Sitting of 1 August 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  Lords' Amendment considered, and agreed to.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Lords' Amendment considered, and agreed to.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Lords' Amendment considered, and agreed to.
MID-KENT WATER BILL.
Lords' Amendment considered, and agreed to.
SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
Lords' Amendment considered, and agreed to.
EXETER, TEIGN VALLEY, AND CHAGFORD RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

CARLISLE CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
As amended, considered:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

FILEY WATER AND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
As amended, considered:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

FORRES WATER BILL. [H.L.]
As amended, considered:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr Farquharson.)
Bill accordingly read the third time and passed, with Amendments.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
As amended, considered:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATER BILL. [H.L.]
As amended, considered:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
(Queen's Consent signified),—Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
As amended, considered:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
BURY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Ordered, That the Bury Corporation Bill [Lords] be withdrawn.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have agreed to:—
PAUPER CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL,
  METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS BILL,
    ST. DAVID'S RAILWAY BILL,
    without Amendment.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL,
  GLASGOW CORPORATION (SEWAGE, ETC.) BILL,

    BOLTON, TURTON, AND WESTHOUGHTON EXTENSION BILL,
    KNOTT END RAILWAY BILL,
    RHYMNEY AND ABER VALLEYS GAS AND WATER BILL,
    METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (EAST SHEEN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
    with Amendments.
    That they have agreed to,—
    Amendments to—

CLONTARF AND HILL OF HOWTH TRAMROAD BILL [H.L.],
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (WALES) BILL [H.L.],

    CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.],
    EICESTER FREEMEN BILL [H.L.],
    AISLEY CORPORATION (LOANS) BILL [H.L.],
    T. MARYLEBONE CHURCHES BILL [H.L.],
    without Amendment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL
Lords' Amendments to be considered to-morrow.
METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME [EAST SHEEN] PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
PETITION.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  From New Brompton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
  Return presented relative thereto [Address 30th July; Mr. Brodrick]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 332.]
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented of Return of Evictions in Ireland for the Quarter ended 30th June, 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LUNACY (IRELAND).
  Copy presented of Forty-seventh Report, with Appendices, of Inspectors of Lunatics (Ireland) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
GLEBE LOANS (IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 21st July; Mr. T. T. Sullivan]; to lie upon the Table.

CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENT AT THE AGE OF 65).
Copy ordered, "of Treasury Minute dated the 25th day of July, 1898, stating the circumstances under which certain Civil Servants have been retained in the Service after they have attained the age of 65."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 333.]

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1896–7.
Committee to consider the Savings and Deficiencies upon Navy and Army Grants for 1896–7, and the temporary sanction obtained from the Treasury by the Navy and Army Departments to the Expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year, To-morrow.
Ordered, That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy and Army Departments, which were presented upon the 11th day of February last, be referred to the Committee.—(Mr. Hanbury.)

EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.
Ordered, That the several Accounts and Papers which have been presented to the House in this Session of Parliament, relating to the Revenues of India, be referred to the consideration of a Committee of the whole House.
Resolved, That this House will, upon Wednesday, resolve itself into the said Committee.—(Secretary Lord George Hamilton.)

QUESTIONS.

  SUPERIOR APPOINTMENTS IN THE BELFAST POST OFFICE.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: On behalf of the honourable Member for North Belfast, I beg to ask the Secretary

  687
  to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why the proportion of assistant superintendents to telegraphists is in Manchester (first-class office) 1 to 13.8, Dundee (third-class office) 1 to 18, while in Belfast (second-class office) it is only 1 to 19, and why Manchester is allowed £17 10s. per man per annum for supervision while Belfast is allowed only £11 5s.; whether repeated applications have been made from Belfast during the past two years pointing out that exactly analogous duties to those of assistant superintendents are being performed by clerks without extra remuneration; and whether he will take steps to raise Belfast to the same level in respect to superior appointments as other large offices?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The proportion of assistant superintendents to telegraphists at different offices must necessarily vary according to the conditions of work. As regards Belfast, however, the Postmaster General hopes shortly to make an addition to the number of supervising appointments.

BELFAST TELEGRAPHISTS.
MR. W. JOHNSTON: On behalf of the honourable Member for North Belfast, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why, although the Tweedmouth Committee reported that at offices where telegraphists rise to 54s. per week clerks should rise to £175 per annum, the telegraphists in Belfast have attained to 54s. per week, but the clerks have been kept at £160 per annum; and whether he will take steps to have this remedied by advancing the clerks to £175?
MR. HANBURY: The statement of the Tweedmouth Committee was a statement of supposed fact, not a recommendation for the future. It was not, however, accurate as representing the actual arrangement in existence.

BRITISH POST OFFICE AT SALONIKA.
MR. LEGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any further steps have been taken with reference to the establishment of a British post office at Salonika?
MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has been in communication through the Foreign Office with Her Majesty's Consul-General at Salonika with a view to the establishment of a British post office at that port. This correspondence has not yet been completed, but it is hoped that final arrangements will be made before long. The difficulty is, I believe, in connection with the Consular House.

POMEROY POSTMASTERSHIP.
MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether Mrs. Charles, an assistant in the office and a relative of the late postmaster of Pomeroy, county Tyrone, was strongly recommended for the appointment, in succession to Mr. R. S. Bates, whose orphan children Mrs. Charles undertook to keep and maintain if she were appointed; and if he will state on what grounds the Postmaster General has given the appointment to a man named Grimes, at one time secretary to the Land League, and now acting as local registration agent to the Nationalist party.
MR. HANBURY: There were a good many candidates for the Pomeroy sub-office, several of whom (one being Mrs. Charles) were strongly recommended by various private persons for the appointment, but from the reports which he received the Postmaster General was not satisfied as to her suitability for the post. He selected, therefore, another candidate, Mr. Grimes, who had also been recommended to him, and whose premises were suitable and well situated. The Post master General was not aware of Mr. Grimes' political associations, but he is assured that he is not acting as local registration agent to the Nationalist party?

VOLUNTEER FATALITY AT SHEFFIELD PARK.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can now say if the War Office can grant any compensation to Mrs. Tingley for the loss she has sustained through the death of her son, Sergeant Tingley late of the 1st Sussex Engineer Volunteers, which was caused by some blasting operations during the inspection of the battalion at Sheffield Park on 3rd June last?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OP STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK, Surrey,): There is a difficulty in this case, because it is not the custom in the Army to compensate mothers for the loss of sons, and it would be very difficult to compensate the mother of a Volunteer for a similar loss. It is possible that if the deceased man had been in the Army there might have been a small grant made from the Patriotic Fund, and the Committee will see if a similar grant can be made to the mother of this man.

VACCINATION PROSECUTIONS IN SCOTLAND.
SIR C. DILKE: On behalf of the honourable Member for Caithness, I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to recent vaccination prosecutions at Aberdeen and at Dundee; whether he is aware that, in the latter case, the sheriff stated that the procedure was oppressive, in view of the English legislation which proposed to give relief to persons with conscientious scruples; whether there has been a recent order by the Scottish Local Government Board in favour of more rigorous prosecutions; and whether the majority of the Parish Council of Abbotshall, in the county of Fife, have resigned in consequence?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): My attention has been called to the cases referred to. The case at Dundee was tried before the sheriff-substitute—not the sheriff. I have no knowledge of what he said except from the newspaper reports. The answer to the third paragraph of the
690
Question is in the negative. On the contrary, I am informed by the Local Government Board for Scotland that they have not departed from the line which they have all along adopted, namely, that parish councils are bound to carry out the existing law. It is the fact that, on being called upon to carry out the existing law in regard to first prosecutions, six out of 11 of the parish councillors of Abbotshall resigned their seats at the parish council.

ROYAL MUNSTER FUSILIERS.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state why the Royal Munster Fusiliers are not allowed to wear the shamrock badge (granted to them in 1881) upon their uniform; whether any other regiment possessing a special badge is prohibited from wearing it; and whether, having regard to the fact that the Royal Munster Fusiliers is the only regiment upon whom the shamrock badge has been conferred, the propriety of permitting this national emblem to be worn upon the uniform will be favourably considered?
MR. BRODRICK: I have nothing to add to my reply of Thursday last. This regiment has never been granted a right to the shamrock badge, and has never worn it.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the honourable Gentleman aware that the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, who were constituted at the same time and under the same conditions, wear the two badges to which they are entitled, and cannot the same course be adopted in regard to the Royal Munster Fusiliers?
MR. BRODRICK: I do not think the honourable Gentleman quite understands. The Royal Munster Fusiliers were given the right to wear the shamrock in their colours; they have never had the badge, it was never conferred on them, they have never asked for it, and have never worn it.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it not a fact that the two badges are indicated in the Army List——?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Gentleman is debating the

691
answer. He has received a full answer to the Question.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the objection due to the fact that the badge happens to be the shamrock——?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

FUTURE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any negotiations are in progress, or any understanding arrived at between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States in reference to the future of the Philippine Islands; whether there is any ground for the apprehension that Germany is seeking the acquisition of the island of Luzon, the most, valuable and strategically important of the group; whether he is aware that the possibility of Germany acquiring a further foothold in proximity to their shores is viewed with considerable anxiety in the Australian Colonies; and whether Her Majesty's Government will carefully watch the development of the situation in the Philippines with a view to preventing any portion of a group situated on the great commercial highway between Australia and the Far East from falling into hostile hands?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): No negotiations are in progress with regard to the Philippine Islands, and no information has reached us to support the idea that Germany has made or is making any attempts to acqure the island of Luzon. The Government are aware that the future of the Philippines is a subject of anxiety to the Australian Colonies, and it will, of course, continue to receive their close attention.

CONCESSIONS IN CHINA.
LORD WARKWORTH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the pressure that is exercised upon the Chinese Government by the
692
representatives of foreign Powers at Pekin in favour of concessions demanded or procured by their own nationals, and against concessions demanded or procured by the nationals of other countries, Her Majesty's Government will take such steps as may enable the Chinese Government to resist their pressure, and as will secure identity of treatment for British subjects and British undertakings in the Chinese Empire?
MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin was instructed some time ago to press for the insertion in every concession granted by the Chinese Government of proper provisions for equal treatment of all nationals in trade. On July 22nd he was further instructed by telegraph to inform the Yamen that Her Majesty's Government would support the Chinese Government against any Power which committed an act of aggression upon China, because China had granted to a British subject permission to make or support any railway or similar public work.

MOSQUITO RESERVE DISTURBANCES.
LORD WARKWORTH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps to obtain the settlement of the claims of British subjects for material losses arising out of the disturbances in the Mosquito Reserve in 1894?
MR. CURZON: A convention was signed on 1st November, 1895, for the appointment of a Commission to fix the amount due to British subjects on account of the claims referred to. It was, however, subsequently agreed to by an exchange of notes that the matter should be settled by the payment of a lump sum. A portion of the amount then fixed has been paid and distributed to the claimants. But, in spite of repeated and urgent applications, the balance due from the Nicaraguan Government has not yet been received.

PROMOTION IN THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that discontent prevails in the ranks of the Belfast Royal Irish Constabulary regarding the practice of lifting junior men over the heads of their seniors on the promotion lists; and if he would cause inquiry to be made into the matter?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): My right honourable Friend has made inquiry into this matter, and is informed that no discontent whatever prevails in the ranks of the Belfast police force of the nature indicated. The greatest weight, consistently with the interest of the service, is given to seniority in making selections for promotion, and no senior man who is well qualified for advancement fails in due time to obtain it.

MUZZLING ORDER IN EAST SUSSEX.
MR. LUCAS-SHADWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will now take off the Muzzling Order for that portion of the county of Sussex which is under the administration of the East Sussex County Council; and, if he cannot do so immediately, whether he can fix any date on which he expects to be able to remove the Order?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): My right honourable Friend has asked me to read his answer as follows: I should be glad to see my way to relax the Muzzling Order now in force in East Sussex, but there are indications that rabies, although so substantially reduced, still lingers in the metropolis and the home counties, between which and the district in question there is so considerable a movement of population at this period of the year. I cannot but think, therefore, that the withdrawal of the Order at the present time might easily result in my having to re-impose it at no distant date—a step which I am most anxious, if possible, to avoid. It
694
would not be desirable that I should specify any date for the withdrawal of the Order, but my honourable Friend may be sure that I shall not lose sight of the representations he has made to me on the subject, and I am very hopeful that if the present condition of things is maintained I shall be able to withdraw the Order at no distant date.

EXPORT OF ARMS TO PERSIA.
MR. J. WALTON: On behalf of the honourable Member for the Wick Burghs I beg to ask the Attorney General whether the export of arms and ammunition in the way of trade from Great Britain to Persia is contrary to the law of England?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): The answer to the honourable Member's Question is in the negative.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1897.
MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether men employed by local authorities in working steam-rollers or stone-breaking machinery, and surfacemen employed in spreading road metal in close proximity to steam-rollers, come within the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897?
SIR R. WEBSTER: The answer to the honourable Gentleman's Question is in the negative.

COUNTY COURT JURISDICTION IN LANCASHIRE.
SIR J. W. MACLURE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury will he explain why the extensive district of Withington has been removed from the jurisdiction of the Stockport county court and added to the jurisdiction of the Manchester county court; has it been repre-

695
sented to him that the business of the latter court will be largely increased by such removal and by the Workmen's Compensation Act; and will he also state why the allowance to clerks in the Manchester county court has been reduced by £50 this year and an intimation given that a further reduction of £50 will be made in 1899, in spite of the protests of the judge and registrar of such court, and in spite of the fact that the business of the court is largely increasing and will further increase, whilst it is conducted at a decreased expenditure?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am informed by the Lord Chancellor that the change of jurisdiction has been made in consequence of strong and repeated representations from the locality, which was for all other purposes allied with Manchester, rather than Stockport. It will, no doubt, increase the work of the Manchester county court, but whether the operation of the Workmen's Compensation Act will materially contribute to this result seems doubtful. With regard to the last paragraph, I am informed that if the business at Manchester increases the allowance for clerical assistance will be increased in proportion. The payment to the clerks of the county court is based on the average of the payments for the last four years, and it is quite as high as that in other courts which do a similar amount of business.

ST. MARYLEBONE CHURCHES BILL.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that the St. Marylebone Church Bill was passed by an Unopposed Bill Committee, notwithstanding that two notices of Instructions had by order of the House been set down for consideration on a given day, he will consider the expediency of proposing such an alteration in the Rules and Orders of the House as will prevent the recurrence of such a proceeding?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I cannot make any pledge with regard to modifying the Standing Orders in this matter. If the question is to be reviewed by Parliament the abuses connected with the putting down of Instructions will have to be considered as well as the particular defect which the honourable Member finds in our existing procedure.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
SIR T. D. GIBSON CARMICHAEL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether men employed by district councils in working steamrollers and stone-breaking machinery, and surfacemen employed in spreading road metal in close proximity to steamrollers, come within the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897?
MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am afraid I cannot make distinctions. On the 14th of last month, in reply to an analogous Question referring to the same Act, I refused to give my honourable Friend the Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs a legal opinion. I must again refuse to do so. But the honourable Member has, no doubt, observed that my honourable Friend the Attorney General has a softer heart, and he is consequently in possession of an English opinion which will doubtless serve his purpose.

INDIA COMMISSION.
MR. BANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when the evidence given before the Indian Commission is to be published?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I understand that the evidence taken up to date by the Indian Currency Committee will be ready for publication before the end of the month.

BRITISH EXPORTS OF ARMS INTO PERSIA.
MR. J. WALTON: On behalf of the honourable Member for the Wick Burghs I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government warned the British manufacturers engaged in the trade of exporting arms to Persia that this trade was illicit, and that arms and ammunition so exported would be confiscated by the Government?
MR. CURZON: The prohibition of the import of arms and ammunition into Persia was made by the Persian Government in 1880. On June 13th, 1891, notice of the prohibition was given to British merchants in Persia. There can be little doubt that the prohibition and the risks which were incurred by ignoring it have since then been known to the shippers and to the local firms engaged in the trade. The prohibition has on several occasions been mentioned in the British Consular Reports, which have been published from year to year. It was no part of the duty of Her Majesty' Government to issue any notice as to the steps that might be taken for the enforcement of Persian law by the Persian Government.
MR. J. WALTON: On behalf of the honourable Member for the Wick Burghs I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the nature of the cargo of the Beluchistan and the port of her destination were duly declared by the shippers to the proper Government officers before the Beluchistan put to sea; and, if so, why was she allowed to proceed upon her voyage?
MR. CURZON: The statements made with reference to the Beluchistan were found to be not uniformly correct. In the bills of lading the names of certain persons or firms were given as consignees, who repudiated all knowledge of the transaction. In answer to the second Question, there is no provision in English law under which the sailing of the Beluchistan with arms intended for illicit
698
import into Persia could have been prevented.
MR. J. WALTON: On behalf of the honourable Member for the Wick Burghs I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, in consequence of the recent seizure of arms and ammunition at Bushire and on board of the Beluchistan, a considerable branch of British industry has been damaged, and a number of workmen thrown out of employment; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of opening negotiations with the Persian Government with a view to the recognition and resumption of the trade?
MR. CURZON: I have seen statements of the character mentioned in the first paragraph, but no evidence has so far been supplied to the Foreign Office to establish the contention. Considering that the trade which has been stopped was, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, injurious both to British interests in and beyond the Persian Gulf and to the security of British trade with Persia, while in the opinion of the Persian Government it was equally if not more injurious to Persian authority, Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to enter into negotiations for its recognition and resumption.
MR. J. WALTON: On behalf of the honourable Member for the Wick Burghs I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the export trade of arms and ammunition from this country to Persia has been carried on for a number of years with the full knowledge of Her Majesty's Government; and whether consignments of arms and ammunition for Persia have for years been cleared at British customs houses, and duties upon arms and ammunition so exported regularly exacted by and paid to the Persian authorities appointed for such purposes by the Persian Government; if so, whether he can state when and upon what grounds Her Majesty's Government arrived at the conclusion that such trade was illicit?
MR. CURZON: The existence of the trade, as well as the fact that it was an illicit trade, and was only carried on

699
by the connivance of the local Persian officials, has for long been known to Her Majesty's Government, and has, as I have previously pointed out, been alluded to in official publications. Her Majesty's Government did not feel called upon to interfere with the matter at an earlier date because, as long as the prohibition was not enforced by the Persian Government, there was no reason to impede a British, trade which would by such action only have been diverted into the hands of other foreign nations. I cannot admit that the duties exacted by and paid to the Persian authorities in respect of these arms have been regularly exacted or paid; on the contrary, the payments made were in many cases irregular and in excess of the maximum duty allowed by treaty.

