explanation of what seemed to him an injustice. They had been told

47
that in Lancashire four-fifths of the children were in the Voluntary Schools, and only one-fifth in the Board Schools, whereas in London one-third only were in the Voluntary Schools, and two-thirds in the Board Schools, and that in consequence of this a large number of London people would have to contribute to the taxes used in Lancashire to support the Voluntary Schools. But surely the noble and learned Lord had not fairly considered the position of things in Lancashire. The condition of things was that four-fifths of the parents of the children in primary schools were paying for education twice over; they were paying to the rates for the support of schools they did not use, and in contributions for the support of Voluntary Schools which they did use. It had been said by some that perhaps the enhancing' of the rents of the working classes did not take place in consequence of the raising of the School Board rate. He could not conceive that. Suppose, for instance, working men lived in houses for which they could only afford to pay £10 a year before the School Board was formed, and in consequence of the formation of the School Board a rate of 1s. in the pound was raised in that place, clearly there must be £10 plus 10s. paid by someone. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble and learned Lord thought that landlords would not raise rents, and thus make the tenants pay it. But that was what took place. Four-fifths of the parents in Lancashire were paying, in enhanced rents, their share of rates for primary schools.
LORD HERSCHELL: But there are many people in Lancashire who pay no rates at all.
THE BISHOP OF MANCHESTER: But they pay them indirectly always.
LORD HERSCHELL: No, no!
THE BISHOP OF MANCHESTERfelt sure, if the noble and learned Lord made a further examination of the matter, he would fully confirm what he had stated. The noble Lord's argument in respect of paying taxes might be retorted upon himself in respect of the paying of rates. If it was unjust that the London man should pay for the support of his own Board Schools, and then pay taxes, part of which went to Lancashire, it was surely unjust to call upon parents to pay money, part of which went to those schools which they
48
did not use, while at the same time they were called upon to support their own schools. The noble and learned Lord had complained that the Voluntary Schools were not supported by the people who ought to support them. He disputed that argument. He dared say that rich people who ought to support Voluntary Schools failed to do so; but the noble Lord was never more mistaken in his life than when he supposed that the men who belonged to the working classes did not contribute to the support of the Voluntary Schools. He could assure him that in Lancashire many of the Voluntary Schools depended almost exclusively upon the support of the working classes. Not only did they pay the school pence, but they also made very large contributions at the animal collections which were made on behalf of the Voluntary Schools. At Bolton every year collections were made in almost exclusively working class parishes which amounted to between £300 and £400, and the clergy had told him over and over again that that money was provided by working men, who put aside for many weeks the large sums which they gave to these collections. It was asked why they appropriated what appeared to be a larger share than was their due share of the proposed grant of 5s. It was because it was proposed to give those who paid twice over for primary education some little compensation for the injustice they were suffering. If justice were done, the poor people and the rich people who contributed to the Voluntary Schools ought to be allowed to deduct the amount of the contributions from their school rates. ["Hear, hear!"] If, in consequence of a practical difficulty, they could not let them make such deductions, then, if they adopted any other system, they must give them what was the equivalent of their just share. The Government thought it was going to give them the equivalent of their just share, but 5s. was not altogether as much as was justly due to the poor parents in Lancashire. Still, by a method of rule-of-thumb, if they came to the conclusion that they could go as far as 5s., he said, "Thank you" with all his heart. It was not as much as they were justly entitled to; but it was something, and he was happy to get it. He thought the noble Lord did not thoroughly understand their position. With respect to

49
the position of the Board and Voluntary Schools as regarded religious teaching, the noble Lord said there were a large number of people in England, Church men included, who would prefer the religious teaching of the Board Schools to the sacerdotal teaching in certain parishes. He was sorry to hear that there was in any parish what, could truly he called sacerdotal teaching. But he did not think that nicknames were to be accepted as sufficient proof that false doctrine was taught. He had known people called sacerdotalists who had no business to be called such names. He held there were some few, but there were very few, schools in which extravagancies were taught, and no man regretted it more deeply than he did. They were a very small minority of the schools indeed; and he begged to assure the noble Lord that the mass of the schools connected with the Church of England went no further than the teaching of the good old-fashioned Church Catechism, and he did not think the noble Lord would consider that they were going too far when they taught that. If an apparent injustice arose in consequence of there being 8,000 parishes with only one school in each of them, was it the fault of the Church? This was an incidental consequence of their eagerness to do their duty in providing such schools when nobody else would. ["Hear, hear!"] To have a teacher appointed by the managers of a Church School was an absolute necessity. The noble Lord said undenominational instruction would be preferred by many Churchmen to definite, teaching on Church lines. There might be some who called themselves Churchmen who would prefer such teaching as that, and as the noble Lord had given them a few specimens of extreme abuses on one side, he would give him one on the other. The other day he was told by a member of the Manchester School Board that he went into one of the Board Schools and spoke to the head teacher about the manner of giving religious instruction. The answer was this: —
"If you will go round this school with me I will show you half-a-dozen different sects being represented in the teaching of my teachers. I have a Roman Catholic, who is teaching as he has been taught. There is a Unitarian, who is teaching as he has been taught. There is a Swedenborgian, who is
50
teaching as he has been taught. I have an Independent who is teaching as he has been taught, and a Wesleyan and a Baptist, each teaching as he has been taught."
If these were people of a superior capacity, and would only teach those general elements of religion with which the noble Lord was so much in love no harm would he done, but a man of small capacity, who knew nothing of religion but what-he had been taught himself must teach it exactly as it had been taught to him, and the result of that was, that in that, school actually six sects were being taught; and that must always be possible, although it did not exist in all Board Schools. What could a School Board do? It could simply put forth a programme of religious lessons, and say, "Teach those lessons." Hut the teaching of lessons depended entirely upon the teacher; therefore these abuses must occur in other schools. He ventured to say, in answer to the noble Lord's criticisms on denominational teaching and preference for undenominational teaching, that there were dangers on both sides; and he did not think that the dangers of denominational teaching were anything nearly equal to those of undenominational teaching. He desired to say one word on another point. The noble Lord asked why did parents, when a new school was built, prefer the Board School to the Voluntary School which was near them? He had just recently walked through between 50 and 60 parishes in his diocese, and the result of his experience was that where there was competition the parents preferred, in Manchester, the Voluntary to the Board Schools, although one was palatial and the other very simple, and worse than simple. They might say, Why, then, object to the erection of these schools? One reason was, that they were often built so near the Voluntary Schools that there were not sufficient scholars to fill both; and then, of course, the Voluntary Schools suffered by the withdrawal of a portion of the children to till the new school. He was quite sure that the noble Lord had exaggerated both the injustice that would be perpetrated by the Bill and the inconvenience of perpetuating the system which the Bill was intended to support. He did not think this Bill would be a settlement of the question. He did not accept it as doing full justice to the schools in the North. It