RUSSIANS IN CRETE.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have received information that an active Russian propaganda is now being carried on throughout Crete; and whether the Russian sphere of influence touches Suda Bay?
MR. CURZON: The Russian authorities appear to have shown considerable activity, principally in the distribution of charitable relief in Crete. The Russian sphere of influence does not touch Suda Bay, which is in the internal sphere. The Russian sphere begins at Cape Drepano.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Is it not the fact that the Russian sphere of influence in the south touches the southern portion of Suda Bay?
MR. CURZON: No, Sir, the international sphere includes Suda Bay, and also a considerable area south of it, and it is only bordering upon that sphere that the Russian area begins. It does not touch the sea.

PEKIN-HANKOW RAILWAY.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Belgian syndicate, which has obtained the concession for the Pekin-Hankow Railway, has sold its rights to the Russo-Chinese Bank, whose capital has been mainly subscribed by the Russian Government?
MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin telegraphs this morning that he has no information to show that the Belgian syndicate has parted with its rights to the Russo-Chinese Bank. The bank is acting as the agent for the syndicate at Shanghai.

GOVERNOR-GENERALSHIP OF CRETE.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Governments of Germany, Austria, and Italy have made an official declaration against a Christian subject of the Sultan being appointed the Governor General of Crete?
MR. CURZON: The three Governments in question have all expressed opinions unfavourable to the appointment of an Ottoman subject as Governor General of Crete. It was included among certain proposals of the Turkish Government, which were described by Count Bulow as inadmissible. It was absolutely rejected by the Italian Government. The Austrian Government said there could be no question of its being entertained, in a dispatch which will be printed in the next collection of Papers.

YANG-TSZE VALLEY.
MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the undertaking given by China, in compliance with the demand of Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin, respecting the non-alienation of territory in the Tang-tsze Valley region imposes any, and, if so, what, obligations upon Great Britain?
MR. CURZON: I do not quite understand what my honourable Friend means by this Question, for he has seen the text of the undertaking, and he is therefore familiar with its contents. The assurance was requested from, and was given by, the Chinese Government, and I have before stated in the House that Her Majesty's Government regard this as a definite and binding undertaking on the part of that Government.
SIR E. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: May I ask whether there is any published geographical definition of the territory included in the Yang-tsze region?
MR. CURZON: The only published geographical definition is contained in the assurance itself, in which the words occur, "the provinces adjoining the Yang-tsze." That is a geographical definition.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Perhaps the right honourable Gentleman, when he publishes the next Chinese Blue Book, will put in a coloured map, showing what he includes in that definition. I must say that it is almost impossible to ascertain it at present.

WAIMA INCIDENT.
MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there will be a Supplementary Estimate this Session for the purpose of affording relief to the sufferers from the Waima incident, pending the settlement of the question of compensation with France?
MR. CURZON: No Supplementary Estimate will be presented during this Session. Should a Supplementary Vote be required it will be asked for next Session.

BRITISH NEW GUINEA.
MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the precise significance of the passage in his dispatch to the Australian Governors, dated 22nd March, 1897, and embodied in the recently published official correspon-
702
dence relating to the British New Guinea Syndicate, in which he expresses the opinion that the Australian Governments would be prepared to relieve the Imperial Government of responsibility in regard to the Pacific Islands; whether the Australian Governments have responded favourably or otherwise to this overture; and whether his subsequent suggestion in the same dispatch, that the Solomon Islands be associated with British New Guinea in a common administration, is likely to be carried into effect?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The question of the future adminstration of British New Guinea and of the Solomon Islands is still under consideration, and I am not prepared to express an opinion as to the probable result.

SORTING CLERKS' INCREMENTS.
SIR ELLIOTT LEES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Tweedmouth Commission recommended an increment of 1s. per week to postmen who became sorting clerks in lieu of uniform; what percentage of postmen who have been appointed as sorting clerks have received 1s. per week increment in lieu of clothes; and what qualification is necessary to obtain his increment?
MR. HANBURY: The Tweedmouth Committee recommended that ex-postmen now sorters should be granted an additional half increment as compensation for uniform. This recommendation only applied to London, Edinburgh, and Dublin, but it was subsequently decided by the Postmaster General, in concurrence with the Treasury, to extend the arrangement to officers in a similar position in the provinces. This arrangement is being carried out as quickly as possible, but the actual percentage cannot be stated without inquiry. The conditions under which the half increment is granted are:—(1) That no officer is thereby to receive a rate of pay higher than he would have had if his whole

703
service had been on the class of sorting clerks and telegraphists. (2) That in no case is an officer to receive wages in excess of the maximum of his scale.

WEST INDIES.
MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement regarding the present position of the reciprocity negotiations between the West Indies and the United States of America; and whether he contemplates laying any Papers upon the Table before the close of the Session?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I shall answer the honourable Member's Question fully in the statement which I propose to make on the Colonial Estimates to-morrow.

SWAZILAND.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as to the state of affairs in Swaziland, and especially as to the flight of the King and the presence of a large number of armed Boer invaders in Swaziland?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: In consequence of the excitement caused by the killing of Mbaba, the chief Induna, by the orders of the Swazi paramount chief, the Government of the South African Republic, who are responsible for maintaining order in the country, despatched a considerable number of volunteers into Swaziland. They state that this was done for police purposes and in order to reassure the European population. The paramount chief was summoned to attend a preliminary judicial inquiry on 5th July, but, instead of appearing, fled to Ingwavuma Poort on the Natal border. A meeting of chiefs assembled on 14th July by the special Commissioner of the South African Republic Government to discuss the situation resulted in the temporary
704
recognition of the Queen Mother as Regent. The Government of the South African Republic profess their desire to act in accordance with the convention, and the High Commissioner is in communication with that Government.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Who is now Her Majesty's representative in Swaziland?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The Consul-General, Mr. Schultz.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Will the right honourable Gentleman consider the desirability of sending a British military officer to be present at these negotiations, so that these Swazis may have full protection?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I do not see the slightest necessity for taking any such course. I have the fullest confidence in Mr. Schultz, and I have instructed him to be present.

NIU-CHANG RAILWAY EXTENSION.
DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further information has been received from Sir Claude MacDonald relative to M. Pavloff's objections to the Hong-kong and Shanghai Bank loan for the projected Niu-chang railway extension; and whether the Tsung-li-Yamen has given their decision that in case of Dr. Yung-Wing's failure to find the capital for the Pekin-Ching-Kiang Railway the concession should go to German capitalists?
MR. CURZON: NO further information has been received from Sir C. MacDonald on the first point. We have not heard of any such decision on the part of the Tsung-li-Yamen as is referred to in the second paragraph of the question.
DR. TANNER: In case what is alleged n the second paragraph of the Question

705
turns out to be true, are the Government prepared to take any steps——
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a hypothetical Question which cannot be put.

WEI-HAI-WEI.
DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he could state before the House rises whether Wei-hai-Wei is to be fortified and garrisoned or not?
MR. CURZON: I answered this Question on Thursday last, and I have nothing to add to what I then said.
DR. TANNER: May I call the right honourable Gentleman's attention to the fact that he stated he was not prepared to answer it then?
MR. CURZON: The honourable Gentleman is quite mistaken. I have looked at the answer this morning. Probably he has not.

UGANDA.
MR. PIRIEhad on the Paper the following Question, but was not in his place to put it: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government are in a position to make any statement as to the military situation in Uganda; and whether troops sent by the Indian Government for the purpose of repressing the revolt in Uganda were detained at the coast by Sir Arthur Hardinge, and only proceeded to the interior owing to the action of the officer to whom the troops were directed and in defiance of the orders of Sir Arthur Hardinge?
MR. CURZON: As the honourable Member is not in his place, and as the Question contains allegations against a British officer, I desire to answer this Question. The Papers, which will be in the hands of honourable Members to-morrow, bring the history of the military situation in Uganda down to the end of April. Since
706
then we have not received any information justifying the alarmist rumours that have appeared in some quarters in the Press. Both the statements contained in the second paragraph are untrue. Sir A. Hardinge did not detain the Indian troops at the coast, nor did they proceed to the interior in defiance of his orders. On the contrary, he did everything in his power to accelerate the despatch of reinforcements to Uganda, and the success of his efforts has been cordially recognised by the authorities in that Protectorate, as may be seen both from the Parliamentary Papers already laid, as well as those which will shortly be presented.
SIR C. DILKE: Can the right honourable Gentleman give us any later information before Parliament separates. There is a good deal of anxiety on the subject?
MR. CURZON: I need hardly say that any information in our power shall be given. The only information we have later than April is not official, and is obtained from private letters.

REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS VOTE.
LORD H. CECIL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can promise any opportunity of discussing, either in Committee or on Report, the Vote for reformatory and industrial schools?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am afraid I am unable to give a promise upon this subject. I had hoped and intended to take Civil Service Supply to-night, but there appears to have been some mistake, as the Army and Navy Estimates are down upon the Paper. I cannot forecast the future course of Supply with sufficient accuracy to be able to inform my noble Friend whether I shall be able or not to give him the opportunity which he desires.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Will the right honourable Gentleman, bearing in mind the importance of the question of reformatory and industrial schools, give us an opportunity to discuss

707
it on the Appropriation Bill? The discussion need not occupy much time, but we are bound to have one in order to get a reply from the Government to an important deputation which waited on the Home Secretary the other day.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I see no reason why the subject should not be brought forward on the Appropriation Bill. That is a matter which rests with the House and not with the Government. My noble Friend will have his chance like other people.
MR. LEGH: When will the Report stage of the Foreign Office Vote be taken?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I shall put it down for tomorrow.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is Thursday to be allotted to Supply? When will the Colonial Vote be taken?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Colonial Vote cannot be put down as the first Order for to-morrow. I shall put some uncontroversial Bill first, probably the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
SIR E. GREY: Will the Report of the Foreign Office Vote be put down next after the Colonial Vote?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I shall not put down any Bills between Supply and the Report of the Foreign Office Vote; but there probably will be Supply in addition to the West India Vote.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: When does the right honourable Gentleman intend to proceed with the Nonconformist Marriages Bill?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I believe there was a general understanding that that Bill would be taken on Wednesday.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: Will the other arrangements for Wednesday remain the same as were announced last week?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I shall certainly take the Local Government (Ireland) Bill on Wednesday. With regard to the Benefices Bill the case stands thus: On Tuesday last I said, in answer to the honourable Member for Carnarvon, that I could not give a pledge as to when the Bill would be taken. I said that at this time of the Session it often proved inconvenient not to take the first opportunity that presented itself to get necessary business through. Then on Wednesday or Thursday last I stated that in all probability the Bill would be taken next Wednesday; but it would probably be a great convenience to take it to-night. If, however, I should find that honourable Members would be greatly disappointed if the Bill were not deferred until Wednesday I will put it off. I repeat, however, that it might be very convenient to consider the Bill to-night.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the Report of the Foreign Office Vote be brought on at an early hour to-morrow?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I certainly should not bring it forward after 12 o'clock. I hope the House will recognise that the fact that there remain comparatively few days, I might almost say hours, before the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, on which I understand the Leader of the Opposition intends to raise the question of foreign affairs, renders it less important to bring forward the Report stage of this Vote for purposes of discussion.

EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL. [H.L.]
Lords' Amendments to Commons' Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 324.]
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
MR. HANBURYobtained leave to bring in this Bill, and it was read a first time.

GAS COMPANIES' CHARGES.
On the motion of Sir W. WALROND (Devon, Tiverton), the following Members were nominated to serve on the Gas Companies (Metropolitan Charges) Committee:—Mr. William Abraham, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Banbury, Mr. Brigg, Mr. Cohen, Sir F. Dixon-Hartland, Sir J. Dorington, Mr. Gilliat, Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. Lough, MR. Lowles, Mr. Nicol, Mr. Pickersgill, Sir A. Scoble, and Mr. Steadman.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That five be the quorum.—(Sir William Walrond.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [30th July]—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The subject with which this Bill deals has been before the House of Commons for a very long time. After it had been brought forward in various ways and upon various occasions, in 1891 a Select Committee was appointed, which, after a very long and exhaustive inquiry into the general subject, reported in 1892, and it is upon the Report of that Committee that substantially this Bill now before the House
  710
  is founded. But that is not all. In the Session of 1893 the subject of the Report of the Select Committee on the subject of the superannuation of teachers was brought before the House itself, and on that occasion the House resolved unanimously that it was desirable that a national State-aided system of superannuation for teachers in public elementary schools in England and Wales should be established at an early date. Well, that was a mandate which no Executive Government could ignore, and accordingly in the same year a Departmental Committee was appointed for the purpose of framing a Bill which should give effect to the Report of the Select Committee. The Departmental Committee consisted of two officials of the Education Department, one official of the Scottish Education Department, one official representing the Treasury, the actuary of the National Debt Office, and the actuary of the Friendly Societies, the latter to be regarded as an independent unofficial representative. This Committee framed a scheme which this Bill follows closely, and the Report of that Committee was laid upon the Table of the House at the-beginning of the Session of 1895, so that it had been practically before the House for four Sessions. In the Report there is a full account of the probable operation of the scheme, and in the appendix there is an exact valuation showing the amount that the teachers will get. There was a sub-Committee, consisting of the Treasury official and the two actuaries, and they show as far as can be shown the amount which it is expected that the teachers will get under the scheme; and what the cost to the State is likely to be in the immediate future is shown, as well as the probable, cost for the next 35 years. The information which that Report contains, and which really is the case of the Government in recommending this Bill for the consideration of Parliament, has been really for four years before Parliament, and has been referred to repeatedly and discussed thoroughly in the Press and elsewhere. Well, now, the only respect in which this Bill differs, the only fundamental and important difference between the Report of the Select Committee and the proposal now made, is that the Bill includes not only

  711
  the elementary teachers in England and Wales, but also those in Scotland. Now at the present moment the teachers ii Scotland are in a better position than the elementary teachers in England and Wales, because in Scotland school boards have power to grant pensions to their teachers, which power no English school board possesses. No doubt in large centres of population like Edinburgh and Glasgow the school boards have intimated their intention of making provision for the elementary teachers whom they employ. So far, therefore the Scottish teachers are in a very much better position than the English teachers, and this Bill does not in any way interfere with their position, because under the Bill they will have the option of remaining where they are, or of coming within the provisions of he Bill. Therefore, if they think their prospects under the school board are better than their prospects under this Bill, they can remain as they are, and it will be entirely a matter for their own determination. But no doubt in future English, and Scottish teachers will be placed on exactly the same footing.
  MR. CALDWELL: Hear, hear!
  SIR J. GORST: The honourable Member cheers that comment, but I do not think that it is an unjust thing for Parliament to do.
  MR. CALDWELL: But the teachers in Scotland are in a better position now.
  SIR J. GORST: Yes, they are, and any attempt to differentiate between the two classes will, I think, be extremely unlikely to get the assent of Parliament unless it is accompanied by very strong arguments indeed. What is the objection to the Bill? First, there is an appeal for delay on the ground that Parliament should not provide for teachers until provision has been made for more training colleges where they can be trained to improve the efficiency of education in time to come. I yield to no one in my strong desire to see training colleges for every teacher who is willing to be trained. I have no doubt that the trained teacher is the better teacher, and the House may depend upon it that the Government will make every exertion,
  712
  and is making every exertion, to increase the training college accommodation as rapidly as possible. I think it is a great misfortune, and, as I have said before, I believe that one of the obstacles to efficient education in this country is that teachers willing to be trained are unable to find training colleges. But is the want of sufficient training college accommodation any reason why a Superannuation Bill should be indefinitely postponed? A large number of teachers have to be certificated without going to a training college, and the real check on the number of teachers is not the want of training college accommodation, but the unwillingness of young people to enter the profession. Certainly the superannuation proposal in this Bill is calculated to increase the willingness of young people of both sexes to go into the teaching profession. If there is no more valid reason than this for postponing indefinitely this Measure, surely there ought to be no objection to at once passing it into law. This scheme has been before the country for four years, and it has had a great effect on the teaching profession. There are at this moment a great number of teachers in England and Wales who, both in the interests of efficient education and in their own interest, it is highly desirable should retire, but who hang on, have been hanging on, and will continue to hang on in the hope of seeing a Measure of this kind passed. They cannot be expected to resign on the very eve of the passage of such a Measure, and, on the other hand, the managers of schools cannot be expected to turn them out of the employment by which they earn their bread when they know it means starvation or the workhouse. Therefore both teachers and their employers are tempted by the expectation of the passing of a Bill of this kind to protract the existing state of things, which is undoubtedly very detrimental to the real efficiency of education, and I think that the House, in the interests of those people themselves, and in the interests of those schools, and in the interest of efficient education, will be wise to accept this Bill, which is carrying out the mandate of the House of Commons itself. It is quite true, as was said by the honourable Member who spoke last, that the passage of the Bill will be the signal for a

  713
  number, perhaps an abnormal number, of teachers to retire, but I do not think It will be such a number as will cripple the schools or produce any sensible effect on the number of teachers in the country, and I think the numbers have been exaggerated. However, an abnormal number must certainly be expected to retire, but that will happen whenever the Bill passes. If it is put off, there will be an increasing number of retirements. The House has had this matter practically before it for four years. Some honourable Members seem to think that this Bill has been sprung on the House in the last days of the Session, but it is no such thing, for this Measure originated in the mandate of the House itself, and the Bill does nothing more than carry out the mandate of the House. It is a Bill which the House has expressed its assent to for years, and I do not know and cannot understand how there can be any reason for an extensive discussion. I cannot see how there can be any hesitation on the part of the House about anything which is really its own unanimous Resolution.
  MR. J. PARKER SMITH: If the right honourable Gentleman considers the Bill of such importance as he has just stated it is a great pity that he did not introduce it some months earlier. That is the objection I have to find now to endeavouring to run it through in silence. On the occasion when the Resolution was introduced, a few remarks were dragged out of him by my honourable Friend opposite, and on the present occasion a further speech in support of this Bill has been dragged out of him. Now, Sir, my objection to this Bill is that the House of Commons should be expected to assent to a scheme which involves an annual charge that will rise one does not know to what. When you bring in the Scottish teachers and recognise that the number of certificated teachers is largely increasing, and will largely increase, then I say it will come at the outside to a million a year, and that the House of Commons should be expected to accept a claim of that sort, without any time or any opportunity for criticism or discussion, is quite unreasonable. No doubt, as the right honourable Gentleman has said, the question has been discussed
  714
  for a long time, and no doubt the House in 1893 assented unanimously to the scheme in Sir Richard Temple's Resolution. No doubt we have individually stated our feelings on this scheme, and so have we in regard to the scheme for old age pensions.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Not all of us.
  MR. J. PARKER SMITH: Well, some of us have, at any rate. But it does net follow that because we have approved of the general principle of a Bill we are bound to swallow the scheme whole which any Departmental Committee puts before us. In the first place, I would like to mention what the cost of the scheme—which I do not think the right honourable Gentleman mentioned to the House—will be, and I may say that it rises at a very rapid rate. According to the Parliamentary Committee in the first year it will be £25,000; in the fifth year, £100,000; 10th year, £200,000; 15th year, £300,000, rising gradually to a maximum of £600,000. And, according to the Report, it rises in 20 years to £390,000; in 30 years to £530,000; in 35 years to £560,000; and then gradually increases to £600,000, which is the maximum. But that is not all. You have the whole of the Scotch teachers to add to that, and they number 10,000 teachers. Now, in 1894, the teachers numbered in England and Wales 55,000, and the number of teachers is rapidly increasing. The paragraph at the end of the Report must be considered, because it points out that the cost of the scheme will very largely depend upon that part of the scheme which provides for pensions for the incapacitated. Now, there were in 1896 something like 56,700 certificated teachers, and an increase over the previous year of 3,800. You can, according to the Report of the Commissioners, reckon up the total amount required, because it states it at about £11 per teacher, and the amount can be arrived at by multiplying the number of teachers by that sum. In regard to the scheme of 1893, the present Leader of the Opposition put the capitalised value of Sir Richard Temple's scheme before the House, and it in many ways differs from the present scheme, and he put the present value at £25,000. Now I cannot calculate what the present

  715
  capitalised value will be, but I think £20,000 will be a very moderate estimate. Well, now, Sir, this Bill has never been considered by the House of Commons, and it is quite different from the proposals of the Select Committee and from the scheme of Sir Richard Temple which he proposed in the Debate of 1893, and there is no consideration of a quid pro quo. You are granting the teachers a pension and giving them a very great and good concession; but you give it them without taking the opportunity to ensure any return for what you give. Now, the old position of the teacher requires looking at from the point of view of efficient education. The supply of teachers at the present is very inefficient, the training colleges are very few, and we have to rely upon the untrained article. Now, it is very hard to get rid of the inefficient teachers, and more control is required over the teachers by the State. Now, the Committee of 1892 pointed that out very strongly. They said:—
  "If a system of superannuation is to be called into existence there must be some authority, some organisation, and even some aid from the State—that is, from the Imperial funds. In this connection your Committee desire to point out that the benefit conferred by the State on the teachers by the addition to their salaries of a State-aided and managed superannuation, will, for the future, afford a justification for a more direct control than is at present exercised over the conduct of this service, and more particularly over the standard of efficiency in the teaching to be demanded in order to obtain certificates."
  Now, that point was strongly dwelt upon in the Debate on Sir Richard Temple's Motion in the House of Commons. The late Vice-President of the Council on Education spoke strongly of the mischief caused by the inefficient teacher, and my right honourable Friend the Member for Bodmin, with his usual pointed term of epigram, said,
  "that those who pay the piper have a right to call the tune. If we recognise these people as servants of the State, we must give the Education Office control over them";
  and he very justly took that line of policy. Thus, while supporting the Motion of Sir Richard Temple for a superannuation fund, he laid down strongly the line that we ought to take the opportunity of
  716
  looking into their position. And, Sir, there are numerous other changes which appear in the Report of the Departmental Committee, in which they alter the scheme from what it was when it was originally before the House. Now, this Report has worked out the question most carefully, and they have worked it out accurately, but it appears that the only evidence which they took was that of the honourable Member for West Ham, who assisted them very materially in giving them the views of the teachers, but they only took his assistance in modifying the grounds on which the House of Commons supported it; and while I attach the greatest value to my honourable Friend's opinion, I do think that before the House of Commons and before Parliament consents to this scheme we ought to have wider criticisms and judgment from other sources as to the changes that we are making in the recommendations of our own Committee. For example, the Select Committee recommended that the contribution from teachers should be in proportion to their salary, and they recommended that teachers should be allowed to contribute more than a minimum sum. They recommended that upon the teachers' contribution interest should be allowed at 3 per cent., and this they did with a view to encourage thrift. Now, the Departmental Committee took strongly an opposite view to this. They held that—
  "We wish, therefore, to express our emphatic opinion that no provision should be made in a scheme for additional contributions from teachers, whether optional or compulsory. The scheme of the Select Committee holds out the temptation of guaranteed interest at 3 per cent. per annum, involving, at present, an indirect State subsidy, in respect of these additional contributions. If, as we think, the rate of interest should be the current rate obtainable upon investment in State funds, the attraction which the power of adding to their contributions appears to have for the teachers will probably be much diminished."
  They pointed out that it would be a very much simpler scheme if you make it the same for everybody, but the main objection they take is the objection of principle, which may be right or wrong, but upon which the House of Commons is entitled to express its view, because the

  717
  Departmental Committee is not a final authority. They say:—
  "Our chief objection to the proposal is of a much more fundamental character. We think that the object of a system of superannuation for teachers should be limited to securing them against want on their retirement, and should make provision for this on the same basis alike for all teachers -whatever their salaries, without distinction. It seems most undesirable that the State should require teachers to invest savings from their salaries—beyond those requisite for obtaining the means of subsistence in old age—in the payment of additional premiums for the purpose of increasing their deferred life annuities. This would be to compel the adoption, to an unnecessary extent, of a particular form of thrift, tending to prevent teachers in the receipt of good salaries from making due provision for their families. It seems desirable to leave them complete liberty to invest their surplus savings in any way they think proper."
  That may be a convincing argument, or it may not, but it is a very important question on which our opinion ought to be taken. As to the opinion of the National Union of Teachers, they desire—
  "that the additional contribution proposed should be optional instead of compulsory."
  But the Departmental Committee object to that, and they also object to give any higher interest than the actual rate of interest at which the Government can employ many of them. I think that is a very doubtful proposal indeed. My own view is that it is right to encourage thrift, and that we should offer them a better rate of interest than the bare 2½ per cent., or which may be 2¼ per cent., or even 2 per cent. before this scheme is carried out, and the commercial rate of interest, I think, is the very worst way of encouraging them to be thrifty in the future. That is a question which this House ought to express its opinion upon, for we cannot accept the view of the Departmental Committee as final. Even the Departmental Committee differ in a great many other points from the Select Committee. They altered the age of superannuation, and they put it higher; they altered the point of commencement of the Bill; they altered the methods of dealing with existing teachers; they altered the number of teachers included in the scheme; they abolished optional retirement, and it was a point which many of the teachers were anxious to see,
  718
  and they have provided that in the case of leaving the profession the amount of their subscriptions should be returned. Now, Sir, I should just like to consider one or two of the chief provisions of the Bill itself. I do not want to go through them all, but I want to take some of them which are matters of considerable importance. There is the question of the incapacitated teachers, which is dealt with in clause 2, and there it appears that—
  "Where a teacher satisfies the Treasury in the prescribed manner that he—

  "(a) has served a number of years of recorded service, not less than ten and not less than half the years which have elapsed since he became certificated; and

  "(b) has not at the date of the application been for more than the prescribed time unemployed in recorded service; and

  "(c) has become permanently incapable, owing to infirmity of mind or body, of being an efficient teacher in a public elementary school; and

  "(d) is not included by the precribed disqualifications, the Treasury may, subject to the prescribed conditions and to the provisions of this Act, grant to such teacher, out of moneys provided by Parliament, an annual allowance (in this Act called 'a disablement allowance'), not exceeding—

  "(i.) if the teacher is a man, twenty pounds for ten complete years of recorded service, with the addition of one pound for each complete additional year of recorded service; and

  "(ii.) if the teacher is a woman, fifteen pounds for ten complete years of recorded service, with the addition of thirteen shillings and fourpence for each complete additional year of recorded service."

  With regard to these service allowances they can be claimed by the teacher, and he can come forward and say that he has become incompetent, and that he has become incapable of performing his duties. I think if you are making allowances of that sort you ought to increase the power of the Department if you say that when a man is incapable that he shall compulsorily retire, because you are giving him a very large sum. I think you ought not to give that additional privilege to this profession without at the same time taking the precaution by which you shall find yourself able to raise the standard of efficiency of that profession. Take, for example, the scale which seems to me to be a very liberal one. Now, take a man at 55 years of

  719
  age, who has served 34 years, and he declares himself incompetent, and satisfies the Treasury that he is incapacitated. He can retire with a pension of £44 a year. A woman of the same age can retire with a pension of £31 a year. Now, Sir, some provision of this kind is very necessary, and this whole scheme, I would like to point out, has not been before the House, or under the criticism of the House, but has been worked out by a Departmental Committee, and subject to discussion in the Select Committee of the House. It was urged that some scheme of this sort was desirable, but they did not succeed in forming any such scheme at all, and this scheme, which has undoubtedly great merits, has been worked out by the Departmental Committee, and has not been before the House at all. Then, turning to the question of existing teachers, are they to be compelled to join this scheme or not? Here, again, there is a considerable divergence of opinion between the Select Committee and the Departmental Committee. The Select Committee hold that in order to get the scheme working rapidly it was fair to all teachers, all existing teachers under 10 years' standing, that they should be counted as future teachers, and should be forced to join the scheme, and that it should be compulsory upon them. But the Departmental Committee—again after consulting my honourable Friend, and after a good deal of hesitation—decide otherwise. They say:—
  "The expediency of making a retirement and pension scheme compulsory on existing teachers, if not generally, at least on those under a fixed age or period of service, seemed a point on which to take the evidence of a representative of the teachers. We accordingly put it to Mr. Gray, who informed us that it was the general desire that the scheme should be compulsory, provided the pensions secured were of sufficient amount; but that, if the maximum pension were fixed at about £52, the teachers would be opposed to a compulsory scheme. He could not suggest either an age or a period of service where any line could be drawn."
  That evidence shows what a difficult and nicely balanced question this is, and it is a question of how far you are bringing
  720
  in existing teachers into the scheme. They go on to say:—
  "As it seems impossible to provide pensions to existing teachers on so liberal a scale, we think, on the whole, that they should not be compelled to come under the scheme, but that a year should be given them in which to exercise their option. Such option should be exercised by every existing teacher once and for all, within a year of the establishment of the scheme, and should be irrevocable."
  Now, I confess that that puzzles me, for they go on to say:—
  "Existing teachers not joining would have to give up all claims to a pension under the existing minutes."
  Now, Sir, there again the question has to be considered: is this scheme, this new scheme, of the Bill to be in the place of existing schemes? The Parliamentary Committee say yes. They say:—
  "It may be observed that the existing arrangements for granting pensions to teachers would have to be cancelled on the establishment of a superannuation system, which would be applicable to all teachers."
  But that view is very strongly objected to by Scotch teachers. Honourable Members have no doubt received communications in regard to this Bill from the Educational Institute of Scotland, pointing out that under the Education Act of 1872 the school boards of Scotland are empowered to grant pensions to teachers out of school funds, and in the exercise of their discretion they have in many instances dealt generously with the teachers. In asking for this they certainly in the matter of pensions do not contemplate the abolition of the existing pensions. The institute has always claimed the benefits of the pension provisions of the Act of 1872 in addition to such further powers as might seem to be necessary. I confess that I think that that is a reasonable thing. There was no compulsion on the Scotch School board to give a pension, but if they saw fit to give a pension, and a more generous pension, why should they not do so? And why should they not have the same power that they have at present, and why, when, pensions are being granted, should they not be entitled to take, as a part of what they wish to give to the teacher, this contribution of the Government, and the

  721
  contribution of the teacher, according to this scheme? Therefore we, the teachers of Scotland, are directly opposed to my honourable Friend, whose position, as stated in the Report, is this: on this important question, of the contribution from managers we consulted Mr. Gray, who, on behalf of the teachers, expressed the strongest objection to any such proposal on the ground that the teachers would be liable to pay twice over. His view was that the managers' contributions would ultimately come out of the pockets of the teachers. That is certainly not the view of Scotch teachers, who while, of course, the present scheme does not cover all the ground that they wish, desire that the proposed scheme should go on beside the present scheme. With regard to the position of the existing teachers, the existing teachers under the scheme of the Bill get better terms than future teachers; and no doubt that is right. The reason is this, that if you did not give them better terms you would not get from them any contribution which would be worth having. Therefore larger allowances are made by Government to existing teachers, who are retiring shortly, than it is intended to give to future teachers, who will have had time to pay up their own share of the pension. But the allowance is made so high under this Bill that it will very often happen that a man who takes advantage of that incapacity allowance, and retires at 55, will get just as good a pension as if he had stayed on and paid for 10 years more. My honourable Friend shakes his head. But take the case of a man of 55, who works for 34 years; he retires with £44. Of course, he cannot get more if he retires with an incapacity allowance than if he worked the full time. It will happen that he will get as much at 55 as if he worked for 10 years more. The man who retires at 65 now gets just as much as a man of 45, who goes on contributing for 20 years, and then, at the end of that time, retires. A man at 65—just to give the case very shortly, if honourable Members will take the calculation from me, and will not insist on my going through them—a man of 65, who retires with 44 years' service, will be granted a superannuation allowance at the rate of 21s. a year, which will amount to £46 4s.; but a man who is at the
  722
  present moment 55, and has 34 years' service, will have to pay for the next 10 years £3 a year. His payment will earn him an annuity of £4, and the allowance granted to him will be £40 17s.; that makes it £44 17s. altogether; whereas, if that same man at 55 were to retire now, and declare himself incapacitated, he would get £44 of the allowance. That is to say, by working on for 10 years, and contributing £3 a year, he only gets an additional 17s. And the case is just as bad with a younger man, a man or 45, who has got 24 years' service now; if he comes in under the Bill he will continue to pay £3 for 20 years. The annuity he will earn will be £10 15s. and the allowance £35 4s., and he will only get £45 19s. That is to say, for his 20 years of work he will only get an increase of £2. Now, Sir, no doubt there is scriptural precedent for this principle. There is the parable of the vineyard, where we know that everybody, whether they worked a short time or a long time, got a penny alike at the end f the day; but that system of payment did not at all satisfy the labourers of that vineyard, and I shall be very much surprised if any scheme of this sort comes in, if the labourers in this vineyard are satisfied. Now, Sir, there is the case of Scotland; there again Scotland is in this difficulty, that the House has never had the matter before it. Scotland was not within the reference to either Committee, it was not within the reference to the Select Committee; it was not discussed in the Debate on Sir Richard Temple's Motion, though everyone felt and everyone knows that pensions in one country will be a necessary sequel to pensions in he other. But, here, why do you force the existing teachers to an option? Why do you not allow them to continue the alternative which they have at present? Another thing I should like to ask the Lord Advocate is, what is going to be the position of future Scotch teachers? Are they to be compelled to exercise an option or are they not? I confess I am quite unable to understand that. Of course, there is a general clause, the first clause, which covers the whole country, and then the Act goes on to explain, in clause 12, sub-section 5, and I should like to know whether the future Scotch teacher comes under that Act, or whether he does not. According to the terms, I

  723
  should say it is undoubted that the existing teacher was given his option, but that the future teacher would have his alternative. I do not know, though, if that is really the scheme; but is that the intention? The sub-section is this—
  "Nothing contained in or done under this Act shall be construed to prevent a school board in Scotland from granting under the powers conferred by section sixty-one of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, a retiring allowance, payable out of the school fund to any teacher of a public school under their management, unless the teacher has accepted this Act in pursuance of the provisions of section five hereof."
  Now, of course, only an existing teacher can accept this Act in pursuance of section 5 thereof. Therefore a future teacher is not within it, and, therefore, the sub-section says nothing is to prevent the School Board from giving him a pension under section 61 of the Education Act. Well, Sir, I really do not know whether that is intended or not; but my whole argument is that these matters require consideration before any decision can be come to upon them. Then, Sir, it has been, I believe, suggested that the difficulties in regard to Scotland might be met by excluding Scotland from the operation of the Act. But I do not think that would suit us at all. I think we Scotch Members would have a strong objection to that, on this special ground, that Scotch teachers will be in a far stronger position if they continue united with English teachers in the Bill. If they are cut out of this Bill with the promise that a future Bill will be brought in dealing with Scotland, and Scotland only, then I am afraid we, the Scotch teachers, will be absolutely at the mercy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will come down with a Bill, and will say, "Here is a scheme; you may take it or leave it"; and I am afraid it is quite certain it would not include the privileges which Scotch teachers attach importance to. Therefore I think Scotland should continue in the same boat with England in this matter; and from the point of view of the teacher I think, with regard to Scotland, we should certainly object to Scotch teachers being cut out of this present Bill. Now, Sir, I have gone through the details, of the Bill at some length. Really I should not have thought
  724
  it necessary to go through them at such length if I had known that there was any effective Committee stage—that there was any possibility of effectively discussing it in Committee here or upstairs. But before this Bill becomes law these points must be discussed effectively, and not left on the authority of previous discussions. I think the Bill is a very able scheme indeed, I think it is very well worked out in many ways, and I think the Departmental Committee have produced a Report which brings to a perfectly clear issue nearly all the questions that have to be decided by the House of Commons. On the strength of the Report of that Departmental Committee I think there is really not much more to do. So far as the evidence goes I think the; work has been done before by the Select Committee; and, so far as looking into the matter from an actuarial point of view and clearing the ground, the issue, I think, the Departmental Committee has done a great deal. Here are the issues before us, on which I for one am not prepared to' accept the decision of the Departmental Committee as final. On some of the points I agree with the Departmental Committee, on others I agree with the Select Committee, on others I have my own view. But this is a large scheme which ought to be discussed by the House of Commons. All these large pension schemes require very careful scrutiny and consideration, and I do not think it is right to put forward a scheme which will make a grant to the members of one particular profession, whose capital value is something like 20 millions sterling, to bring that in on the 28th July, and to ask the House of Commons to pass that scheme without any consideration at all. I appeal to the Leader of the House in regard to this matter. Let him take the Second Reading now if he likes, but withdraw the Bill after that; introduce it again at the beginning of the next Session, let it go to a Select Committee, let it be discussed up there; let these various points, the most important of which I have endeavoured to put before the House, be discussed by that Select Committee, and then upon the finding of that Select Committee I think the House will be able more safely to proceed, and with very little discussion. But I cannot agree, I cannot consent, to the Bill going for-