51
was scant justice, but it was some measure of justice. It would do them good. It would help them to go on living, and he hoped that a future and a more liberal generation would grant them a Measure that would enable them to go on living and flourishing. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE MARQUESS OF RIPONremarked that there were two points which appeared to be generally conceded. One was that there were necessitous schools in this country which required further assistance, and the other was that there was no intention on the part of anyone in this House to put an end to or destroy the denominational schools. With regard to the first point, the Lord President of the Council appeared to imply that, because there was now a necessity for increased assistance to many necessitous schools in the country, therefore the calculations of those who were the authors of the Act of 1870 had been erroneous. As one of the authors of that Act he could not admit the view of the noble Duke. It was not in the least unnatural that after the lapse of more than a quarter of a century calculations made at that time should be found now inapplicable, though they were perfectly applicable then, and in this fact there was no reflection upon those who made those calculations. It was always understood by the authors of the Act of 1870 that the standard of education then fixed would be gradually raised. The late Mr. Forster and himself thought that it would be unjust to the existing schools at that time to pitch that standard too high, but they always expected and intended that the standard would be raised, and accordingly, and quite rightly, the standard of education had been gradually raised by the Education Department. It was necessary this should be so with the gradual advance of education, and there was no ground of complaint against the Education Department, and especially against his right hon. Friend Mr. Acland, in this respect. It should be also borne in mind that with the progress of sanitary science the sanitary requirements of schools had been increased, and this had added to the cost of maintenance. That being so, there could be no doubt, and so far as his knowledge went there was no doubt, that there were a large number of necessitous schools requiring further aid, and so far as the Bill provided that aid it was a step in the
52
right direction. He rejoiced to see there was no intention on either side of the House to make any attack on the existence of denominational schools. It was admitted on all hands that their maintenance under the present system of education in the country was a necessity, and he held that opinion very strongly. He was not about to enter into the controversy between Lord Herschell and the right reverend Prelates on the Bench opposite. It might be true that those who ought to subscribe to denominational schools did not do so. He expressed no opinion upon that, but it was within his knowledge that, so far as the Roman Catholics in this country were concerned, there were a very large number of schools urgently requiring additional assistance. If his noble and learned Friend saw the plate go round among the poorest of the people, and the pence thrown on for the support of Roman Catholic schools, he would agree that in this case there were voluntary subscriptions, and also a great demand for further assistance. Being then one of those who held very strongly that the continued existence in full efficiency of denominational schools was necessary as part of the educational system of the country, he was glad that a Measure should be provided for their assistance, only he wished that the means were of a different character, as he would explain. He did not propose to argue the question at any length or to enter into subjects of religious controversy bound up with it, and which were not well suited to the atmosphere of Parliamentary discussion, but there was one strong argument not yet alluded to in this Debate, and very little referred to in another place. The present system of education as established by the Act of 1870 was a compulsory system, for under that. Act parents were compelled to send their children to school. He was one of the authors of that Act, and approved of the then novel principle of compulsion, and approved of it still; but it did seem to him that, when parents were compelled to send their children to school, the State was bound to be very careful to pay respect and consideration to the conscientious feelings of parents. ["Hear, hear!"] Conscientious feelings did certainly enter very strongly into this matter. He would say nothing of any

53
other religious body but that with which he was himself connected, but no man would for a moment attempt to deny that among the Roman Catholic body the conscientious objection to sending their children to schools where they would not receive a distinct and definite dogmatic teaching was universal. He would not exaggerate were he to say that this feeling was unanimous among priests and people. Under the circumstances, when you have a compulsory system he did not think it could be controverted you were bound, so far as you reasonably could, to take care that you provided schools suitable to meet the conscientious desires of the parents of the children who were compelled to attend. ["Hear, hear!"] So far as this seemed to be a main object of the Bill he would offer no objection or opposition to it. He held it to be a necessary and reasonable proposal that the State should give to necessitous schools— he did not say only to denominational schools, but should give to necessitous schools —further aid; and he held it to be a necessary complement of our compulsory system that schools should, so far as possible, be provided to which all could conscientiously send their children. But he was sorry to say that, when he turned from the general principle of this Measure, and looked at its proposals and the mode in winch its object was to be attained, his feeling was very different in regard to it. Those proposals appeared to him in many respects, both by what they contained and yet more by what they omitted, to be open to very grave objections; and though he did not want to speak at all disrespectfully about a Measure which the Lord President told the House had been so long in preparation, and which had superseded another scheme of which they had heard for the first time to-night, and of which he thought they were entitled to know more than the Lord President had been good enough to tell the House, if he were not to shrink from criticism he would be inclined to say it was one of the most blundering Measures that had ever come within his Parliamentary experience. Certainly it was one of the most, curious Measures he had met with. He had had in either House a Parliamentary experience not far short of 50 years, and he
54
had never seen another Bill of this description so curiously drawn and containing such singular provisions. In the first place he strongly objected to the separation of the two classes of schools which were involved in this legislation. The noble Duke had told the House that there was a Bill for the purpose of making grants to necessitous Board Schools about to be brought in, and that it would very shortly be introduced in the other House of Parliament. When that Bill was brought in they would be able to judge of it; they could not form any particular idea of its nature from the noble Duke's reference. When the Bill was before the House they would be able to judge of its sufficiency to meet the needs of those Board Schools that required further aid. But his objection to this Bill in this respect was that it did not deal with both classes of schools, and he objected, not in the interest of Board Schools, for the promised Bill might, he did not know whether it would, meet all their requirements. He objected to it in the interest of denominational schools because he thought an injury would be done to those schools in separating their interests from those of the Board Schools. It was not only money they wanted, not only the money to be given now, they wanted a reasonable hope of the permanence of the arrangement, and that hope would have been largely increased, if both classes of schools had been dealt with in I he same Bill. By leaving out Board Schools jealousy and irritation were created, and the security of the position of denominational schools was weakened. It would be observed that he spoke of these schools not in the technical language of the Bill as Voluntary Schools, but as denominational schools, because he thought, the latter was the more appropriate and more honest term. The value of these schools and the desire for them was because of their denominational character, and after this Bill passed he doubted if there would be much of the voluntary element attaching to them. It was a great mistake to separate the two classes of schools, though he would not say it was for the purpose of setting them in antagonism. Instead of giving to the denominational schools the security that they would have had for the permanence of the Measure if they had dealt at the same time with