  725
  ward without some promise of that sort, and, therefore, Sir, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
  MR. PROVAND: I beg to second the Amendment of my honourable Friend that this Bill be read a second time this day three months. This question has been before the House and also before the country since 1891, but it has only been before this House during that time in the form of an abstract resolution, advocating State aided superannuation of teachers, to which proposal I believe there is no dissentient in this House. But, although we have bad the matter discussed and considered by two Committees, practically this Bill to carry out an enormous financial liability, increasing to a million a year, has only been eight Parliamentary days before honourable Members. Since the 21st they have had only eight working days to consider it, and therefore I hope the right honourable Gentleman will act on the suggestion of my honourable Friend, and take the Second Reading if he pleases, but bring in the Bill again next year at the beginning of the Session, and allow it to be adequately discussed. It is true that the Bill is based on the Reports of the two Committees, but at the same time it differs from the recommendations of those Committees, just as those Committees differed from each other. And there is one important consideration in the matter, and that is that Scottish interests were not considered by those Committees at all. If they had considered the case of teachers in Scotland, they might not have arrived at the same conclusion as that at which they did arrive, and their final recommendations might have differed from those which they have made. There is no doubt that under this Bill the teachers in Scotland would be at a serious disadvantage in comparison with the position which they occupy at present. In large school boards in Scotland, though it may not be the case in small ones, the allowances made to teachers now, according to the circular of the Educational Institute, range from £100 to £150 a year, but under this Bill those teachers would receive perhaps £40 or £50 a year. I reckon that under this
  726
  Bill the highest amount would be about £50, and my honourable Friend calculated it at rather less than that. Therefore there would be an enormous difference to teachers in Scotland if they accept this Bill as it stands. I cannot help thinking that the scale of pensions here, when we contrast them with the scale of pensions passed through this House for various other officials during the past two years, is certainly, I might almost say, regulated on a scale of parsimony Which I am surprised at, considering, as I think, that we are at least as much indebted to our schoolmasters as we are to some of the classes to which I have referred to whom pensions have been given. But I daresay the schoolmasters in England are so anxious to have some certain scale of pensions that they will be content to accept the very modest terms set out in this Bill, which is now proposed to the House. Now, Sir, the suggestion which my honourable Friend has made with reference to bringing this Bill forward again next year indicates, I think, the best course Which the Government can pursue. My honourable Friend has stated the objections to this Bill so fully and completely that I have no reason for going over the ground he has already covered, and at this period of the Session, when we have so much work to get through before the House rises, I hope the Government will defer the Bill for full discussion to next Session.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Second Reading of this Bill, and I venture to hope that my honourable Friend who sits behind me will not persist with the Motion which he has made. I have on previous occasions opposed this Bill, and I opposed it upon the ground that until the more urgent needs of the Voluntary schools were attended to it appeared to me to be impassible for this House to vote a large sum of money for any purpose connected with the superannuation of teachers. But as the Government, at any rate to some extent, met the Voluntary schools last year, I feel bound to support them now in their proposal for the superannuation of teachers, which is in itself an important matter. But I must honestly confess that I think that the manner in which the Government

  727
  have brought this subject before the House does render them open to the criticism, of my honourable Friend. I think we gathered very little, if he will allow me to say so, from the speech of my right honourable Friend the Vice-President. He told us, no doubt, something of what the Bill contained, but practically he did not explain a single clause or provision of the Bill. He did not tell us what the cost to the country would be, or what benefit the teachers would receive, or what the first or the second clause meant, both of which require a considerable amount of explanation. I have no objection to the House adjourning early, for it is a most convenient course, but I do not think that neglect to explain to the House of Commons the details of an important Measure will tend to save time. I think we are entitled to know, when we are asked to vote a sum of £600,000 a year—for that is what it is—the details on which the Government grant a large sum of money for this purpose. I do not know that I need express any objections to specific clauses of the Bill, but I should like to know for what reason they have put the first clause in the Bill. It provides that a teacher certificated after the commencement of this Act shall not be recognised by the Education Department as a certificated teacher until the Department are satisfied in the prescribed manner of his physical capacity. Is that done for the purpose of guarding superannuation, or on general grounds? I daresay it is true on general grounds that there may be evidence before the Education Department to show that teachers break down from the very heavy work thrown upon them. But then there is the question to which the honourable Member referred, of an increased contribution from the more highly-paid teachers, and on that point the Select Committee recommended one proposition of the emoluments, and the Departmental Committee another. The Government have taken a middle course, so far as I can understand. Well, the honourable Member for West Ham, who knows more about it than I do, shakes his head, but that shows the inconvenience that must arise if the Government do not explain their Bill. This is an important matter,
  728
  and as I read the Bill, I think it will require some explanation from the Government. My right honourable Friend, in moving the Second Beading of the Bill, stated that we ought to pass this Bill because certain schools in this country were in a difficult position in respect of having a large number of teachers who ought to retire, but were hanging on in the hope of a Bill of this kind. I have not the least doubt that that is true, but I am very much interested to know how this Bill will help them, and I would ask my right honourable Friend when he replies, as I suppose he will, to tell us what advantage to the teacher of 65 years of age this Bill will be, and what he will get by it. I gather that he will get about £52 a year, assuming that he has served from the age of 21. My honourable Friend shakes his head again, and it is quite clear, if I am wrong again, that this matter requires the careful consideration of the Government. I do not understand how far this Bill will be an advantage to the existing teacher who has been a teacher all his life up to the age of 65, when this Bill becomes law. Now, Sir, the cost of the proposal in this Bill will be £600,000 a year. An honourable Member opposite said that would not be so, at any rate, until 25 or 30 years. But that is a suggestion which we should deprecate in a businesslike assembly such as the House of Commons, because by whatever sum we vote now, we are entrenching upon the amount of money which the House will be ultimately prepared to vote for purposes of this kind, and I think that is a very important matter in view of an ultimate settlement of the education question. I speak with great diffidence on this subject of calculation, but I gather that in a normal case a teacher who has been so engaged from the age of 21 until the age of 65 may be able to retire on a pension of about £70 a year. The country will pay about one-third of the amount, and the teachers by their contributions will pay two-thirds. Well, Sir, there are two kinds of superannuation schemes. Under the Poor Law Superannuation Act, passed two years ago, the recipients of superannuation provided the whole of the necessary money, but there were schemes like the present where the country, pays

  729
  a large proportion. In this case the country contributes a large proportion, and I support this scheme because I know that a very large number of teachers—mostly in Voluntary schools, but some in board schools—are underpaid. Therefore, I think it is of great importance, and an object well worthy of support, that we should increase their emoluments. I do not say this with regard to all, for there are some cases in which the salaries are altogether beyond what was contemplated when the Education Act was passed, or what the best friends of education have recommended, and this is a serious matter, when the country is asked to add to those emoluments. I recognise that it is very difficult to help the poor without also helping the rich, but we should keep both rather than neither. I very cordially support this Bill, but I do think it important that the House of Commons should recognise the fact that we voted a very large sum of money for this purpose of education, about £800,000, last year, and we are now going to vote another £600,000, and I want to know whether the Government have any determination in their own minds as to the system they are going upon. Have they made up their minds as to what they are ultimately going to do with regard to elementary education, or are they going to spend £100,000 after another £100,000 in a temporary and spasmodic manner, without having arrived at any definite determination in their own minds as to the system they favour, and what it will cost? I would suggest to Her Majesty's Government that when they come asking for these large sums of money, they ought to be prepared to form some real, definite, ultimate, and final policy; and that the policy of voting so many thousands one year, and so many more next year, is not a satisfactory way of dealing with any question. There is no doubt that when we get to the ultimate solution of this question, the fact that we have voted all these large sums will hamper the settlement, and it would be far more satisfactory if the Government would make up their own minds as to the ends they have in view. However, as regards this present Bill, I recognise the need there is for it, and I know that the teachers are
  730
  anxiously awaiting it. I hope, therefore, my honourable Friend will not persist with his Amendment.
  MR. W. JONES: Sir, this Bill is not a perfect Bill, but it does something for the teachers. I say they are the only public body in this country working for the State who are without any provision to benefit them, in their old age. Therefore I should urge my Scotch friends to stand by those who are in favour of passing this scheme. Although it is not an ideal scheme it frankly recognises a claim on the part of the teachers, and that is the great principle. What is £600,000, after all, for a body of teachers who number from 60,000 to 80,000, and who are a class doing more for the emancipation of mankind from ignorance, prejudice, and crime than any other class in the country? And it is for that reason that I support the Second Reading of this Bill.
  SIR F. S. POWELL: As I had the honour of serving on a Select Committee that considered this subject I rejoice that the Government have brought forward this Bill. The Report of the Committee was drawn by Sir Richard Temple, one of the highest financial authorities, and the Report of the Select Committee was referred in due course to the Departmental Committee. I think there are no grounds for delay. I am on the boards of four training colleges, I have met the inspectors who have examined at the training colleges, and I do not think it is fair to impute incompetency to us. The Report itself contains many details, but one proposal in the first clause I believe to be a most But one proposal which has attracted admirable one. But one proposal which has attracted my favourable consideration is in the first clause, which says that after the commencement of the Act a certificated teacher should not be recognised by the Department until it could be satisfied as to his physical capacity. Now, I believe that to be a most admirable proposal, and I hope that in future years it will be still more largely applied. I had the honour of being a member of the Committee presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and I am anxious

  731
  to see the superannuation scheme carried through, which will be a valuable reform. Some objection has been taken to the increase in the figures as regards contribution, but I believe that with an increase of salary to the teacher there should also be an increase of contribution. There is one point on this clause to which I wish to draw attention, that which refers to the Departmental Report made in 1892. I hope the system which has hitherto prevailed will not be changed. I am perfectly sure that, whatever be the condition of affairs, the Report of our Committee must prevail. The Report to which I have referred proposed that the superannuation period should be 65 years, but I think that is too advanced a time of life. I know that in some of our great schools 60 is the age for retirement, but I think that if that is the age for the old schools, the age for retirement in elementary schools should be much lower. There is one other subject I desire to draw the attention of the right honourable Gentleman to. In our Report we gave the total number of teachers, men and women, but we calculated that from the middle of next century there will be a rapid diminution of teachers. I am anxious that this Bill should pass, because I believe that something more than the status of the teachers is involved in it and that is the cause of education. I am most anxious that this Bill should pass; I am most reluctant to say one word which may postpone it by undue observations. I have on many occasions spoken to this House on behalf of the teachers, and I have ventured to offer my humble tribute to their zeal and to their efficiency; but there is something in this matter more than the teachers, and that is education. I am perfectly sure the managers of many schools think—as I am perfectly sure is true—that in some cases the continued employment of venerable and most deserving teachers is an injury to education and a wrong to the teachers themselves, and being satisfied and entirely convinced that that is the case I thank the Government once more for their proposals, and I do hope that they will proceed and cause the passing of this present Bill into law as occasion arises.
  MR. BROADHURST: I have only a few words to say. I entirely agree with the last speaker that 65 years of age is higher than one would like, and I entirely agree with another speaker—the noble Lord—that the provision made for the retired teachers is lower than one could desire. As to the other things in question I have only to say that after advocating and supporting this scheme—a scheme for pensions for teachers—for a great number of years, I welcome this Bill. Of course no Bill pleases everybody, but the Bill proposes to accomplish this great work, that those who devote their life to the teaching, both mentally and morally, of the young of our land, shall rot be left in their old age unprotected by the State for whom they have done so much. That is the great central principle of the Bill. I can recognise no class of the community, no class who serve the State and have a greater claim to the consideration of the State than our elementary school teachers, both men and women. They have engaged in an arduous, very often vexatious and most trying labour, and they have a most sacred duty to perform, and I cannot think that any reasonable person can fail to see the enormous claims these people have upon the sympathy of the State. One of the great reasons why I have always so strongly been in support of some pension scheme is that the school master and the schoolmistress shall be able to give their undivided attention to the teaching of our children, and not be disturbed by considerations of what is to become of them in the latter part of their life I do not know how far it would meet with support or consideration, but I should be perfectly willing myself, when some good scheme of pensions is provided for the teachers, to consider some regulations whereby both the men and the women were prevented from entering into any other work, where they have the opportunity of doing so. It is occasionally done, but not to any great extent, certainly not in our large towns, because the work is so severe that they have neither the opportunity nor sufficient strength to undertake it. I should be perfectly willing, to see that their whole mind, so far as the State can guarantee it, is given to their work. I felt, after the number of years in which

  733
  I have advocated a scheme of this kind, that I could not let the present occasion go by without a word of thanks to the Government—an expression of thanks also, I am sure, on behalf of this large army of workers—at the introduction of this Bill, however late it may be in the Session, however imperfect it might be in detail, and however far it might satisfy the critics as to meeting their particular wishes. I sincerely trust that we shall have—I join with the noble Lord in trusting that we shall have—no divided opinion on a Bill of this kind, and that the honourable Member who spoke not long ago will not put the House, at this late period of the Session, to the necessity of a Division on the Bill. Since I have sat in Parliament I have not known a Bill containing provision for the expenditure of money which has met with my hearty support and approval more strongly than this Bill does, and I give it my hearty support, and vote if necessary; and I sincerely trust that the House may very shortly pass the Second Reading, and that the Bill may become law this Session.
  MR. L. H. COURTNEY: Sir, the honourable Member for Hartlepool referred to some observations which were made on this subject a few years ago. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I retain the opinion which I then expressed—namely, that it would be most desirable that any great pension scheme for teachers in our elementary schools should be accompanied by a clearer recognition of their position and status. If I were to attempt to encumber the Bill with the additional provisions which I should wish the result would be that the Bill would be defeated and the Bill would not become law this Session, and I desire most strongly that this Bill should be pressed forward and become law. I do so from a different point of view from that of the Member who last spoke. I do not approach this so much as a grant in aid to necessitous teachers. It is not because they are doing noble work, because they are poorly paid, or because they are deserving of these pensions that I am most anxious to see this Bill passed. I want to see it passed in the interests of education; and I am convinced that until the nation secures some means of pro-
  734
  viding for teachers who become old and who become more or less incapacitated, with their work, our educational system, will remain imperfect. Education is entrusted to men who have passed their work and cannot be got rid of because no authority which has the power to dismiss them will do so until the last shred of efficiency has departed. It is in order to secure the efficiency of the public service that I support the Bill. You cannot have an efficient service unless you have an efficient system of pension. Sir, with reference to the question with which I started—namely, that I would not injure the prospects of this, Bill by attempting to encumber it with, propositions affecting the interests of the teacher—I am encouraged to take the Bill as it stands, imperfect as it may be, because I remember the pension scheme which has now been in operation in regard to Irish teachers for more than 20 years was quite unaccompanied by any provisions as to the status of the Irish teacher. The scheme in Ireland has worked extremely well and done good, and I am therefore encouraged to support the Second Reading of this Bill and the subsequent stages in the hope and assurance that it will pass those remaining stages. The criticisms of the honourable Member, which may be well founded, do not affect the question whether we should support the Bill, because we may alter the Bill after it has become law. The Select Committee proposed that the ultimate pensions to teachers should be regulated with a view to the salaries of the teachers. The Departmental Committee, on the other hand, proposes to establish what one may call a minimum pension, which is what you want to secure the efficiency of the school. If sufficient on that head it will enable us to clear the schools of inefficient teachers, and at the same time, if it is thought, on mature reflection, desirable to provide a scheme in which the teachers should be able to secure pensions in relation to the salaries they receive, the present Bill would offer no obstacle to enlargement in that direction. If you start with a minimum pension, as the Bill proposes, you may expend it in the direction to which the honourable Member has referred. Because this Bill, so far as it goes, promises to be a