55
Board Schools, they had raised up irritation in this matter which would seriously, he was afraid, come back to them in the future. With regard to the associations which it was proposed to establish under this Bill, he confessed that, after reading the Measure and a good deal of the discussions which took place in another place, he found it extremely difficult to understand what was to be their nature. But he was still more puzzled since he had heard the Debate that night. The Lord President was very vague about the subject. He recited a great variety of different kinds of associations that might be established under the Bill, but he did not say which of them he preferred or which of them was going to be established. The Archbishop of Canterbury knew his mind perfectly on the matter, and if the most rev. Prelate had to settle the matter they would have understood exactly their position. These associations were to take part in the distribution of public money, and yet—and he said it was without precedent in Parliament—the Government had so drawn their Bill that it was impossible to say what would be the nature of these associations. The noble Duke had no idea. The most rev. Prelate knew very well what he wanted, and so did the Vice President. The most rev. Prelate wanted denominational associations with the Bishops of the Established Church at their head. The Vice President of the Council wanted associations of a totally different kind, for he told the good people of Girton the other day that he wanted associations on no narrow basis, and which did not represent any particular sect. The two ideas were absolutely opposed and contrary to one another, and he did say that to set up associations in so vague a manner, leaving it entirely to be determined by an Executive Department of the Government what was to be the nature of these institutions, was a step without precedent in the history of their legislation. He was astonished when he looked at this Bill as a Measure brought in by the Government of which Lord Salisbury was the head, because for years and years back Lord Salisbury had been always inclined to criticise the Education Department and to express want of confidence in it; but now they were
56
going to give to that Education Department, which they were told last year was so overworked that it was absolutely necessary, in order to relieve it, to revolutionise the whole of their educational system, one of the largest and one of the most, difficult duties that it was possible to confer upon any Department of the public service. He could not think that that was desirable, nor did he think it a right step. He did not think it was the way in which Parliament should be treated, and he did not think they would find it would result in very satisfactory consequences. His noble Friend, Lord Herschell, spoke of some of these associations as they might be established in connection with the Established Church, and he seemed to think that they would lead to considerable difficulty and trouble. It was not for him to say anything upon that point. He did not expect it in the Roman Catholic body, but that did not make the slightest difference in regard to their position in the face of Parliament. It appeared to him that the Government had forgotten the true interests of the very denominational schools for which they were legislating. Their interest was that those controversies which had done so much mischief to the general cause of education, and which were so threatening to the best interests of denominational schools, should be appeased. He confessed he was alarmed when he heard the Bishop of Manchester speak of this Bill as only a temporary Measure—that he wanted more and was going in for more. If that was the course which was to be taken by the Bishop of Manchester and those who thought with him, he ventured to say it was one likely to be very disastrous to the denominational schools of the country. What they wanted to do was to settle this controversy and to settle it once for all, so far as it was possible to use such an expression in regard to any human undertaking—to get rid of the ill-feeling, the ill-will, the irritation, the jealousy, and the suspicion which had been created by the great proportion of the provisions of this Bill, and to give it time fairly and honestly to work in the interests of the schools which it was intended to apply to. ["Hear, hear!"] He regarded it as a grave omission from the Bill that it did not touch at all the question of what was called the popular representation in the

57
management of these schools. ["Hear, hear!"] In regard to that question, there were two classes of schools to be considered. The one class consisted of schools in those parishes in which there was but one school, and the other class consisted of those schools in districts in which there was a variety of schools of different kinds. The law compelled parents to send their children to school in that parish in which there was only one school, and in that case, to his mind, the claim that the people of the parish should in some way or another be effectually represented upon the management of the school was an overwhelming claim. He had long thought that the omission to deal with that case was one of the greatest omissions in the Bill of 1870. In the other case, the claim was very much less strong, but still, they were going to increase the assistance to schools out of the public money, and he held that it was right and proper that there should be upon the management of those schools some representation of the public of the district.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Does the noble Marquess say that the Roman Catholics should have some popular representation?
THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid that what he was saying applied to all schools. He was not drawing the smallest distinction, and if the noble Duke had read the discussions in the House of Commons he would have perceived that the Roman Catholic Members of that. Assembly took precisely the same view of the subject that he was taking now. He thought the infusion of an element of this kind into the management of these schools would be desirable in the interests of the schools themselves. In many districts in his part of the country this had been done, not merely by the admission of certain nominated persons, but in certain cases by election. It had worked exceedingly well, and he firmly believed that, if a system of that kind were to be adopted, it would do much to strengthen the position of the denominational schools in the public estimation. So far as it was the principle of the Bill to give further assistance to necessitous schools he was in accord with it, but he must say that to his mind the manner in which it was proposed by the Government to attain their object was host unfortunate He
58
believed it was wanting in the permanency which was one of the most important elements of an arrangement of this kind. He believed it would tend, not to allay, but to keep up the controversies which existed at the present time. The Government had, for some unknown reason, refused to insert in the Bill a clause that the rules and regulations of the associations should be laid before Parliament. But they did not suppose that therefore those rules and regulations would not be known, would not be discussed, and would not be criticised. And they did not suppose that that criticism and discussion would tend to prolong those very controversies which might have been settled if the Government had only frankly and honestly told Parliament the nature of the associations it was intended to set up. He regarded the Measure with considerable distrust and alarm. He believed that the details of it were not calculated to work in the interest of the schools the Measure professed to favour, but on the contrary were likely to imperil the position of those schools and increase the controversies which had gathered around them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): I confess I rise, my Lords, to reply to the noble Marquess under circumstances of considerable difficulty, because I have not the least notion which way he is going to vote. [A laugh.] I had intended, had not the noble Marquess so frankly stated what his views were about the Act of 1870, to remind your Lordships of one or two observations made by the Government of the day upon the subject of denominational schools. In the Debates in 1870 Mr. Gladstone admitted the necessity of dealing with the two sets of schools, and said they must fulfil the engagements they had already entered into with the Voluntary Schools. The noble Marquess said just now, "You have separated the two things—the provision in respect, to the denominational schools and that for the Board Schools." I shall be glad to learn what he meant. What is it the noble Marquess wants? I am afraid I shall pause for a reply.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I am too well accustomed to Parliamentary practice to interrupt the noble and learned Lord. [A laugh]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say the noble Marquess is too old a Parliamentary hand to give an answer which is not satisfactory? [Laughter.] It is better if you cannot give a good answer to give none at all. The noble Marquess forgets one thing he said which was most important—it was that, where there is only one school and you make attendance at it compulsory, there is a great injustice which ought to be altered. Perhaps I was wrong.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Did the noble and learned Lord say I said it was unjust to make children attend these schools?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Without providing for their conscience, that is what I understood.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I said that when you did that it was very desirable and necessary to give the people of the parish some representation on the management.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It was in another part of his speech.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I did not say what the noble and learned Lord says I do say.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess was speaking of the Act of 1870, and he said he had always felt since then that the forcing of children to go to school, and not to have provided some form or religious instruction appropriate to their own conscience—
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but I an sure he docs not wish—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Marquess says he did not say it—
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I have all along looked upon it as a great omission that the Act of 1870 did not provide for some representation of the people in the case of single-school districts. That is all I said.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I at once acquiesce, if the noble Marquess says he did not say what I understood him to say. The noble Marquess will observe this—that if education is compulsory, and there is only one school, a child must go to that school, whatever the sector religious denomination he belongs to. I regret the absence of my noble and learned Friend Lord Herschell, because I should have liked to have replied to his speech in his presence, I regret very much the
60
tone of some of his remarks. The whole tone of the speech was an attack upon the Church of England and the Church of England schools. He gave us one or two examples of what he described as Church teaching. I entirely deny that that is Church teaching. Then he drew a picture of what he called undenominational teaching, but. I confess I thought it was a good picture of denominational teaching. The practical question is whether or not this Bill is to pass in order to give what is admittedly required for the purpose of maintaining those schools which under the Act of 1870 you have promised to maintain. Some complaints have been made of the Education Department, but I ask whether there would be the smallest chance of this Bill becoming law if some new authority were created? What was it we were asked to do? We have got this scheme to distribute money in the face of the people and subject to a Government Department and Parliamentary criticism, and you are asked to throw the scheme out for some other scheme in the minds of noble Lords, but not disclosed up to the present time. We have heard what we ought to have put in the Bill with regard to the associations who are to advise the Government Department. We know very well that the money will not be distributed by the associations, but by the Department. All the associations have to do is to bring certain facts before the Department— facts as to the necessity and circumstances of the schools. I think that my noble Friend Lord Herschell, in his objections, disclosed a hostility to denominational schools which the noble Marquess (Ripon) would, I think, be the last to appreciate. There can be no doubt that ever since 1870 the two sets of schools got on very well together; but I concur in the distrust of some of those who have presided over the Department. No one can doubt that on occasions the administration of the Act has been in the highest degree hostile to denominational schools, and that from time to time attempts have been made to destroy some of these schools. I can give a case within my own knowledge. The school got on extremely well for some time. Then it was required to make some sanitary alterations. The money was raised in the village to do this. Then the Department