  735
  great assistance in securing more efficient staffs in our schools, I very strongly support the Second Reading.
  MR. CROMBIE: The Government have done well in introducing this Bill, even at so late a period of the Session. I think it will be very unfortunate if the brunt of the opposition should appear to come from Scotland, as apparently, judging from the speeches in this Debate, it has come. Now, Sir, my own impression is this, that it will cause very great regret in Scotland if this Measure is lost. The honourable Member for Partick is shrewd enough to recognise, and I am bound to agree with him, that we in Scotland have a great advantage in being included with England in this Bill. I think we should have suffered if we had not been. I think I gather from the Bill that Her Majesty's Government's intention of including Scotland was an afterthought, and if the Bill is deferred I recognise there is a great danger of Scotland being dropped, and for this reason I am particularly anxious that nothing shall happen to the Bill. Some honourable Members have condemned the Government in strong terms because time was not given us to discuss this Measure. We are all agreed that it is inconvenient that a Bill of this kind should be introduced at the end of the Session, but nothing is easier than for Members of the Opposition to indulge in vituperation. I do think the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Partick somewhat exaggerated his case when he compared this scheme to the old age pension proposal, for he must remember that no Commission has been able to recommend an old age pension scheme, whereas a Committee has recommended a definite scheme in connection with this Measure. This scheme has now been before the House for four years and is well known. I do not wish to indulge in any criticism of its details. I have no doubt we shall have an opportunity later, but I think the Measure is one that commends itself from two points of view—from the public point of view and the teachers' point of view. The first is by far the more important. We in Scotland desire such a Measure, because we do not wish old, inefficient, worn-out teachers in our schools. We, perhaps, are better off than
  736
  England and Wales in this respect. I got a Return the other day of the number of teachers over the ages of 55 and 65, and the figures were 79 and 82 respectively, which is not at all bad under the circumstances. But, Sir, this Bill will remove all those disabled teachers. I hope, indeed, it will go further, and will deal with the cases of teachers who, though not 65, may be unfitted, not necessarily from actual disease, for teaching. If it does that it will, indeed, be an enormous benefit to education in Scotland. Regarding the teachers I only wish to make one remark. The honourable Member for Partick alluded to the circular issued by the Educational Institute, and the House might have understood that the Institute was hostile to the Bill. I can assure the House such is not the fact, and that the Institute would regret very much if this Bill were dropped. It is true that future teachers will benefit rather more than present teachers, because present teachers have smaller salaries, but I think it might be possible to amend the Bill in such a way as to allow the school boards to supplement the salaries. All I wish to say now is that it will be a matter of great regret if the Bill is lost, and I hope, if Her Majesty's Government think it necessary to adopt the suggestion to postpone the Bill until next Session—which I trust they will not—that they will give us a very distinct and definite promise that it will be taken up early next Session, and that Scotland will be included.
  MR. BARTLEY: Having served two years ago on the Select Committee which considered this subject, I should like to say a few words. Everyone who has studied the subject, or who regularly attended the meetings of the Committee, must see that a pension scheme is absolutely necessary, not so much in the interests of teachers as in the interests of education. There is no doubt whatever, from the many cases which were brought before us, that the present system tends, and necessarily tends, to the employment of old and worn-out teachers, because there is no possible means of otherwise providing for them. I think we are unanimous that some system of this sort should be adopted, but I join with my honourable Friend behind me in thinking it is a pity

  737
  that the Bill was not brought in before, as there are a great many things in it to be considered. There is another side to the question, and it is this: we are practically making 80,000 persons State officials, because in future all the elementary teachers will be public civil servants, and although that is a question which may be open to difference of opinion, still I think it is to be regretted that such a large Measure as this should be passed without the opportunity of ordinary discussion. We must remember that the elementary teachers of this country are becoming year by year a most powerful and important body; but, inasmuch as they are becoming this great body, it does seem more desirable that this Measure should be most carefully considered by this House. I must candidly say that I regret extremely that one very important recommendation which the Committee made has been neglected altogether. It has been referred to by my honourable Friend, but it seems to me of such importance that I should wish to refer to it again. It is as follows—
  "In this connection your Committee desire to point out that the benefit conferred by the State on the teachers by the addition to their salaries of a State-aided and managed superannuation will for the future afford a justification for a more direct control than is at present exercised over the conditions of their service, and more particularly over the standard of efficiency in teaching to be demanded in order to obtain certificates."
  One of the chief points we considered in the Committee was the educational question, and inasmuch as a sum which will amount ultimately to £600,000 a year, with a capital value of many millions, is to be added to the taxes of the country for the benefit of a certain class, it does seem to me to be unreasonable that we cannot adequately consider it. This Bill will be of great advantage to the teachers, but it can only be made of full advantage to the educational system if the clause in the Report of the Committee, which I have read, is to be considered and worked out. I myself should hesitate to support the Amendment, because I am strongly in favour of pensions for teachers, but I do say it is to be regretted that we are giving this large additional payment to the teachers without making any condi-
  738
  tions as to greater efficiency among the teachers themselves.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I hope the honourable Member will withdraw the Motion which he has placed before the House; and though I agree with many of the objections put forward by the honourable Member for Islington, as to the lateness of the Session, and so forth, my duty is to leave the responsibility with the Government, who have chosen this opportunity for introducing this Bill. I certainly shall not oppose the Second Reading. I would, however, point out that there is some little doubt as to the application of the Bill to Scotland. As the right honourable Gentleman knows, we have already a pension scheme, which depends on the initiative of the local authorities. According to the speech of the right honourable Gentleman, the intention of the Bill is to supersede the operation of the present system of pensions in Scotland. I can only say, so far as I have been able to get information, that that is rather a more severe interpretation of the Bill than I have been able to extract from it. As I read the Bill it is open to the interpretation that the school boards are still to have the power to give pensions, but in opposition to that we have the speech of the Vice-President, in which he clearly indicated that present teachers would have a choice under the Bill, but future teachers would not. Whichever interpretation be correct there will be this objection, that you will be serving at the same time two classes of teachers under different systems. That introduces a complication which I do not think should prevent the Bill being read a second time, but which I think entitles the claim of the Scottish teachers to consideration from the Government during the Committee stage. As I have pointed out, the Bill will, of course, relieve school boards from the necessity of giving pensions to their teachers, but perhaps the Government will take into consideration whether they should not allow school boards to supplement whenever they choose the pensions granted to teachers. I do hope this Bill will pass its Second Reading. It is not for us to do anything to impede the beneficial operation of such a Measure as this, and I will be heartily glad to see it passed.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: I do not wish, to detain the House at any length; I merely wish to emphasise the observation which has just been made by my honourable Friend, who proved what is perfectly true, that by this Bill the teachers of our elementary schools may become civil servants. Now, there is a great scope in that direction. All civil servants are subjected to a very stringent rule as to the right of combination, and as to the right of expressing their views upon the Government of the day, their masters, in combination. It is extremely objectionable that civil servants should express their views to the Government at all, and I think under this Bill, of which I thoroughly approve, there should be a power to prevent such views being expressed. The views of teachers of opinion are sometimes of value, but the opinion of teachers of teaching are not necessarily so. Take the fact as it is; the teachers are becoming a powerfully organised body, and they are undoubtedly endeavouring to enforce their points by means of their organisation. That that is a bad practice has been recognised by all civil servants, and I think that matter ought to be recognised here. Whether it ought to be done under this Bill or not I do not know, but I think it ought. At all events, it ought to be taken into consideration by the Government.
  MR. BRYCE: It is much to be regretted that Scotchmen had not a longer opportunity to peruse this Bill. It particularly affects Scotland, because it was not known in that country that the policy of the Government would exclude it. I should say that most of the Scotch Members have had comparatively little information as to the views the teachers take upon this Measure. If it had been before the House a little longer time, we should have had a greater opportunity of expressing our views than we have at present. I have had no information at all myself upon that subject. Nevertheless the principle of the Bill has been accepted. We have never, perhaps, deliberately considered whether we ought to make the elementary teachers of this country a branch of the Civil Service, but the principle of the Bill has been accepted by both sides of the House, by us as well
  740
  as the honourable Members opposite, and therefore I think we can fairly say the time for discussing the general question has passed; and when my honourable Friend says that opportunity is being taken to alter the status of the Civil Service, and alter the allowances, and says that ought to involve certain rules which involve civil servants, then I think that we ought to be sure that a change so important as this has been thoroughly considered. I hope that one of the rules will be to give more authority as regards local authorities and private local managers, and that there should be some protection that the teachers should not be subjected to hasty or unjust dismissal. We, having agreed to the principle of the Bill, have now to consider whether there are any details in this Measure which ought to prevent it being read a second time. I noticed that my honourable Friend opposite kept away from the details, and referred to matters which I think were matters which should be more properly left to the Committee, unless indeed the alterations are so frequent as to make the Bill a bad one. My honourable Friend, however, must feel, after the length of time that has elapsed since this Measure was promised, that the elementary teachers would be unwise if they did not allow us to pass this Bill. I think that even in Scotland many of the elementary teachers will be in favour of passing the Bill. I hope, therefore, it will be allowed to pass. The Scotch teachers have one thing to complain of, particularly those who serve large school boards in the more wealthy parts of the country, because the fifth, section of clause 12 does appear to put it out of the power of the Scotch school boards to award a single penny to any teacher who is able to come in under this Bill. I hope, if that is the true interpretation of the section of clause 12, that the Government will alter it. It certainly looks like the true interpretation, and if that is so there will be a great deal of regret among the Scotch teachers, who do not see why the general benefit may not, in the case of exceptional merit, be granted with regard to their own schools, which are the best authority to know whether the teachers have given faithful service. I hope the Government will consider that

  741
  point when we come to Committee, and will not show themselves stiff upon this point, for I can assure them from the little I have been able to gather upon the point as regards Scotch opinion that this is probably the point which will cause a great deal of regret and disappointment if it is adhered to. Having regard to this point and other details, I think we should do wrong if we do not pass this Bill this Session, and I hope we shall be able to go through with it.
  DR. CLARK: I do hope that we shall be able to do something for the elementary teachers. I have seen something done in the last two Parliaments, and these things always come in at the end of the Session, and then if the Measure takes up any time it is shelved. Now, I feel very greatly in favour of this Bill, but I feel very much objection to the Scotch portion of it, and unless we come to some arrangement with the Government upon that part we shall cut out Scotland altogether. I for my own part do not mind if we do cut out Scotland, because I think we ought to have a Bill for Scotland itself, because if you are going to bring in a Bill which is to give a pension to the teachers from the Imperial Exchequer you will, no doubt, give us an equivalent grant fund, for you cannot have a system in England whereby you grant pensions from the Imperial Exchequer, and a system in Scotland by which you give them out of the local rates. There will be more harm done to Scotland if this Bill is brought in in its present form than if she is excluded, and it is better that she should be excluded. By the fifth clause this Bill extends to Scotland, and we object to this Act extending to Scotland, because we want a much better Act for that country. We had a very good law, which was under the parochial system, and we want a better Act than we had before. If the Government wish this Act passed they must not ask us to pass the 12th clause so far as Scotland is concerned, and I hope they will not jeopardise a good Bill for England by inserting a bad provision for Scotland.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I do not wish to detain the House, as I am in general sympathy with this Bill. Everyone knows who has studied the
  742
  question of the schools in rural districts how difficult the lives of the teachers are, and I welcome a Bill which tends to ameliorate their condition. At the same time I think the Government would have done better if they had brought their Education Bill in before they attempted this Measure, and had drawn a line between primary and secondary education. At the present time we have elementary schools which are trenching largely upon secondary education, they are what might be called the higher grade schools. Many difficulties may arise in this Bill owing to no line being drawn between primary education and secondary education.
  MR. DALZIEL: I hope the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House, when he comes to decide the fate of this Bill, will remember that not a single speaker who has addressed the House to-day has spoken against the Bill so far as the principle is concerned, but has expressed himself as in favour of it. That being so, I think that the Act might pass into law. The honourable Gentleman who moved the Amendment is not against the Bill, and therefore let it go to Second Reading, and let us get into Committee as soon as possible. I have not heard a single objection to the Bill. All the House is in favour of it; therefore I think we ought to pass it. It is quite true that the honourable Gentleman has suggested that Scotland should be left out, but I should be very sorry if that were done, because I know what a very small chance she would have of having a similar Bill passed during this present Parliament. It is ridiculous to say that if we do not get this we shall get something better. I am afraid that the honourable Gentleman was not voicing the Scotch point of view, and that he would be wise in taking this Bill as it is. I hope that the Scotch Members will support this Bill. So far as I am aware the view of the school teachers, in Scotland, of the school board is in favour of its application to Scotland, subject to a small Amendment that I shall move in Committee to give the boards power to give the grant to existing teachers, and put them upon the same level in this Bill. I sincerely hope the Government will go through with this Bill.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Very strong expressions have been used in regard to the principles of this Bill. I am not going to say anything against the principle, but I cannot help saying that I think it is a large thing to ask the House to give so large a sum out of the Imperial Exchequer upon the information which we have before us. The Vice-President of the Council of Education has told nothing——
  SIR J. GORST: It is all in the Report.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Yes, I know it is in the Report, but, unfortunately, the Report is not the House. While we are agreed upon the principle, I think that we are also all agreed that the details of the Measure require amendment. I think the speeches point to that fact, and if Her Majesty's Government pass the Second Reading, and propose to pass this Bill into law this Session, there will, no doubt, be a considerable number of Amendments that must have the effect of unduly lengthening the Session. I do not understand this Bill sufficiently to understand the importance of it, but it does seem to me that only the Second Reading of the Bill should be taken to-night, and the details should be left to be considered for another Session, and that that would be much better than forcing it through the House this Session.
  MR. J. PARKER SMITH: I beg to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put—
  "That this Bill be read a second time."
  Agreed to.

LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,)formally moved the Second heading of the Bill.
DR. CLARK: This Bill has been introduced without any inquiry and without the pledges given by three
744
Governments having been carried out. It is 10 years since the new system was inaugurated of giving special grants in lieu of the old system of grants. At that time we were promised that it should be inquired into and determined what was the proportion to be paid and received by each country, and for three years the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day put down a Motion for the purpose of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into the matter in order that we might know what our proportion was. It so happened that the Welsh Members were desirous of having Wales included, and owing to their action we had no inquiry for three years. Then, in 1892, another Government came into power, and they also pledged themselves to appoint a Select Committee, and year after year the then Chancellor of the. Exchequer, now the Leader of the Opposition, was always willing to do so, but he was busy with his Budget, and so the Select Committee was postponed by that Government. Then during the present Government we were told the matter should be inquired into by a Royal Commission and the whole subject thrashed out. For two years this has been dangled before us, and now Ireland objects. For three years—because Wales objected, afterwards because the next Government was too busy with other matters, and now because Ireland objects—we have this new system of finance carried out, and Scotland is being ignored. We were put off month after month and year after year, and now we are to have fresh legislation without an inquiry or anything else. All one can do is to strongly object to this course. It is a course which was not attempted as far as England or Ireland was concerned, but I suppose the Government think that Scottish Members will stand anything, and that they can, be ignored. Under this Bill we are to have some more money handed over to the Special Fund. We are to have a sum equal to seven-sixteenths of the amount raised in Scotland. Well, I think, at least, as far as the proportion between the equivalent grant and the similar grant to England is concerned, we are being treated more fairly than I expected. Our demand two years ago was passed by because Ireland wanted the grant, and as Ireland's pressure was greater than ours it was conceded to her. But now that we are about to get it the

745
Treasury is, as usual, acting very niggardly towards Scotland. If it is right new to give us seven-sixteenths it was right two years ago. You refused us justice two years ago. You are now conceding it, and I cannot understand why we should be deprived of the two years' arrears. The estimated amount of the grant is £95,000 a year. That is £190,000 which we have not received in consequence of the action of the Government, and, as far as that amount is concerned, both in Committee and otherwise, we will try to press the Government to give it to us. By virtue of the course taken two years ago we were deprived of it, and I see no reason why we should not have it now. There are some other points connected with the Bill, such, as the distribution of the money, which, however, can be raised during the Committee stage. In the last clause there are two provisions, and I cannot understand why they have been inserted at all, because we thrashed out very keenly, eight or nine years ago, whether these grants should be distributed on a basis of population or of assessment, and after two discussions we came to an agreement that the basis should be partly population and partly assessment. If we distribute an assessment the result will be that rich parishes with a high rateable value and a small population will get a large portion of the grant, whereas poor parishes with a small rateable value and a large population will get less. These provisoes should be put in as clauses. They appear as provisoes, as if they related to some other portions of the Bill, but if they are permitted to remain the effect will be to rob the country districts for the benefit of the boroughs. That is the proposal of the Government. We are getting this money because of agricultural distress, and yet by these two provisoes you propose to rob the agricultural interest for the benefit of the towns. The Lord Advocate has not said a word about the Bill, but I should like to ask him why this course is being taken. The right honourable Gentleman is himself a county Member. These provisoes will militate against his constituents, and I do not see why they should be included at all. I am only now going to again protest against legislation until we hare had a full and complete inquiry. For
746
10 years our inquiry has been postponed on one pretence or another, and it is time this question should be thoroughly thrashed out, either by a Royal Commission or a Select Committee, and I myself think that a Select Committee is better in some ways than a Royal Commission. I take it that the Government have given up the intention of appointing a Royal Commission to consider the financial relations of the three kingdoms, and surely it is not now too much to ask that we shall have this question thrashed out between ourselves and our great neighbour, England.
MR. BRYCE: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to oppose the Second Reading, because that would be depriving Scotland of money to which she is entitled. I must, however, express my disappointment at the statement of the Lord Advocate when we debated the matter last week. There was then a very general feeling among Scottish Members for an alteration in the method of distribution, and also that the money to be given to education should not be distributed in this way, but that the whole matter should be reconsidered and that there should be inquiry and legislation. The very way that the Bill now before us proposes to distribute this money really challenges the opinion of the Scottish Members on that subject. We have gone under the machinery of the Scotch Educational Department since 1890, and there is universal discontent in Scotland at the way in which the Department has been allowed to have the distribution of the money. I do not say there is any want of trust in the Department, but it is felt that Scotland ought to be consulted and that this House should have a voice in the matter. There is no use in laying a Minute on the table of the House and hoping for a discussion after midnight. But another point arises on clause 2, which again suggests the necessity for legislation. It is with regard to the two provisoes, but as I understand some suggestions are to be made in Committee, I will not now anticipate the points which may be raised there. That is a matter which cannot be done without legislation; at any rate, it affords another reason for insisting that the Government shall give us legislation

747
on this subject at the earliest possible moment. I earnestly hope that the Government will reconsider that. I believe it to be the general wish of honourable Members, that they will give some satisfactory answers.
MR. DALZIEL: I won't go into the history of the different reasons why the Royal Commission was abandoned. I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether or not he cannot persuade the Government to give us this inquiry into the financial relations between the two countries. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will give this matter his attention. We have had it up for seven or eight yeans. If we are going to get it at all, it is time we got it.
MR. CALDWELL: The question to which I wish to call the attention of the House is as to the equivalent grant, and the change this Bill produces in giving to Scotland a grant upon the same principle as the giving to England of half of the agricultural rate. We find, on examining the principle on which they give money to Scotland, that they do not adopt the equivalent grant out and out; sometimes they give the equivalent grant and sometimes they give a grant on lines similar to those an which money is given to England. If it were the equivalent grant, or if it were on the lines of similar treatment to England, there would not to so much to complain about. But we find that whilst we might in some cases lose by payment on the principle of the equivalent grant we would gain by the application of the alternative principle. The principle on which the grant is given to Scotland is that you shall give the least possible to Scotland. The Lord Advocate comes forward with this Bill, and says that the same principle does not apply; but Scotland is entitled to half her rates, just as England is. What is the cause of this change of front? Nothing more than that Ireland also objected to the principle of the equivalent grant. We come forward and say that our proper sum is one-half of the rates in Scotland, the same as is given in England, and we are quite entitled to refer to the change of front on the part of the Government. For a policy of their own the Government found it expedient
748
to find money for Ireland in order to relieve Irish landlords of certain rates. We are entitled to say to tine Government, "What principles are you going to treat us upon; are you going to treat us on the principle of the eleven-eightieths? What we object to is that you go between the two; one time it is the equivalent grant, and the other time it is different treatment according to whichever method gives the smaller sum to Scotland." Now, as regards the rate. England gets her money as from the 31st March. You admit that we should have half the rates; and why don't you make the date to run the same as in England? We are entitled to have the benefit of the same date. This sum the Bill proposes to give to Scotland, and you are making the payment to Scotland run from the six months ended 31st March next, after the passing of this Act. Well, obviously we are not getting the same treatment as England. It is no answer to say that Ireland is not getting the same period. Ireland protested against the same period. England has got the whole of her money from the original date of March, 1897. Instead of the Chancellor of the Exchequer being put up to defend these payments, he puts the Scotch Office into the position of defending them. The Lord Advocate must be satisfied in his own mind that in the interests of justice the date of payment should run from the same day as in the case of England. I don't see why because one Bill happens to be before the other the last ought to suffer. England is always getting money for particular purposes, and then we follow as a matter of legislative order of precedence. Whether our Bill is a year later or not, we ought to have the money at the same date as England. Another point in regard to this Bill is that the payments are to run for five years during the currency of the Agricultural Rating Act, 1896. We are entitled to point out that, while Ireland is getting her payments perpetually, we in Scotland are getting the payments only during the currency of the Agricultural Rating Act. The same reason for making the grant perpetual in the case of Ireland applies equally to Scotland. The money is to be applied to various purposes, including police and secondary education; and in the case of secondary education it is

749
impossible for the money to be properly applied unless it is perpetual. I think, therefore, that we are entitled to complain that these payments are to be made only during the run of the Agricultural Bating Act. I do not, of course, go into the different modes of applying the money; that can be discussed in Committee. The funds available under this Act will be considerable. In all, you will have the sum of £175,000 for the purposes of elementary education in Scotland. That is a very large sum, and it is one that ought to be under some comprehensive scheme worked out to the greatest possible advantage. If the money has once been given to different interests in Scotland, it will be almost impossible to get that money back again if you are going to formulate a general scheme. Therefore, I think that the Government will do wisely if, even yet, they will consider the matter, so far, at any rate, as this money is concerned—consider how far they are able to tie up that portion of the money so that the whole question of secondary education might come up at some future stage next Session, under some comprehensive scheme whereby the money could be utilised to the greatest possible advantage. That, of course, must be the object of the Government, as it is the object of this side of the House. There are no party politics in the question of education, and the whole matter is to have a comprehensive scheme upon such lines as will produce the greatest possible advantage from the money that is given for secondary education.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I do not think that? it is necessary for me to go exhaustively into this Bill to-night, on the Second Beading, because, as honourable Members are well aware, the Resolution in Committee disclosed the whole Bill, and I was able to explain its provisions upon that occasion with a fulness which, I think, leaves me with little to say to-night. The honourable Member for Caithness may, or may not, be under a misapprehension, but I am quite certain that his words would convey the impression to the minds of those who read them that he is under a mis-
750
apprehension as to the question of how the money is to be calculated, because his remarks would lead one to suppose that we were here substituting seven-sixteenths as more liberal than eleven-eightieths as the calculation for the grant. Of course, we are doing nothing of the kind. As I explained, the fractional figure of seven-sixteenths is simply due to the small rectification which is necessary in respect to the agricultural valuation, which in Scotland includes buildings, and in Ireland does not. The honourable Member for Mid-Lanark more correctly apprehended the question when he said the money was going- to be given to Scotland by way of similar treatment. I do not find in his remarks that he has really anything to complain of in the similar treatment. His speech comes to this—he thinks it necessary, more or less, to twit the Government because certain distinguished Members of it have on former occasions dealt with Scotland by way of grant. I do not think, if the honourable Member will look rather more carefully at the words which I used on the introduction of the Bill of 1896, which were read out by himself or by some other honourable Member, that he will find there is very much fault to be found with those words, because I think that in my expressions it will be found I did not say that the equivalent grant was a counsel of what I may call abstract justice, or the logical outcome of justice, but what I did say was this, that it was impossible simply by applying the Bill of England to Scotland to effectuate a just result, because I pointed out that the rating system in England was absolutely different and dissimilar from the rating system of the other countries. If you, in so many words, give relief in the proportion of the English rates, and then calling the rate by the same name, apply it to really something perfectly different in Scotland, if you allow the same words to operate in Scotland, you obviously reach different pecuniary results. That is absolutely plain to anyone who remembers that although there are certain rates which bear the same name, such as the Public Health Rate, and the Poor Rate, common to England and Scotland, those rates in their incidence are perfectly different in the two kingdoms; roughly speaking, the

751
English rate being paid wholly by the occupier, and the Scotch rate half by the owner and half by the occupier. I do not think it very much matters if my words were accurate or not, but as they have been quoted, perhaps I may stand up for the accuracy of my expressions. I think it will be found that what I said about the logical outcome hinged upon the question of the rates being not identical in incidence, and it was not equivalent to a justification of the equivalent grant on the ground of eternal justice. I think the honourable Member for Lanarkshire scarcely gave the Government the credit that in proceeding as we now do in this Bill by way of similar treatment, we wipe out the mistaken course of proceeding by equivalent grant as in 1896, because payment in the present Bill represents the total payment The sum payable under the former Bill is merely treated as a sort of credit item to account. It really does not matter what it was, because what is to be paid is the difference between that and the whole sum, calculated on a basis of similar treatment. The honourable Member, with his experience as an accountant, will, I think, see that it really does not matter what that first sum was; if the balance is paid, it is sufficient. Now, the honourable Member for Caithness illustrated the treatment that was meted out by the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he gave up certain arrears that had accrued. The reason that my right honourable Friend did that was that he was then acting simply according to the letter of his contract. There had been really a miscalculation. It was found that really by the Act of Parliament a certain amount was to be paid year by year to Scotland, and that amount had been miscalculated.
DR. CLARK: The right honourable Gentleman is mistaken. Instead of giving us 10s. per head, they gave us the equivalent grant. They cease the equivalent grant to give us something equal to 10s. per head.
MR GRAHAM MURRAY: Really, the honourable Member must not confuse matters. The honourable Member came in the middle of what I said, and has got hold of the wrong end entirely. We are talking about arrears. The 10s. ques-
752
tion is a totally different question. What he said was, "Why do not you give the arrears?" Now, that question of arrears was nothing to do with the 10s. payment. The question of arrears is this: it was found, after a certain number of years, that there had been a miscalculation—that is to say, that it did not amount in fact to the eleven-eightieths. Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day could technically have protected himself by this, that all the sums of money are voted annually by Parliament, and, accordingly, the real fault was that too small a sum was put on the annual Estimate. Well, the right honourable Gentleman did) not try to protect himself under that, but said, "I will give you the arrears." In the true moral sense it was carrying out the terms upon the contract. Well, now, of course, you are not in that situation at all. There was no Parliamentary contract in 1896 to give Scotland similar treatment, and my right honourable Friend explained perfectly clearly the other day when he spoke upon the Resolution, that it was no question of arrears, and that the Scotch money only dated from this year simply and wholly because the policy of giving Scotland similar treatment was brought into force at the same time as the policy giving Ireland similar treatment. The position in 1896 was different, because at that time it was not the policy of the Government at that moment to give what I may call similar treatment either to Scotland or Ireland. No doubt they gave a payment by equivalent grant, but when you give a payment by equivalent grant, I take it the reason of that is not because you are going to mete out similar treatment to one country and the other, but because you are simply what may be called giving it as a contribution. If you are giving a contribution to one of the three kingdoms out of the Imperial funds, there may be a certain equitable hardship upon the contributors to those Imperial funds who do not take any benefit from that treatment which has been meted out. That, of course, is the consideration which leads to an equivalent grant, but when giving similar treatment and not an equivalent grant, you get other considerations altogether, and that is why this Bill deals with it, and by the very fact of dealing with it, sweep

753
away, once for all, all consideration of equivalent grant in this payment at all. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen asked me to consider again this question about education. Well, I am sorry that I have nothing more to add to what I said upon the Resolution. I think I have explained that when we come to have the whole question in a systemised scheme before us, it may be that we shall find there are difficulties we cannot face without legislation, and in that case we shall have recourse to legislation. But, what we do object to at this present moment is to legislate until we have first of all seen what sort of scheme it is that the Departmental advisers can evolve with the money now placed to their credit. I think the only other topic in the speeches to-day was this question of the provisoes in the Act. There are two provisoes. One proviso is simply the technical words which are necessary to effectuate the change in the pleuro-pneumonia change from one fund to the other. The second proviso is a proviso which was put in as a sacrifice to the great god of uniformity, but the practical working of it has been brought to my notice by the honourable Member for Renfrewshire, the honourable Member for South Lanarkshire, and the honourable Member for Caithness, and I have come to the conclusion that, at any rate, it is best not to take up that question at present. It will be quite a proper occasion if we should come to attack the question which the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen spoke of—I mean the question of taking away the option and putting the money to education. That would be a proper occasion, but at present I think it is not proper to encumber this Bill with any alteration of the pecuniary advantages or liabilities as at present existing, and, therefore, I shall be prepared in Committee to put down an Amendment which will take out that second proviso.
MR. E. ROBERTSON: As I had an opportunity in Committee on the Resolution to express my opinion on many points raised in this Debate, I shall not detain the House now. But I should like to ask the few English Members who have been present to-day, whether they have listened with much
754
edification to the elaborate explanation which has come from the Lord Advocate if the present proposals of the Government; whether they understand, whether they really understand, why this grant is being proposed to Scotland now? The Lord Advocate has denied that he defended the equivalent grant system two years ago on the ground of what he calls eternal justice. I will read the grounds upon which he actually did defend it, and I shall venture to say he puts it on much higher grounds; he puts it on the ground of common sense. These are the Lord Advocate's words—
"As obviously the intention of the Government is to confer an equal benefit on the two kingdoms, you cannot let the relief in Scotland be conditional, as it is in England, as to the amount by the rate relieved, but you are driven logically in the Scotch case to the principle of an equivalent grant."
MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: By the rate relieved!
MR. E. ROBERTSON: Yes, but two years ago the intention of the Government to confer equal benefit on both countries led to the logical result of an equivalent grant. What is the intention of the Government now in proposing this increased grant? This is what I want English Members to take some cognisance of. Here is the true story of the whole proceeding. If the right honourable Gentleman himself did not defend the limited grant of two years ago on the ground of justice, it was defended upon that ground, and upon that ground alone, by the First Lord of the Treasury, if I am not mistaken, and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if I am not mistaken. They defended the limited grant for Ireland, as for Scotland, on the ground that justice required so much and no more, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the particular case of Ireland, declared that from this position the Government would not recede. They have receded from it. And why? The account of that transaction is to be derived from the statement of another Minister, a Minister who is not present to-night. The Chief Secretary for Ireland did not disguise the fact that the increased grant to Ireland was necessitated by the fact that the Govern-

755
ment could not pass the Local Government Bill without a grant to the landed interest. That they considered necessary, and that additional grant to Ireland is the price they had to pay for the passing of the Bill. This treatment of Ireland was not on any logical principle, not on any principle of justice at all, but avowedly was the price which had to be paid for the passing of the only possible Local Government Bill for Ireland. Then the Lord Advocate himself admitted that this increased amount having been, given to Ireland, it was impossible to resist on the part of Scotland a demand for treatment on similar lines. It is quite true that the Lord Advocate is not in any way responsible for the Irish policy of the Government in this matter, but the Government, as a whole, is in this position, that two years ago, having defended one sum both for England, Scotland, and Ireland, as doing justice between these countries, has been obliged, in consequence of the Irish transaction, to come down now and ask for a much larger sum; a larger sum having been given to Ireland, the same must, as a logical consequence, be given to Scotland. I do hope that this is the last occasion upon which we shall be tormented with this unsatisfactory mode of dealing with public money. I hope we shall have no more of these grants or doles for local purposes, resulting, as they have done, in muddlement of the whole of our international systems. This is a grant which Scotland cannot refuse, but which we never asked for, and in the application of which the feeling of Scotland has been to a very small extent consulted. I should not have risen on this occasion except that the Lord Advocate appeared to me to be assuming virtues in himself and in the Government, which he so ably represents, to which they are not entitled.
SIR J. JOICEY: I do not, as a rule, intrude into what I consider Scotch debates. I think an English Member must be rather rash to do so, but after the appeal which has been made by my honourable Friend below me, I think I must put my modesty on one side and enter a protest with him against the whole principle of these grants. I have
756
always been opposed to giving these grants in aid. In principle, they are bad, and the results arising from them are bad. I think that there is nothing that leads to such a waste of money as when people spend money which they have not to raise directly themselves. Whether it is in our Imperial affairs, or in our local affairs, I find that the greatest extravagance takes place on the part of those people who have money to spend which must be raised by other people. Now, Sir, as I have said, I have always been opposed to these grants. What is the origin of the grant that we are discussing now? Simply depression in agriculture. Now, let us go to the foundation of these grants. In two or three counties in England—in Essex, in Hampshire, in Suffolk, and in Norfolk—there was depressed agriculture owing to the low price of wheat, and because there happened to be depression in these few counties the Government, in order to give a benefit to their friends, thought it was a desirable thing to show their interest in agriculture by giving something like a million and a half spread over the whole of the Kingdom. Well, what follows? A large grant is given to Ireland in the same way, and then a further grant is given to Scotland, about £200,000, in the shape of an equivalent grant; and now the Government are going to give something like £93,000 more to Scotland in order to give her some satisfaction, having given to Ireland a large grant with the Local Government Bill. I protest against the way in which this money is given. The Scotch people, who are generally very economical in spending their money, have never asked for this money, and positively they do not know what to do with it. There seems to be a division of opinion between the Scotch Members and the Government as to how they are to get rid of this money—of this generous gift.
SEVERAL HONOURABLE MEMBERS: No, no!"
SIR J. JOICEY: Well, I heard the discussion when the Resolution was before the Committee, and I maintain what I say, that there is a difference of opinion. The Government

757
brought forward a scheme to dispose of this money, which evidently does not meet with the approval of Scotch Members. There were Amendments moved, first to one part, and then another, and, as a matter of fact, this money is thrown at them, and they do not know what to do with it. I protest against this policy on the part of English Members. I do not understand this policy when the Government are making no remissions of taxation. Money has been coming in by millions during the last three years, all of which they have spent, and now they are throwing these hundreds of thousands into Ireland's pocket, into Scotland's pocket, at the expense of the general taxpayer. I think that the system is bad, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will, when they come to give an account to the country, find that their recklessness, with regard to the financial management of the concerns of the country, has met with its due reward. Now, Sir, I am not going to occupy the time of the House any longer. I do not as a rule occupy its time. I think, in the interests of my constituency, I may say England generally, this thing should not pass without, at all events, some English Member showing what feeling he has on the whole transaction. I do think that this system of giving these grants, which seems to be peculiarly favoured by tins Government, is thoroughly bad. I think all Governments have committed errors more or less, but I always found that when once we give grants of this kind, we get accustomed to give a great many more, and I protest in the strongest terms against the grant now made.
MR. J. PARKER SMITH): In spite of what the honourable Member says, I think Scotland in general is thoroughy agreed as to how this money is to be spent. I do not think there is need to discuss that any more. The only thing I wish to speak about is the distribution of the money to be devoted to education. I hope that the Lord Advocate will rise superior, as he said just now, to the great good of uniformity, and will not think it necessary to distribute this money according to population, still less according to valua-
758
tion. It is absurd to offer it to Edinburgh or Glasgow, where the only difficulty is to find people enough to use what there is already, and I think that much more can be done by taking areas, or some other system of that kind, and not taking the system we have had heretofore, based on population. I hope the Department will take care not to commit itself permanently, because, I think, we shall very soon have to discuss an improvement on the basis of legislation. The right honourable Gentleman said that the Government would look into the question, and if it was found necessary to disentangle matters, they would propose legislation. But there is another point of view, and that is the House of Commons point of view. We want to have an opportunity of discussing the question of education and how the money is to be spent upon the Bill, and not merely after 12 o'clock at night, when you cannot get a House together, and have then but very limited time in which to criticise the Education Department. I think we ought to enjoy an opportunity of having the scheme as a whole put before us.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I do not want to go into this question at length, but I wish to point out that the very lucid explanation given by the Lord Advocate and similar treatment does not meet my difficulty at all. My objection to both lines of treatment is this, that they are not founded essentially upon the needs and demands of Scotland in relation to Scotch questions. That seems to me to be the main point of objection to the Government system. We want to have more time and more opportunities for discussing and of expressing Scottish opinion for the guidance of Parliament on all these Scotch, questions.
MR. MCLEOD: There is one point to which I desire to draw attention, and that is that we ought to have some inquiry into the whole of these questions. Whilst there is no one desires to understand the Lord Advocate more than I do, that what my honourable Friend has called his lucid explanation has left me in more doubt than ever as regards these financial dealings. It seems to me that the sooner we have an inquiry into

759
the whole question such as we have been promised by several Governments, the sooner we shall come to understand where we are. I hope the Lord Advocate will, if he gets the opportunity, let us know whether he has yet made up his mind to recommend to the Government the necessity for this inquiry. Now, there is another point which I should like to refer to, and it is this: that the Treasury with their usual generosity towards Scotland professes to give us £93,000 or £94,000. Now, as a matter of fact, they have given at the same time some £6,000 in the Estimate of marine superintendence. Now, it seems to me that it would be a very much fairer, and certainly a more honest policy to make it perfectly plain that, in giving this sum to Scotland, that they were getting out of a certain payment for other purposes. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will give the matter of this inquiry his careful consideration.
Question put—
"That this Bill be now read a second time."
Agreed to.