61
came down upon them again and demanded that there should be built an additional place for the scholars in the meantime. That was the last straw, and the result was a Board School. All through, the country at such periods an effort was made to destroy some of these denominational schools. That is what in fact has produced the distrust in the School Boards. Now the opponents of the Bill come forward and complain. They suggested that words should be put in the Bill which would make it absolutely unworkable, and which would cause Parliament to spend the whole Session over it, the Government to be blamed in the end. Now, my Lords, as to the Bill, I venture to think that this has been a great cry over a very little matter indeed. [Cheers.] The object is to supply necessitous schools. It is put in the smallest compass, and the machinery is of the simplest. Because it is simple and contained in about a dozen lines we have all sorts of references and suggestions very much outside the object of the present Measure. The simple question is, are the necessitous schools to be allowed to perish for lack of support? I hope your Lordships will, by a majority proportionate to the great majority in the other House, pass this Bill. The Bill passed there by a majority of 200— [Cheers]—and I am sure your Lordships are not disposed to disagree from their determination that this provision should be made. ["Hear, hear!"]
EARL STANHOPEsaid, as a former member of the London School Board, and also a member of a Voluntary School in London as well as in the country, he trusted he might be allowed to make a few remarks on the Bill. The Act of 1870 no doubt gave a great impetus to education, but it established a dual system, and produced great inequality. It worked well for years, and he hoped that the compromise might have been maintained. He could not help thinking that, if, in the days of Mr. Forster, local government had existed, if there had been County and District Councils, there would have been then a system of decentralisation, and that they would not have the dual system. He agreed with the most rev. Primate when he said that a clear division between primary and secondary education was not laid down as it should be, and he hoped
62
that this would be effected before long, and that they would have a strong and satisfactory scheme of secondary education established throughout the country. Then three years ago Free Education was established, and no doubt that was logical, since they had demanded that Education should be compulsory; but it worked very unequally in the north and in the south. In the south they had much less difficulty to contend with, because the fees were very small, but the fees in the north rose to 8d. and 9d. per head. He was under the impression that any such scheme to relieve inequality would be hailed with satisfaction, and his surprise was great that there should have been such a long discussion on so small and simple a Measure. He also thought noble Lords opposite followed the views of the people, and when a Bill was sent up to their Lordships' House by a majority of 200, he could not see why they should be put to the trouble of dividing upon it. ['Hear, hear!"] Lord Ripon had said I hut necessitous Board Schools ought to be treated at the same time as necessitous Voluntary Schools, but the noble Duke, the President of the Council, had informed the House that a Departmental Committee had found after inquiry that there were insuperable difficulties in the way of such a proposal. There were great difficulties on the face of it, inasmuch as Board Schools were supported by rates and Voluntary Schools by subscriptions, and by a Section of the Act of 1870 necessitous Board Schools were clearly defined, and unless that Section had been repealed, he did not see how necessitous Board Schools could have been treated in the same way as necessitous Voluntary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] He could not see that there was any reason to suppose that voluntary subscriptions would fall off. He believed the Church of England was more fully alive to her duties at the end of the century than she was at the beginning. He believed the provision as to associations was a most important part of the Bill. By experience alone could their duties be exactly defined. From the working of an association with which he was acquainted, he was confidently of opinion that this provision would conduce not only to proper management, but also to the proper disposal of the

63
funds available for poor Voluntary Schools. Lord Spencer had said that he objected to diocesan management, but diocesan management did not mean that the laity would be excluded. On the contrary, he thought it was clear that the associations would be comprised half of clergy and half of laity. He felt confident that when the existence of Voluntary Schools was in question, the associations would take care that they were worked well in order that such a good balance might be shown in every case as would redound to the credit of Voluntary Schools. A point was raised by a noble Lord opposite as to the exact position of Her Majesty's Inspectors. It seemed to him, without having any information about it, that they would continue to perform the same duties as now. They would pay surprise visits and report to the Department as usual. The Department would ask the advice of the local associations, who would have a far better local knowledge than the inspectors. He really believed that under these associations, as established, Roman Catholic and British and Foreign Schools would have fair and full treatment. Their claims would be considered on the same system as other Voluntary Schools —namely, as to the number of pupils and the funds at their disposal. Of course, the Church commanded such great influence in National education that she had a greater number of schools to provide for, but he believed that Roman Catholic and other schools would have the full grant where it was shown that they were well managed and that their students were numerous. He trusted there would be no delay in passing this Measure, which had long been looked forward to. ["Hear, hear!"]
LORD NORTONsaid that, although both in their Lordships' House and in another place the Bill had been described as a conglomeration of controverted principles, he could hardly conceive a simpler proposition than one to make a Treasury grant to Voluntary Schools. He thought the opponents of the Bill had rather invidiously represented it as a Measure of relief to Voluntary Schools, as if they were in a necessitous state. It would be far better described as a security given to the public for the continued service of Voluntary Schools, which to them was a most essential matter. The pauper
64
claimant was not the Voluntary Schools, hut the public, who could not do without them. But, after all, what was the nature of their claim? They represented the foundation of the whole spirit of the motional system of education. Their programme was described as the elementary education of the poor. Soon after they began their work a great deal of secondary instruction was introduced—very important work, but something quite distinct from the elementary education Voluntary Schools were formed to give. In 1870 School Boards were formed to supplement Voluntary Schools, and they were furnished with unlimited public money to carry out this higher education. It was clear that if the public required higher education to be given in elementary schools they must pay for it, whether in Voluntary Schools or Board Schools. It was the whole of the proposal of the Bill that the higher education now introduced into elementary education should be paid for, the volunteers continuing what they volunteered to give—namely, elementary education. To mix primary and secondary education was, no doubt, a great mistake. The mixture of the two damaged both, and neither got the freedom it needed. The two stages of primary and secondary education were distinct in their nature, and in their claim for public support. Elementary education was the training, from infancy up to the age when children went into employment, for the use of their faculties, and to inculcate principles for the intelligent and honest use of them in whatever line of life they followed. Secondary education was special apprenticeship to various lines of life. These definitions were not, mutually exclusive. Primary education in general culture gave a great deal of practical knowledge, and secondary education in apprenticing carried on general culture. The two stages of education were distinct; but so long us both were imparted in the same school, the Voluntary Schools had as fair a, claim to public support for the higher stages as the Board Schools. Secondary education had not the same claim as elementary education to public support. Nothing could injure the spirit of the country more than that the State should unnecessarily relieve parents of the charge of the education of their children With regard to secondary

65
education it was absolutely wrong that the public should be taxed for the training and bringing up of the sons of rich manufacturers. The great municipal technical schools springing up were not so much used by the artisan class as by the sons of rich manufacturers, who so trained their sons for business at enormous public expense. The "cross scent" drawn over the subject by starting a parallel claim for necessitous Board Schools to that of the Voluntary Schools was absolutely absurd. The two claims were not only not parallel, hut were not even similar. The claim of the Voluntary Schools that the higher education which had been added to their programme should be paid for by the public was not like the claim of the necessitous Board Schools who volunteered nothing, but asked that the rates should be relieved by the Treasury. The Government had shown a want of backbone by giving in to that as a parallel claim, however good in itself. Mr. Acland, in the Debates in the House of Commons on this Bill, said, there was no guarantee in the Bill that the grant to be given to Voluntary Schools should be spent in improved education. Nothing could be mere absurd. It was the only ground of the claim of Voluntary Schools that they should have the means of giving the advanced education now called for by the country in elementary schools. It was altogether wrong to look on the vote as one of relief to Voluntary Schools. It was not in any way contemplating them as necessitous schools. They had volunteered at the private expense of their supporters to make a gift of elementary education to the nation. That was not an act of necessity. They had performed their undertaking, but as other kinds of education are now expected of them they said, "We cannot be expected to provide the means to meet them also, and they must be met by the demanding public. That was the entire proposal of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]
LORD HERRIESsaid he could not help expressing satisfaction that the Government had introduced this Bill. But he should be sorry that it should be supposed that the Catholics were satisfied with the amount given them under the Bill. They accepted it as an instalment, and did not necessarily consider it final. They were satisfied with what they had,
66
but they could not consider what they had received as final, because the people who supported Catholic schools were poor, and the difficulty of raising subscriptions for the support of Catholic schools was greater than in any other denomination. If the House knew the difficulty Catholic clergy had to raise subscriptions, going up and down streets canvassing; the little concerts they got up to raise £2 or £3 to keep the schools going, it would understand that the Catholics had a real grievance. ["Hear, hear!"] The fact was, the position in many cases had become intolerable. The difficulty of raising the money necessary for the schools became greater every year, because the requirements of the Department became greater. It was all very well to say that under the Act of 1870 the grants were raised. The schools then were very different from what they were now. Sanitary requirements were greater. The result was, the cost of the maintenance of children in the schools had risen from £1 7s. 5d. in 1872 to £1 18s. 11 ¼d. in 1895. Grants had risen, but not in the same proportion as the cost of maintenance, and the result was voluntary subscribers had to find a larger sum in subscriptions. There would be imminent danger if this Bill were not passed of many schools becoming gradually extinct. But one thing Catholics were determined upon—that religious education should continue to exist in this country. [Cheers.] He was glad to find that religious education would continue, and that this Bill would tend towards that end. The noble Lords who had spoken had admitted the whole principle if voluntary education. ["Hear, hear!"] It was said that the Nonconformists suffered a grievance by having often to fend their children to Church schools. If hey were not satisfied let them build schools of their own. In many parishes where there were not more than twenty Catholics, the latter had their own schools. There was no question of preference of one school over another with regard to the grant. If there was any preference it was given to Board Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] Catholics who were poor had not only to support their own schools, but contribute to the rates for he support of Board Schools. Look at he salaries given in Board Schools. He happened to have something to do with a

67
school in the south of Scotland. There were only 117 children, and the head teacher got £240 a year; the second teacher, £140; and the third teacher £60; or more than £400 a, year for the teaching of 117 children! As the Duke of Devonshire said, they were becoming the servants of the teachers, and they would have to tackle the question how far they were to meet the demands of the teachers. He was as anxious for the higher education of the people of this country as anyone. He was Chairman of the Technical Education Committee of his county, and he had taken the greatest interest in higher technical and secondary education. But let them have their money's worth, and let all be educated on equal terms. He was most thankful to the Government for having brought in this Bill. He had never been in favour of getting money from the rates, because he had always believed that if they had it they would never be able to prevent popular control. He thought that representation of the ratepayers would, to a certain extent, endanger the independence of their schools, and for that reason he had always been opposed to getting assistance from the rates. But it was a different thing from their getting assistance from the public Exchequer, where they had the inspectors from the Education Department to see that the money was properly expended, the accounts audited, and that there was no danger of any malversation of the funds in any way. He trusted their Lordships would give a Second Reading to the Bill, and that the Voluntary Schools in the country should have the benefit of this grant, and that those who wished to give their children a religious education might have an opportunity of giving that religious education to their children in the future.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid he ventured to interpose in this Debate to express his hopes that their Lordships, by passing this Bill, would secure, at all events for some time, a cessation of a controversy in which it seemed the chief object had been for some time to obscure the real issue. Echoes of that attempt had reached their Lordships that night— loud echoes, he ventured to think—in the speech of the noble and learned Lord Herschell (whom he regretted not to see in his place) who, with exuberant geniality,
68
walked, he might say pranced, upon a well-trodden road, flogging a dead horse. He did not propose to follow the noble Lord. It was enough for him, if he might venture to express the hope with which he began, that for a little time there might be secured, by this Bill, a cessation from the controversy which stood in the way of any real educational progress. It was somewhat to be regretted that for so long a period what had been called the education question should simply have resolved itself into a question of a dispute between two different kinds of schools. Surely education contained many problems to which it would be most desirable that public interest should be given, and he believed it was only if public interest were given to the contents of education itself, and not the mere externals of it, that only so could they really reach to any wise conclusion upon the subjects which were now so much discussed. It seemed to him that much confusion which at present arose came from the fact that administrative considerations were applied to what were purely educational questions. It was solely for the purpose of the convenience of administration that there was invented, by the Act of 1870, a system which he thought- was now tolerably admitted on all sides exactly satisfied nobody. It seemed so very ingenious and easy to say, "As people do not all care about one topic, by all means let us drop out of the consideration of it everything about which there can be any disagreement, and surely the residuum may be accepted by everybody with good heart and courage." That method had been tried, and it had not succeeded. It had not succeeded in obtaining popular acceptance. They had heard much that night about the conscience of Nonconformists and of Roman Catholics. He ventured to think the members of the Church of England had a right to possess a conscience also, and their conscience had been little regarded in the controversy that had lately gone on. It had been supposed that, provided a small minority had its rights respected, and supposing all other bodies had, at all events, attempts made to secure them justice, that the body which still remained the great religious representative