SEED SUPPLY AND POTATO SPRAYING (IRELAND) BILL.
(Second Reading.)
Amendment proposed—
"Page 2, line 43, leave out the word 'including.' and insert the word 'excluding.'"—(Mr. Doogan.)
MR. DOOGAN: The first three Amendments are on the Paper by mistake, as they were accepted by the Government on Saturday. My object in moving this Amendment is to provide for the next Amendment, and, instead of the cost of carriage of seeds, spraying machines, and spraying material being placed upon the rates, which are abnormally high, and must be paid by the poorest of the poor, I desire that it should be paid out of the Church Temporalities Fund. I think the Attorney General will see that these distressed people should be provided with this relief loan as cheaply as possible.
MR. ATKINSON: It is perfectly impossible for me to accept this Amend-
760
ment. The guardians charge no more to the persons supplied with the material than it costs, and they merely wish to recoup themselves, and sell at such a sum as will just cover the original cost of the article plus the interest on capital. I do not know whether the honourable Member is aware that in the distressed districts to which he alludes, materials have been supplied for nothing to all persons engaged in the relief works. It is obvious that the cost must be paid from somewhere. I do not know how or where the honourable Member has discovered that the Irish Church Temporalities Fund is going to assist him, for it is already mortgaged up to its full value and there is no money coming from it at all. I must, therefore, object to the proposed Amendment, because I think that it is only right that the guardians should sell the materials to the persons applying for them at such a rate as will cover the cost.
MR. DOOGAN: Is the right honourable Gentleman not aware that already provision has been made for certain payments to the Board of Works out of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund under Clause 2, sub-section 3, of the Bill.
MR. DILLON: I think it is perfectly clear that the Attorney General has shown by the first part of his argument that he has not read his own Bill. He has trotted this Measure out as giving the most extraordinary benefits to these unions in Ireland at the expense of the British Treasury. The fact is, that the British Treasury is safeguarded from any loss whatever. Now, while the Attorney General has just informed us that it is quite impossible to put any additional charge upon the Church Temporalities Fund, because it is mortgaged to more than it can provide for, we see in subsection 2 it is provided—
"Such loan shall be repayable by the guardians to the board of works by two equal instalments."
And it goes on to say—
"The interest at the rate of two and three-quarters per cent. per annum on such loan, or on so much as is for the time being not repaid, shall be paid by equal half-yearly payments to the Board of Works out of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund."
MR. ATKINSON: But that is only a temporary arrangement.
MR. DILLON: Well, it provides for payments out of a fund which has no assets whatever. The Amendment of my honournble Friend is a very small matter, find I am sorry that the Attorney General does not see his way to accept it. I think the cost of the carriage of these sprayers ought to be borne by the same fund. Of course, the whole justification for this Measure, and the only justification for this Measure at all, is that these districts are in a very exceptional state of distress, and that the rates are very high. If that were not so, the Government would not be justified in bringing in this Measure at all. Now, that being the case, I think that there is a good deal to be said in favour of the Amendment.
MR. W. JOHNSTON: I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that these materials have been carried free to all parts of Ireland by the railway companies this year, and I think it is very likely that the railway companies will again extend their generosity next year. There is no reason whatever why the same arrangements cannot be carried out next year. This Amendment, in my opinion, is perfectly unnecessary as regards spraying machines.
Question put.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed—

CLAUSE 4.
"Page 3, leave out sub-section (7)."—(Mr. Doogan.)
MR. DOOGAN: It is admitted that the people in these districts are in the deepest distress. Therefore I think the Attorney General will see that this is a very reasonable Amendment. This subsection requires that cash shall be paid for the spraying machines at time of purchase, and my object in moving the omission of sub-section 7 is to provide in my next Amendment that they be granted as a loan on the same conditions as the seeds and spraying machines are.
MR. ATKINSON: I could not possibly accept this Amendment. The great objection is that in the case of these
762
machines that by the time the second instalment becomes due they will have been used, and then they are of no use. Therefore, if a man desires to buy it he should pay the price, and if he does not wish to pay the price, he can always have it, and for that reason there is a difference made. I have already explained that in distressed districts, both machines and sprayers are given free.
DR. CLARK: I do not quite understand the position of the Government in regard to this question. The right honourable Gentleman opposed the last clause on the ground that the Irish Temporalities Fund would not stand it, and yet he proceeds now to buy seeds or spraying machines, and pays cash at once. So that you are taking out of the Church Temporalities Fund one-fifth of the value of the seeds and one-tenth of the value of the machines if you pay in cash. Now, in the next clause, on page 4, there is another curious proviso. It says—
"The amount due to the guardians on account of any seed or spraying material sold by them, and not paid for in cash on delivery, shall be paid by two equal instalments."
If this is to be so in the case of the material, why not in the case of the machine also?
MR. SPEAKER: That is not the question raised by this Amendment. There is another Amendment on the Paper dealing with that point.
DR. CLARK: But if you are going to draw on the Church Temporalities Fund as far as materials are concerned, surely the machinery for carrying out the work should be placed in the same condition. If not, the result will be that the operation will be a failure. They will try by every means to do it, and the result will finally be that you will probably waste the material, and not have the effect desired. I am sorry the Attorney General has not seen fit to accept the Amendments of my honourable Friend, because they are practically all of the same character as those which he accepted in Committee for the Government, and only apply to the question of the system of paying by instalments instead of paying all at once.
Question put.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 3, line 25, leave out the word 'net.'"—(Mr. Atkinson.)
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 5, leave out clause 7."—(Mr. Atkinson.)
MR. DOOGANrose to move his first Amendment to Clause 7, when
MR. ATKINSON: I move to strike out this clause, because these instructors are already provided for under another fund, and therefore this clause is not necessary.
MR. DILLON: What fund are these instructors paid out of?
MR. ATKINSON: They are paid for out of the distress fund. They practically go round the country districts and give instructions.
Question put—
"That clause 7 be struck out of the Bill."
Agreed to.
Question put—
"That the Bill be now read a third time."
Agreed to.

OUTDOOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
(Adjourned Debate on Second Reading.)
MR. DILLON: I wish to draw the attention of the House to this, that, while professing to be drawn on exactly the same lines, and while apparently drawn, on the same lines as previous Bills of a similar character, it appears to me to introduce a totally new principle, because on all previous occasions of exceptional distress in the West of Ireland, a Bill of this character was introduced, but this Bill has reference only, or the Bills introduced upon this occasion have reference only to the relief of distress given out in the ordinary way, but the Bill authorises or gives an indemnity to
764
the guardians, in respect of relief of distress, of outdoor relief, given in cases in which it would not be legal to give it under the poor law of Ireland as it at present stands. But on all these previous occasions, in addition to the extraordinary relief of distress, they were managed under a totally different administration, and paid for from different funds in the way of relief works, such as the Executive Government found it necessary to establish in those districts. But now, as far as I understand it—and I failed on the last occasion to get any definite statement from the Attorney General for Ireland on this matter—in the present instance this Bill proposes to give an indemnity to the guardians, not only for the relief which they have been obliged to give simply as outdoor relief, but also to give them an indemnity for that proportion of the cost of relief works which the present Chief Secretary proposes to throw upon the rates. If I am correctly informed—and, of course, the Attorney General will set me right at once if I am wrong—under the law as it stands, the guardians in the West of Ireland have no power to throw upon the rates in their districts any part of the cost of their relief works. Is that so?
MR. ATKINSON: Certainly, that is so.
MR. DILLON: That is exactly my point, and that is the ordinary purpose of an indemnity Bill of this kind. But, in addition to that, we have the cost of the relief works, and, as I understand the law, they have no power to institute or pay the wages of the men on the relief works. In previous cases, when relief works were instituted, they were instituted under the authority of the Executive Government, and the whole cost of those relief works were paid out of some special fund supplied by the Treasury or the Church fund, and they were not borne by the rates. But in this Bill it is intended not only to cover the outdoor relief given to occupants of more than a quarter of an acre of land, but it is intended to make it legal, and clear the way for the Chief Secretary to throw upon these western boards of guardians that proportion, and we do not know what proportion of the cost of the relief works, which he has described as a new policy in the West of Ireland in the present year. Now, I have prepared a

765
set of figures showing the condition of one of the unions in the West of Ireland, in order to show what appears to me to be a great injustice. These figures have reference to the Unions of Clifden in the county of Galway, where the rates are at present enormously high. The poor rate alone, according to the rate struck this year, varies from 2s. 6d. in the £ in this very poor union, up to 5s., 6s., 5s. 6d., 5s., 4s. 6d., 6s., and 5s. in the various divisions of the union. Now, in consequence of the great distress in the present year the amount of outdoor relief has been enormously increased as compared with last year. I have here the various figures to the 13th April, and I only extract one or two of the figures ending the 6th March this year, when the amount was £113, as against £6 18s. 6d. last year. Up to 19th April the amount was £104 9s. 3d., against £6 14s. 3d. in the corresponding period of last year. Now, in the last week, for which I have the figures ending the 13th April, it was £136, as against £6 6s. 8d. last year. Altogether, up to the middle of April, the amount expended was £1,192 13s., against £80 6s. 11d., which had been expended in the Clifden Union in the corresponding period of last year. Now that shows a terrible burden, of distress, and, of course, that figure has been largely increased, because the relief has been going on to a rather increasing extent. Now, of the above sum of £1,192, £156 has been given as ordinary relief—that is, such relief as would be covered by the provisions of this Bill under the policy which prevailed this year in these western districts. But, in addition to that £156 for ordinary relief, there has been £1,036 13s. 10d. issued under the labour test, which is equally illegal, as I understand it, with the £156 in ordinary relief, and which, therefore, requires the provisions of this Act to indemnify the guardians for having issued it. But, of that £1,036 13s. 10d. spent under the labour tests in relief works, the Government are going to recoup the guardians a certain proportion. The Chief Secretary gave us to understand that it would be about three-quarters, and in some districts more. But assuming that it is three-quarters, that leaves £250, which is the guardians' share, or might be the guardians' share
766
of the labour test, and that added to the other sum for ordinary relief makes a sum of £415 3s. 3d., as against £80 6s. 11d. for the corresponding period of last year. And that additional burden in the rates in the Clifden Union is in an area of terribly exceptional distress, and where the rates already are at an enormous figure, at an average, taking the rates of the whole union, of little short of 9s. in the £. I think the House will admit that that is a heavy rate for a rural district. Under the old system what would happen would be this: that the guardians under this Bill would have received an indemnity for distributing £156 of ordinary outdoor relief, given in cases which, under the ordinary law, they could not have relieved without taking them into the workhouses. But under the new system introduced by the Chief Secretary they are now receiving an indemnity, and are to be required to pay, unless the Chief Secretary has changed his mind, a sum of £415, instead of £156 up to the 30th of April last, I suppose that amount since that time has been very greatly increased. What I want to know from the Attorney General is, am I right in that statement? Does this Bill apply to the share of the cost of the labour tests which it is proposed to throw on to the guardians? If that be the purpose of this Bill, I must confess that it raises in Ireland questions of policy which I shall avail myself of every possible opportunity of opposing. When I asked for a postponement of this question on the Second Reading of the Bill, it was represented as a most innocent Bill, and it was pointed out that if this Bill was not passed the result would be that the guardians would be individually charged, or rather surcharged, with the amounts of relief illegally expended. Well, Sir, that may be technically the law, but I venture to say that no1 Government would attempt to do anything of the sort. This relief has been given under the direction of the Executive Government, and it is absurd to say that the guardians, having broken the law to save the people from starvation, will be surcharged for it. Their only offence is that their have broken the law in obeying the instructions of the Executive Government. Therefore, the idea of surcharging them I dismiss

767
as preposterous. If the Government intend to raise on this Bill the question of a new policy and a new departure, as the Chief Secretary himself describes his present proceedings in the West of Ireland; if they intend to raise this question, they should have raised it at a much earlier period, and not try to smuggle it through, as an absolutely non-contentious Measure. That is the reason why I asked for an opportunity of stating my views on this Bill the other night. Now, I have no desire to prevent the Bill passing into law, and I have not the slightest alarm upon the question of surcharging the guardians, because I do not think that the Government ever dreamt of surcharging them. As a matter of fact, this money has been spent on wages on the relief works, and it has been found by the Government themselves. I do not suppose that the guardians have drawn upon their bank balances. I do not know, but what I assume has happened is, that the wages of the men on the relief works have been found by the Board of Works or some other Government Department, and that they propose as a matter of account to charge against the guardians a certain proportion of the cost of these works, and then compel the guardians to levy a rate in order to pay this money. That is a policy to which I am entirely opposed, and, therefore, I think it is only reasonable to ask from the Attorney General a statement whether that is the intention of the Bill. Of course, subsequently in Committee, I shall have some opportunity of raising the question.
MR. ATKINSON: I must say that I think we had ample opportunities of criticising the relief portion of this Measure. The honourable Member says he entirely disapproves of the suggestion that any of the expense of relief should be thrown upon the local guardians, and suggests that it should be paid entirely out of the Imperial Treasury. Indeed, the honourable Member went further. He criticised in unmeasured terms the relief policy of the Government, and prognosticated all sorts of failure and destitution as the result of our policy. Now, the honourable Member is by no means a good prophet, for the guardians in many cases have administered the fund with
768
great zeal and with great sagacity. To-day, every one of these relief funds are closed, and there is no case where distress has not been relieved.
MR. DILLON: I deny that.
MR. ATKINSON: The exceptions which have been mentioned, where distress is alleged not to have been relieved, have been found to be upon inquiry not sustained. At all events, the relief accounts have been closed, and the boards of guardians have adopted the scheme in most cases with cheerfulness, and have worked with zeal and with a great deal of discrimination, and I may fairly say that in all these cases it has been a marked success. The question of the labour test being applied does not affect the question, because under the law the guardians are not entitled to administer relief to persons occupying more than a certain quantity of land, or who were able-bodied. In cases of this kind the burden of dealing with them is thrown upon the Government, because, hitherto, when the funds have been supplied by the Imperial Treasury, then, as now, an indemnity has been required to indemnify the guardians for having taken illegal action. In these cases public works were established, and labour tests were imposed, and the fact that the money was supplied by the Imperial Treasury did not change the character of the Act, and did not dispense with the necessity of getting an indemnification. The only difference between that and the present occasion is that hitherto in the course adopted the duty has been thrown upon the guardians of making provision for the distress. Hitherto, no doubt, all the funds necessary to deal with exceptional distress have been supplied by the Government, but on the present occasion three-fourths, and in some cases a larger proportion have been supplied by the Government. But in other cases an indemnity Bill is necessary to indemnify the guardians for the illegal action which they have taken. The guardians have given illegal relief to persons who were not entitled to it, and it does not matter whether it was given to labour tests or any other tests. The fact of adopting a test does not alter the illegal character of the Act.
MR. DILLON: I understood that the Act did not apply to the relief works which were applied by the Imperial Government themselves.
MR. ATKINSON: In some cases the relief works were started and worked by the guardians themselves. I think it is much more desirable to start relief works by the guardians, because they have the advantages of local knowledge and control, but even then the character of it remains the same whether they give relief with or without the labour test, and they adopt the labour test as possibly the best means. The way in which the work has been carried out is this: these relief works have gone to what extent I do not know, and I really cannot say exactly, because the accounts of the relief works have been, so recently closed that the statements have not yet come in. I believe, however, that, taking an approximation, the entire outlay for the relief of distress is somewhat about £50,000 or £60,000, and of that sum between £9,000 and £10,000 will fall upon the guardians in the 11 different unions to which I have referred, who are legally responsible for the whole amount. The guardians have administered the relief to the extent of the whole, but the Government will give about two-thirds of it. Now, I call the honourable Member's attention to the third section of the Bill, which enables the guardians to escape from the liability we have placed upon them, by raising all that may be necessary to meet their contribution on the rates in the present year. They are enabled to borrow money, and so spread the outlay over a number of years, instead of having to raise the whole amount in the present year. They will be enabled to borrow, and thus distribute the cost much more equally upon the ratepayers of this and succeeding years. The honourable Member said that the Government would not dare to surcharge the guardians for this outlay. Well, I am not quite sure that it rests with the Government at all, and I think the Local Government Board officer is bound to surcharge it. It is hardly fair to say that this particular system of relief in Ireland has been a failure. The unions of Swinford, Castlereagh, Galway, and other unions have not raised the objections to which the honourable Member has referred. As I said before, it by no
770
means follows that a hard and fast line has been laid down in each case.
MR. DILLON: I may say that I have no intention of opposing the Second Beading of the Bill.
Question put—
"That the Bill be now read a second time."
Agreed to.

KINGSTOWN HARBOUR ROADS TRANSFER BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
(Committee.)
Amendment proposed—

CLAUSE 2.
"Page 1, at beginning of line 22, leave out 'navigating.'"—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 2, leave out clause 3."—(Mr. Warner.)
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made—
"Section 2 of the National Debt Act, 1889 (giving power to exchange two and three-quarters per cent. stock), is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
Agreed to.
Question put.—
"That this Bill, as amended, be reported to the House."
Agreed to.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
(Second Reading.)
MR. CALDWELL: I desire to call the attention of the Treasury to the fact that taking these funds together does not give a correct idea as to how much will be actually paid, or written off the original loan. The amount previously written off and the amount repaid, of course, you are taking the two ton-ether. Another point to which I wish to call attention is that on that Committee I

771
see you have put the amount. You give the details and the name. Now, there is no particular reason for doing that, and it has nothing to do with the Act of Parliament. I think, when we come to the Committee stage, it might be put into the schedule in that way. I notice that in the time of repayment, that is, the number of years, you are taking power to amend the Public Works Towns Bill of 1875, and I think that is a very serious change. According to this proposal you axe extending the period of repayment from 20 to 30 years. I think that is a very great change, and perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury will give us some explanation why he is changing the period from 20 years to 30 years. It is a very considerable change, because the interest on the money is getting less every year, and less will be required for the loans, proposed than was required 80 years ago, when that Act was passed. These are the only observations I think it advisable to make on the Second Reading, because, in the Committee stage, the Secretary to the Treasury might be prepared to deal with the points I have mentioned.
Question put—
"That the Bill be now read a second time."
Agreed to.