69
of this country might practically be disregarded and must put up with anything that was left to it. The members of the Church of England asked only the opportunity of being allowed to teach those doctrines which they conscientiously believed; and, moreover, the advocates of the voluntary system were convinced that, in maintaining that system they were not maintaining something which merely made for the preponderance of their own body, but were maintaining principles which were essential for the maintenance of education itself, Not to go into the larger questions of I principle, involved, he would simply call attention to one minor point which was concerned almost with mechanism, the fact, namely, that the existence of Voluntary Schools was the sole and real guarantee that the education given in Board Schools should be religious at all, for so long as Board Schools and Voluntary Schools went on side by side the Voluntary School acted as an automatic check upon the tendencies of the Board School by compelling it to respect the wishes of the parent. No one desired to take, and no one could take, the children out of the guardianship of the parents and teach them anything, religious or secular, to which the parents had decided objection. But in the case of the Board School system it was perfectly easy that an untoward concurrence of circumstances should lead to a considerable disregard of the wishes of the parents in the matter of religious education. If there was close by a Voluntary School, or, even if not close by, a Voluntary School which, by I considerable sacrifices, was accessible, then the withdrawal of the children from the Board School and the sending them to the Voluntary School became a very serious matter indeed for the School Board. They were at once pulled up in I their attempts to disregard the obvious wishes of the parents; and the check acted immediately. Lord Herschell had said, in the course of his speech, that there was no tittle of evidence that parents preferred denominational schools. The preference of parents was somewhat hard to discover, except, perhaps, by the process of the Census Paper. But some facts came before one's notice, and one came before his notice in his previous diocese of Peterborough which seemed to him
70
exceedingly significant. At a public meeting a secularist speaker had made the usual statement that the one interest of the clergy of the Church of England in maintaining the Voluntary Schools was that they might make themselves masters of the consciences of the children. He was stopped by a working man, who mounted the platform by his side, and said: —
"I shall tell you what I think about this matter. I am a convinced Nonconformist. I hope to live, and die a Nonconformist, and I trust that my children will follow in my steps, but at the present moment I send my children to the Voluntary School in preference to the Board Schools, because I know the master of the Voluntary School—the Church school—is a religious-minded man. and I know that the management of the Church school is such as will secure that proper care should be taken for religious training."
It seemed to him that such an opinion was absolutely well founded. It was useless to try and belittle the significance of denominational differences. Denominations differed in just those points which came most home to the mind of the child. If they differed from one another it was not, he admitted, about the great truths, because they were common to them all; but they differed about the particular way in which those truths had to be applied to the life and conscience of the individual. For that reason, if for no other, if religious education was to be real and genuine, it must be denominational and have a definite point of attachment to the life and character of the child who was being taught. That was appreciated by the great body of the English people, and he believed that they were distinctly desirous that Voluntary Schools should be maintained, because they felt that in them they had the one safeguard for the maintenance of religious education at all. This Bill was a trifling Bill, totally undeserving, in his opinion, the attention that had been paid to it in another place. It simply aimed at maintaining the status quo, and it had the great advantage that it tended to save them from the danger which inevitably came when principles were sacrificed to convenience of administration. The suppression of Voluntary Schools by the brute force of financial pressure would leave behind it an inextinguishable sense of wrong, and would produce results most dangerous to the well-being of society.

71
It was ever dangerous that principles should be sacrificed to the mere interest of convenience of administration. From this danger the Bill attempted to save. It left the schools just in the position where they were. It left them so for the time when the mind and conscience of the nation could more distinctly and definitely express its opinion than it had hitherto done. He thought there was always a danger when the system founded on principles was extinguished by a system founded merely on expediency, and the system exhibited by the Board School was one which owed its very origin to the consideration of expediency of administration. The compromise of 1870 had been found to be no compromise, and it was clear that some new arrangement would have to be made. Time would do much towards indicating the lines which that arrangement would take, and the mere exhaustion of use of arguments, in which there was little and the poverty of which was increasingly exhibited every time they were used, would do much. But still more would be done by the shifting of their point of view as regarded education. Hitherto public interest had been almost entirely given to the pure externals of education—the way in which the schools had to be built, the salaries which masters and mistresses had to be paid—and, as yet, the public mind had not been turned at all to what were the real contents of their educational system. It was only when the meaning of education itself was more widely known and more keenly felt that it would be possible for them to attain to even the basis of a new arrangement which would be satisfactory to all sides; and neither he nor any of his brethren wished for any arrangement that would not be satisfactory or just to all concerned. It was a matter of deep regret to them that there should be even the appearance of injustice towards anybody whatever in their just claim to teach those things of which they were profoundly convinced, This Bill did not err on the side of excess it merely gave time with due regard to economy. It contained some valuable suggestions, and not the least valuable was the power of association tending to call into existence a central body to direct the affairs of Voluntary Schools. In this way much would be done to remove eccentricities of management, which sometimes
72
unfortunately did occur, and to which attention had been drawn more than once during the Debate. None regretted these eccentricities of management more than those who were interested in the maintenance of religious education, and he hoped they would pass away under the greater publicity and the more regulated system this power of association would bring about. This Bill merely recognised that it was inexpedient to settle the questions now open in regard to our educational system by the force of mere financial pressure that had been unforeseen. These questions were too delicate and far-reaching to be settled by any such appeal to mere force. The future, the near future he trusted, would more than justify the respite which this Bill afforded. The future, he believed, would recognise that those who now supported the cause of Voluntary Schools were animated by a nobler conception of the nature of education, and he would venture to say by a higher ideal of the true nature of civil and religious liberty than their opponents of to-day. [Cheers.]
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I entirely sympathise with the feelings expressed by the right reverend Prelate who has just sat down, that it is greatly to be regretted that bitter controversies should arise on the subject of education; but I differ from him in thinking that the Bill will tend to allay those controversies, and, on the contrary, my principal reason for being opposed to this Bill is that I believe it will stimulate controversy and lead to bitter controversies and animosities on the whole subject. The right reverend Prelate seems to regret the compromise of 1870—a compromise I well remember, for I was a Member of the Government which passed that Act. That compromise was the moans at that time of getting free from bitter controversies that then prevailed—and I think that, although, of course, as is the case with all compromises, it is open to objections from both sides—I think that the 25 years of complete peace we have enjoyed since then will be sacrificed by the present Bill, and I believe myself that those who are the most ardent now for commencing the destruction of this compromise will live to bitterly regret that they ever touched it. ["Hear, hear!"] I make no complaint of the right reverend Prelate; it is only natural that one occupying his position

73
should hold the opinion he does as to tile necessity for teaching little children I dogma. It is, of course, a loose term, and I know that all opinion may be called dogma; but what I menu is the teaching of those truths of religion that cm only appeal to the more mature understanding. I have myself an absolute conviction that there is no delusion greater than to suppose that such teaching is necessary for little children. There are some simple principles which undoubtedly every man who has any religious feeling would wish to have taught to children: but when 1 see the controversies that take place because children are not taught this or that dogma, I confess I think zeal for a particular denomination is greater than zeal for the education of the children. The noble Duke opposite made the remarkable discovery that the Bill is founded on the voluntary principle—was a wonderful instance of liberalism and freedom. Not only do I not think the Bill is based on the voluntary principle, but I think the Bill is very likely in the end, if not at once, to destroy the Voluntary principle. ["Hear, hear!"] The Voluntary principle means the support of schools by voluntary subscriptions. Now, at the present moment about 70 per cent, of the cost; of so-called Voluntary Schools is paid by the State, and when this Bill comes into full operation I think that state of things will be realised which the Lord President spoke of in 1876 when the 17s. 6d. limit was introduced—that Voluntary Schools in point of fact can no longer be called voluntary, and will be called by the more appropriate word "denominational." The meaning of this Bill is that for the first time there is a special endowment by the State about to be given to denominational schools. Contrary to the Act of 1870 the Bill gives a subvention, to one class of schools. It is very true we are told that there may be a Bill for giving something to the Board Schools, but gathered from the noble Duke that it is not intended In treat the Board Schools on a footing of equality, in this respect, with the denominational schools. Then, 1 say, the old foundation of statutory equality disappears. I recognise as much as anyone in this House that it is right and proper that, where you, find that the funds are not sufficient to maintain the
74
schools in a proper state of efficiency, the State should come to the assistance of he schools. That, I apprehend, is the case for this Bill. But then, observe, you relieve, or profess to relieve, one particular class—those who support the schools. What is the principle upon which the schools were originally held to >e supported? The meaning of it was his—that in certain districts in the country where the inhabitants preferred to support the schools by subscriptions, they gave their money in subscriptions and they had their Voluntary Schools. In other parts of the country, where they did not come forward with subscriptions, the money was supplied by rates. But it appears to me that a fair system demands that the locality shall contribute in subscriptions as much as another locality contributes in rates, else there is no equality whatever. What, you say here is this: Here are certain districts which do not come forward with subscriptions sufficient to maintain their schools on a proper footing, and therefore you will step in and give them the money of the State. That is to say, that their default is to cause them to be treated better than those who have not been in default. ["Hear, hear!"] The ratepayers, in my opinion, are every bit as much entitled, neither more nor less than the subscribers to the Voluntary Schools, to be assisted by the State. What is the real ground, of this Measure? think it is a substantial ground. I was very sensible of it at the time when I had the honour to hold for a short time the position of Lord President. What then took place was this. It was pointed out, and I think unanswerably pointed out, that there was a considerable number of schools which were behindhand in efficiency, and, no doubt, among those were a considerable number of Voluntary Schools. The standard of education had been improved. Naturally, as time went, on, the standard which was considered sufficient in 1870 ceased to be a sufficient standard, and it was necessary, in the opinion of all those interested in education, that the standard should be raised. This put undoubtedly a very severe pressure on many Voluntary Schools. I know it was thought that Mr. Acland and myself had a deep design, by putting pressure on Voluntary

75
Schools, to destroy them and to substitute Board Schools. I can assure the right reverend Prelates, who gave a great deal of trouble at that time, that we never had any such design. All we did think was that we were bound to see that the schools were efficient, and if the result was that Board Schools had to be established that undoubtedly did not absolve us from the duty of seeing that the schools were efficient. That is the real reason which has caused this Bill to be brought in. My view is that this money should be given to the schools for the purpose of securing and increasing the efficiency of the schools, and for no other purpose. My opinion is that in the Bill itself it ought to be limited, and that it should be distinctly provided that the money shall be spent for that purpose and for that purpose only. Now we know—we did not know before—that it is going to be spent for other purposes, because the noble Duke told us to-night very frankly and honestly that in the case where the subscriptions fell short, the money would be given for the aid of the subscribers, even though it was required for the efficiency of the schools.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Not necessarily because the subscriptions fell short, but where the resources of the locality, in the opinion of the Education Department, were slender.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It will be given in aid of subscriptions.
THE DIKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It might.
THE. EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It may be so given. Therefore it seems to me that that establishes an unanswerable case for giving the grant in all cases. That brings me to touch upon the provisions in the Bill giving it to necessitous schools. This has been said to be a very simple Bill. It is a remarkably simple Bill, because to a great extent it is a skeleton Bill. This is a mere sketch of a Bill. I never saw a Bill brought before Parliament with an expression like "necessitous" in it without any definition of it. I do not blame Her Majesty's Government for not giving a definition, because I firmly believe that no definition is possible. But what is the conclusion which I draw? This, that the only safe mode of proceeding in this matter would have been to give the grant of 5s. all round without going into the question
76
of whether this or that school was necessitous. On the general ground that the standard of education has been raised, that the expense is necessarily much larger than it formerly was, it would have been reasonable and proper to give a subvention from the State and to give it to every school in the country which complies with the educational requirements of the Department. That, I believe, would have been a simple, workable, and, on the whole, a just system. That is my answer to the noble Lord who sits on the woolsack, who twitted us with not presenting any alternative. That is the alternative which we would have proposed. That is the alternative which we believe would have been wiser than the present Bill. I am bound to say that personally I am entirely in favour, and always have been, ever since the passing of the Act of 3 870, of Board Schools; but, on the other hand, I recognise now, as I recognised when I was a Member of that Government, that the denominational schools are a portion of the educational system which no one will venture to propose to destroy. That being so, as it is recognised by all of us in the present state of opinion in this country, and under present circumstances to be a necessary part of our system, I recognise as much as anyone in this House it is necessary that these schools should be efficient and sufficient. But what I object to is the mode in which it is proposed to be done, and I object to it so much that, although I am in favour of giving to the denominational schools such assistance as they require, I shall record my vote against the Second Reading as a protest. ["Hear, hear!"] There are one or two points to which I wish to refer. Amongst other things you will find here that there are to be different rates in town and country, and I was rather disappointed, though not surprised, that the noble Duke did not give us any explanation of that. What one would like to know is which of these two categories is to be favoured. ["Hear, hear!"] I have tried to find out what is likely to happen, and I lighted upon a statement made by the Vice President, which in other circumstances I probably should have regarded as conclusive. But as the Vice President appeal's to have not the smallest influence with the Education Department to which he belongs, at least,

77
so far us this Bill is concerned, I am afraid my quotation may not have so much weight as it otherwise would have. But this is what he said in writing in a review in 1896:—
" In tile country the Voluntary Schools were better off than the Board Schools. There is no power and no necessity for levelling up as in the towns. The Voluntary Schools can hold their own without further pecuniary support. The rates levied in School Board districts are a greater burden on the people than the subscriptions in parishes which have Voluntary Schools. It is rather, indeed, the Board Schools which require financial assistance to enable the instruction given in them to he levelled up to the same efficiency as that given by their rivals."
I should infer there would be a rate lived for the town higher than that fixed for the country, and I doubt whether that would be perfectly fair. So much for the provisions of the Bill. Let me refer to the general effect of the Measure. I do not wish to say one word that is in the least offensive to the right rev. Bench opposite, but I cannot disguise from myself that not in this country only, but in every civilised country, there has always been a, violent struggle on the part of what I must call the clerical party, mi the part of bishops and priests in the Christian Church, to obtain more and more power. ["Hear, hear!"] I and many other laymen think that it is our paramount duty to resist an extension of that power. ["Hear, hear!"] We respect, the office which they hold, we acknowledge their services to the community in the cause of religion, but we desire that they shall not interfere with lay affairs beyond what they now do, and that they shall not obtain more power over the laymen. I have no doubt it is not so in the minds of all who promote it, but I regard this as a deliberate attempt to increase the clerical power over the schools of the country and so over the population, and I am firmly persuaded, notwithstanding all we have heard of the love of certain parents for Voluntary Schools, that as this controversy proceeds you will find the English people will not be dominated by priests.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL, (Viscount CROSS)said he would not enter into the question which the noble Lord raised in the concluding portion of his speech. He
78
believed that the laity were, quite determined to live in peace, amity, and friendship with their clerical brethren, and that the clerical brethren wished to live in peace and concord with the laity. ["Hear, hear!"] To say that the giving of 5s. per child to certain schools would increase the clerical power was the greatest nonsense he ever heard. [Cheers.] Let him go back for a moment. In the Queens' Speech of last year it was stated that, the Government intended to bring forward a Bill for the purpose of aiding Voluntary Schools. When the Bill was brought forward it was decided to enlarge the scope of it very much, and one of the complaints made against the Government by noble Lords opposite was that the Government had exceeded what they had said in the Queen's Speech, and had brought in a much larger Bill than was ever hinted at during the election.
LORD HERSCHELL: We never raised the point; we never had an opportunity.
VISCOUNT CROSSpresumed the noble Lord did not separate himself from his colleagues in the other House, and that was the complaint those colleagues made The Oppositon tendered the Government a piece of advice. They said:—
"if you had only limited your Bill to what was stilled in the Queen's Speech and at the General Election, you would have had our assistance; but, as it is, we shall oppose you bitterly."
They opposed the Government with so much effect that there was not time to carry the Bill. Perhaps foolishly, they had adopted the advice of noble Lords and their colleagues, and had this year brought in a simple Bill to assist. Voluntary Schools. They had a right, therefore, to count upon the assistance of those who sat opposite. What had taken place to-night only showed how little promises must be counted upon. [Lord HERSCHELL: "There were no promises!"] Well, there were statements made. Anyone who would read the Debates in the House of Commons last year would see that the statements quite bore out everything he had said. ["Hear, hear!"] But how had they been fulfilled? The opposition to this simple, and certainly short, Bill was more vehement than that offered to the Bill of last year. [Opposition cheers.] He did not like the word mandate, but if ever there was a mandate given at a

79
general election it was given at the last that these schools should receive substantial assistance. What was the noble Earl's first objection? He said that it would stimulate controversy. That was a matter of opinion. He thought that controversy was bad enough before this Bill was brought in. If anything would calm controversy, it would be the passing of this Measure. Then he said they had broken one of the great promises made in 1870, because he said there was to be equality of treatment. He thought the noble Lord must have forgotten the words of the Act of 1870. There was special power given to assist poor Board Schools, if the necessity arose; and he did not, therefore, see that the noble Lord had proved his case. His next objection was that the money ought to be given for the efficiency of the teaching of the schools. The Bill simply said that 5s. was to be given, and it was to be distributed by the Education Department. The Department could only distribute the money so as to promote the efficiency of the schools. ["Hear, hear!"] It would not be denied that the Department was a very good judge of what a necessitous school was. Then the noble Lord found great fault with the associations, but in many counties and towns there had been associations which had worked very well. Then the noble Lord said he had a plan flinch would be carried without the smallest difficulty in the other House.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I really said nothing of the kind. [Laughter.] He would be a bold man who would say that any Bill would pass the House of Commons without the smallest difficulty.
VISCOUNT CROSSunderstood that the suggestion was that they should give 5s. all round. Many schools did not want 5s., while others would want more than 5s. [Opposition laughter.] He was surprised at the suggestion from the noble Lord. He could not conceive any proposal which would involve a more absolute waste of public money than to give 5s. all round. The object of this Bill was to relieve necessitous schools and, of course, if the extravagant plan of giving 5s. all round, suggested by the noble Earl opposite, was to be followed, one
80
school could not be assisted more than another; but under this Bill that could be done. He had now dealt with all the objections raised by the noble Earl, and anyone who had read the violent speeches against the Bill which had been made in another place, would hardly have expected such a tame list of objections from the noble Earl. It was said that voluntary subscriptions would fall off if this Bill was carried; but the Church of England would go on paying, as it had done in the past. Since the passing of the Act of 1870, the Church of England had spent no less than 15 millions of money on their schools. [Cheers.] The Roman Catholics, he believed—and to their honour be it said—had never given up a single one of their schools—["hear, hear!"]—and the Church of England was just as determined now, as it always had been, to maintain its position as the great teaching power amongst the vast majority of the people, and they would not forfeit their character simply because this Bill was passed. This Bill was asked for at the last election; it was carried in the House of Commons by unprecedented majorities, and he hoped their Lordships would carry the Second Reading that night by a majority as decisive. ["Hear, hear!"]
On the question "That the Bill be now Read a Second time the House divided:—

CONTENTS

109

NOT-CONTENTS

15

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Bristol, M.

Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor)

Exeter, M.

Lansdowne, M.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Lathom, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Cross, V. (L. Priry Seal)

Camperdown, E.

Carnwath, E.

Norfolk, D. (E.Marshal.)

Clarendon, E.

Coventry, E.

Argyll, D.

Cowper, E.

Newcastle, D.

de Montalt, E.

Portland, D.

Denbigh, E.

Somerset, D.

Derby, E.

Westminster, D.

Doncastor, E.

(D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Abereorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Ducie, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Feversham, E.

81

Harrowby, E.

Colchester, L.

Lanesborough, E.

Crawshaw, L

Lucan, E.

Digby, L.

Minto, E.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Morley, E.

Forester, L.

Portarlington, E.

Glenesk, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Hampton, L.

Romney, E.

Harlech, L.

Saint Germans, E.

Harris, L.

Sandwich, E.

Hatherton, L.

Selborne, E.

Herries, L.

Stamford, E.

James, L.

Stanhope, E.

Kesteven, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Kinnear, L.

Suffolkand Berkshire, E.

Kintore, E. (Kintore.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Lawrence, L.

Verulam, E.

Lock, L.

Waldegrave, E.(Teller)

Mendip, L.(V. Clifden)

Morris, L.

Falkland, V.

Mount Stephen, L.

Knutsford, V.

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

Llandaff, V.

Norton, L.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Penrhyn, L.

London, L. Bp.

Poltimore, L.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Southwell, L. Bp.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Addington, L.

Robartes, L.

Ampthill, L.

Rothschild, L.

Armstrong, L.

Rowton, L.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Shand, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Ashbourne, L.

Ashcombe, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Bagot, L.

Balfour, L.

Sudley, L.

Belper, L.

Tredegar, L.

Braye, L.

Wenlock, L.

Castletown, L.

Wentworth, L.

Chelmford, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Cheylesmore, L.

Churchill, L. (Teller.)

Windsor, L.

Cliffordof Chudleigh, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Clinton, L.

Worth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kimberley, E.

Earrer, L.

Spencer, E.

Herschell, L.

Oxenbridge, V.[Teller.]

Hobhouse, L. (Teller.).

Aberdare, L.

Monkswell, L.

Ashton, L.

Reay, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Thring, L.

Wandsworth, L.

Davey, L.

Wellby, L.

Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.
House adjourned at Five Minutes before Eleven o'clock, to Thursday next, a Quarter past Ten o'clock.