SUPPLY [19TH ALLOTTED DAY].
The House resolved itself into Committee of Supply, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.

(In the Committee.)
On the Vote of £614,200, for capitation grants and miscellaneous charges for Volunteer corps, including the pay, etc., of the permanent staff.
SIR H. FLETCHER: I have only one or two points about which to ask the Financial Secretary, but I do not see my honourable Friend. I gave him notice of the Questions. One is as to the transport of Volunteers. The Chairman will recollect that a year or two ago there was a Committee appointed by the War Office for the purpose of inquiring into the best means to be adopted for effecting the transport of Volunteers. I believe the Committee reported some
772
time ago, but we have heard nothing more about it, and I think it most desirable, if my honourable Friend the Financial Secretary can give it, that we should have some information on the subject. It is, no doubt, a very important question in connection with the Volunteer force. The question of mobilisation without transport is almost impracticable; therefore, as the Committee has sat, and as, I believe, it has reported, I think it most desirable that we should have some information on the subject. There is another point on which I would like to hear from the honourable Gentleman, and that is the question of the ranges. That is a question of the greatest importance to the Force, and I know the War Office has had it under its consideration for some time past. Probably the time has arrived now when some information may be given as to the number of ranges which are now available for use by Volunteers armed with the Lee-Metford rifle, which has now been served out to almost all the Volunteer rifle corps in the kingdom. One other matter is scarcely a novel one, as I brought it forward some three or four years ago, and that is the question of instructing the Volunteers in the manual exercises, the same as carried out by the Regular Army. Since the formation of the Volunteer Force they have been instructed in the use of the short rifle, but I think, now that there are so many Volunteer battalions existing under the territorial arrangement, the same manual should be adopted by the Volunteers as that in vogue in the Regulars. I am happy to say, now, that Volunteers are vying with the Regular Army in formal manœuvres and otherwise. But what I wish to impress upon my honourable Friend is that it is not desirable that one part of the Forces should be drilled by the manual, and the other part drilled differently; and I suggest that it should be considered whether it is not desirable that one system alone should be general. Speaking as one of the oldest Volunteers in the country, I can safely say that it would be most acceptable to the whole Force. I do not wish, at this period of the Session, to bring on other matters which might have been more properly discussed earlier, and will limit my remarks to these three matters.
COLONEL WELBY: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War a question on the Report of the Committee on the decentralisation of the War Office, which recommended that certain appointments, such as Volunteer adjutancies, should be placed in the hands of generals commanding districts. I would like to know if that recommendation will be carried out, because it seems to me that in these days of auxiliary Forces the appointment of these officers and those on the staff of those regiments should be in the hands of generals commanding districts, because they have a much better opportunity of judging of these officers' qualifications than a decentralised War Office can ever have. There are also two or three returns in that Report which it is suggested should be done away with. I hope and trust that suggestion will be carried out. The other question I have to ask the right honourable Gentleman refers to the organisation of the Volunteers. I know that that Committee had simply to deal with the decentralisation of the War Office, and had nothing to do with the decentralisation of the Army. At present Volunteers are organised in brigades, and that is an important step; and I would ask the right honourable Gentleman whether it is contemplated to group these brigades into divisions, because I believe that divisional organisation will be very much more useful, in case of invasion, than the system adopted at the present time. I think it will be found that that is the system in practice in Germany. The Germans are the most practical soldiers in the world, and they have demonstrated that the grouping of brigades into divisions provides the readiest method of mobilisation in time of war.
MR. BRODRICK: The honourable and gallant Member who has just sat down touched upon an important subject, and one which he thoroughly understands—namey the organisation of the Army in time of war. There is no doubt in regard to the question as to the Volunteers—in which we are concerned at this moment—that some brigades are too large, and some of the London brigades in particular, and I admit it is necessary to make some arrangement by which to make these Forces more effective in times of emergency. The case put by the
774
honourable and gallant Gentleman has come under the consideration of the military authorities within the last two months, and I think it probable that before long some important step will be taken. I can assure the honourable and gallant Member that the desirability of assimilating our peace organisation to that which would be employed in war will not be lost sight of. He has also asked me whether this recommendation in the Decentralisation Committee's Report, in regard to the appointments, will be carried out. It is difficult to give general officers complete power, as there are a number of cases in which the adjutant-general must have a voice in the appointment. As my honourable and gallant Friend knows, the post of adjutant should fall to a man well known to the regiment, and the remark applies equally to a battalion at home as to a battalion abroad. The whole scheme has been to give the general officer as much power as possible, with an exception where his authority overrides the authority of some other officer. With regard to the general subject of decentralisation, I may remind the Committee that there has already been a wholesale massacre of returns and references. In reference to the question put by my honourable and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes, it is true that here also, a great many changes are contemplated, but no final decision has yet been come to as to Volunteer transport. A difficulty arises, no doubt, but it must be remembered that in the case of mobilisation in time of war, the transport of Volunteers would be more eagerly taken up on the spot than would be possible were they hundreds of miles away. The question has not been lost sight of; I myself have for many years made it my study, and we will see if something cannot be done in the direction suggested by my honourable and gallant Friend. With regard to the manual exercise, I understand that it was never originally intended to be confined to the short rifle. As to the question of ranges, considerable progress has been made in this matter during the year. There are central ranges in several districts, and I am able to announce that on our land upon Salisbury Plain we have laid out two more ranges, which will be available next year, and Volunteer

775
battalions will have every opportunity for practice on Government ground. We have reserved certain space for the Volunteers; they will have their ranges, which they who choose can avail themselves of for class-firing. It should be observed that this is not only a great difficulty, but one of increasing difficulty, as the more the population grows space is diminished. I trust, therefore, that Salisbury Plain will prove of great benefit in the future.
SIR H. FLETCHER: May I ask one more question in regard to the manual exercise? I observe permission has already been given to one brigade, the Hampshire Volunteers, to drill according to the manual of the Regular Forces. I brought forward this question some years ago, and I have also written to the War Office, but have received no reply. Now that that rule has been made with regard to one brigade, why not apply it to the whole Volunteer Force, and issue instructions accordingly? Speaking from long experience and knowledge of the Force, I think it is most desirable that we should only have one manual.
Question put, and agreed to.
On the Vote of £710,400 for transports and re-mounts.
COLONEL WELBY: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War as to this question whether he can give the Committee any idea as to the number of untrained re-mounts which actually come into the ranks. I want to arrive at the real state of efficiency of our Cavalry regiments at the present time. My experience shows me that in regard to certain regiments, 15, perhaps 20, per cent. of those regiments' horses are of no use for active service, because they are so young. I urged upon the right honourable Gentleman before, and I urge upon him again, to say whether, in making a return of the horses belonging to our Cavalry, he discriminates between re-mounts and those trained in the Army, for the efficient fighting strength of our Army must be ascertained. Whether it be in regard to horses or men, this return does not convey to the lay mind any adequate idea of the strength of the Army at the present time. And I would like to know whether the War Office has any substantial reserve of horses other than what is shown in
776
this Vote. There are the horses for which 10s. a year is paid. Great stress is laid on the value of them. Certain horses, which come up for a certain number of years, do their work very well, but I think, if you take the thousands of horses over which we have control, and were to suddenly swell the strength of our cavalry regiments, these regiments would not be fit to meet the French or German Cavalry. With good riders it is utterly impossible to win with unbroken horses in the ranks when charging. I would ask the right honourable Gentleman whether there has been under consideration any proposal to try and introduce into the Army some more real reserve of horses. In Germany they buy the horse, and train him, and as soon as he is fully trained he is put on to the reserve, and he goes into the country for farm work or other labour. He is carefully inspected by inspectors from time to time, and the Government are able to lay their hands on him at any moment. When I was once in command of a Cavalry regiment, I asked one of the staff if we had everything ready for mobilisation. He said, "Yes." I asked where were the reserve horses, and he said, "Oh, we have not got those." I say it is misleading to the public at large to say that we have all these horses in reserve, when it is not the fact. I suggest to the right honourable Gentleman that it would be far better to have a few thoroughly well-trained horses at a cost which would appear in this Vote than to have a lot of untrained horses upon which we have merely got an eye. The other question I would ask has reference to whether the re-mount department could not supply horses for the mounted officers in the infantry, and whether it would not be possible to buy horses cheaply to do infantry officers' work, and let them out. Again, could not these horses be let out to those infantry officers at a low rate? There is no doubt, where an officer is anything but a rich man, this question of horses is one of very great hardship indeed. I should like to know why the re-mount department cannot supply the Infantry officer. Let there be horses which are suited to them, and by some arrangement with the War Office let the horses be loaned. The Government can more readily lay their hands on these

777
horses, and I do think they might do a great amount of good in this direction. At the same time, it would increase the number of trained horses which the country would have at command.
MR. BRODRICK: My honourable and gallant Friend has brought forward the case of re-mounting the infantry officers, and I would remark that in the case of mounted officers, both in the Cavalry and in the Infantry, we have already, to a certain extent, taken a step forward in that direction. A young officer, on joining, is allowed to hire a horse at the cost of the nation——
COLONEL WELBY: That only refers to the Cavalry.
MR. BRODRICK: True, it only refers to the Cavalry, and whether it is possible to extend that system must depend on how far the State is a loser by the transaction. As to the provision of this extra number of horses, it must be borne in mind that we have no power to control what an officer may do when hunting and so forth. I, personally, have always been in sympathy with what my honourable and gallant Friend says—namely, that a mounted officer has to provide himself with one or two horses at a heavy cost, which is by no means lessened if he has to sell them on changing. Therefore, this is an experiment I would like to see tried more widely. As regards the number of horses, I may mention that we added 400 in the month of March to the Cavalry, and there will be a larger percentage in the future; and it is confidently expected that Cavalry regiments, taking the field, will be able to keep the horses which they already have. I feel, however, that I must speak up a little for the reserve of horses, which my honourable and gallant Friend appears to think is not a substantial reserve. I am inclined to put this question to him: Is it more desirable to have a horse sent out, as in Germany, to do farming work, or to have a horse out of the 14,000 we have got, and of which 8,000 are fully trained? When it is considered what we propose to add to the number of horses, either in the Cavalry or Artillery, I think there is not the slightest fear to be apprehended; and, although it is quite true that the horses in the reserve have not been trained, we believe that, with a large number at our command, we could supply
778
horses for the Cavalry and Artillery which would be fit to do their work within a week. So that I really believe that this country is better off at the present time for meeting an emergency in the matter of horses than it ever has been.
Question put, and agreed to.
On the Vote of £862,000 for clothing establishments and services.
COLONEL WELBY: I must apologise for wearying the Committee, but I would like to ask the Secretary for War a question as to the desirability of keeping the full dress of Cavalry regiments distinct from their working dress. The point has cropped up several times in respect to regiments of guards and hussars; and in the amalgamation of certain of these individual regiments they have suffered not a little. As to the 6th Dragoon Guards, I do not quite know how that question has been settled; but I do think a mistake has been made. At one time, there was a tendency to introduce a practical garment, which would be of such a shape as to lose nothing in appearance. I do not think the War Office has always recognised that ours is a Volunteer Army, and that we cannot turn them all out alike, as in Germany, or in France, where everybody is forced into the ranks. There, if they put a man into a nightgown he has to wear it. I do think that the misfortune of our Army has always been, ever since I can remember it, that whenever a practical garment has been introduced, the commanding officer has tried to improve upon it, and failed. Only the other day, my old regiment was sent out in the ugliest garb the War Office ever designed. Instead of having the old bearskin, so famous in history, they had a hideous substitute. I think, if it were more strictly laid down that there should be a show dress as well as a working dress, fewer difficulties would arise. At the same time, we should go on the principle of combining smartness with serviceability. The quality of the cloth should also be seen to. In my own regiment, I hare known hundreds of jackets give down the middle. I urge these facts on the attention of the right honourable Gentleman now, and I know that he will do his his best to devise a remedy.
MR. BRODRICK: I concur entirely with the suggestions which have just fallen from the honourable and gallant Member that it is desirable to make some regimental distinction. Unfortunately, there is always the difficulty with us that the short jacket never looks well on some figures. There can be no doubt whatever that in any change of this kind the popularity of the uniform has to be taken into account, and where there is a doubt on the point it is best to let well alone. We are anxious to provide for the exigencies of the Service by giving an interchangeable undress jacket, and yet retain the full dress, with all Its regimental associations.
Question put, and agreed to.
On the Vote of £118,200 for establishments for military education.
Question put, and agreed to.
On the Vote of £54,300 for miscellaneous effective services.
Question put, and agreed to
MR. SPEAKERreturned after the usual interval.
On the Vote of £67,200 for scientific services.
DR. CLARK: I desire to call attention to this Vote. It is in the Navy Estimates, and it ought not to be there. You have got two scientific services. One is a Navy Estimate, and it is generally counted as for the United kingdom; the other is a special scientific service in England. The first item of it is for the Astronomer Royal and for the expenses of Greenwich Observatory. I compare that with what the Scotch Astronomer Royal and the Scotch Observatory get, and I find there is a very great difference. I observe that the Astronomer Royal is generally put down as an Imperial personage and the Astronomer Royal of Scotland as a Scotch official. That shows how inadvisable it is for this Vote to be in the Navy Estimates. It ought not to be in the Navy Estimates at all. It ought to be in for special service. All that is paid to the Astronomer Royal for Scotland is £400 a year, whereas in England the Astronomer Royal is paid £1,000 a year. An
780
assistant is paid £600, or more than the salary of the Astronomer Royal for Scotland. It seems you have a very well-equipped laboratory, and you have a number of assistants very well paid. We vote to the Royal Society £15,000 a year for doing exactly analogous work, and the Royal Society is spending the money very badly. Nobody has any control over it except the Astronomer Royal himself. They pay a small committee £1,000 a year, and they give their secretary £800 a year, which is spending the money very foolishly. The whole thing ought to be changed. I strongly object to the amount coming in this Estimate. There is next an item for the observatory at the Cape of Good Hope. The Astronomer gets £900 a year, or more than twice the amount the Astronomer Royal for Scotland gets. It appears that the Astronomer Royal for Scotland is a much less important personage than one of the assistants out at the Cape of Good Hope, for you pay the chief assistant out at the Cape from £500 to £600 a year. We have just now a very important observatory on Ben Nevis, the highest observatory in Great Britain, and it would have had to be closed this year had it not been for a public-spirited citizen who has come forward and subscribed £500, which will enable the observatory to be carried on for another year. And yet, if we go as far as the Cape, we find as much as £7,000 a year spent on the observatory. I want to know whether the Admiralty will take this very admirable observatory on Ben Nevis under their wing and give us £500 to maintain it. Otherwise we will require to move next year one or two reductions, in order to see if, by a little economy, we can get something to maintain this observatory.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: It is rather for the Treasury than for the Admiralty to decide whether the observatory at Ben Nevis shall be maintained at the cost of the State. I have no doubt that very excellent work is being done there. But the work done at the Cape of Good Hope is especially valuable to the Admiralty; it is one to which we attach very great importance, and not too much is paid for it.

781
On the Vote of £237,000 for the Royal Naval Reserves,
SIR C. DILKE: I am sure the Committee will be glad of anything the First Lord of the Admiralty can tell us with regard to the progress made with the new Naval Reserve.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The new system has been working admirably during the past year. The essence of the new system is that the men who go to sea are to have six months' training. There was a time when the scheme rather hung fire, but certain slight changes have been made, and we have been able to obtain as many men anxious to go to sea for six months as we have been able to accommodate in our ships. The right honourable Baronet will see that it must be mainly in the Channel and Mediterranean ships and vessels near home that the men must be placed. It is only a limited number of men we can accommodate. I think about 750 men have been afloat at one time—that is to say, quite as many as we were anticipating. What is particularly satisfactory is that these men have been inspected, and they have proved to be most excellent material. I have had an opportunity of seeing some of them; and the Admiral Superintendent of Reserves had seen them in considerable numbers, and his report of them was particularly good—they were amenable and got into the way of the ship. I have also had reports from captains. One captain wrote to the Admiralty—
"If you can send me 50 more men of this class I shall be glad to have them in my ship."
The general result of the scheme was most satisfactory. I hope that is the kind of information the right honourable Gentleman desires.
SIR C. DILKE: I am sure the Committee will be very glad to hear the satisfactory report the right honourable Gentleman has made on this subject. I should be glad to hear what steps have been taken towards an extension of the Reserve system in the Colonies. In Newfoundland especially you have an enormous class of hardy fishermen whose wages are very low. It appears to some of us that when it becomes necessary to increase the Reserve a substantial and
782
valuable force could be obtained from Newfoundland, if necessary.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Yes; I had an opportunity of seeing the Premier of Newfoundland when he was here, and we went very fully into the subject. We agreed that certain experiments should be made. He offered that all facilities for making an experiment should be granted; and we agreed that we must ascertain whether the colony will submit to it—whether the sea-going population would go to sea for six months for the necessary tests. If they will, I will do all I can to bring about the experiment. If we can arrive at a satisfactory arrangement we will.
Vote agreed to.
Votes of £232,900 for miscellaneous effective services, and of £60,300 for additional naval force for service in Australasian waters, agreed to.
Progress was reported, and the House resumed.

BENEFICES (No. 2) BILL. CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I move that the Lords' Amendments be now considered.
Question put, and agreed to.
Several formal Amendments proposed, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 1, line 17, leave out 'hereditament,' and insert 'with an estate in land of not less than one hundred acres, situate in the parish in which the benefice is situate, or in an adjoining parish, and belonging to the same owner, as the advowson, and any person who offers any right of patronage for sale by auction in contravention of this section, or who bids at any such sale, shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine, not exceeding one hundred pounds.'"
Question put.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I do not intend to divide the House upon this Amendment, but I wish to call the attention of the House to its absurd and hypocritical character. One would suppose from the fact that so heavy a penalty as £100 is imposed upon anyone who offers an advowson for sale,

783
or anyone who bids, at a sale by auction, of an advowson, that the Legislature means the sale of advowsons to be stopped. The Bill, as it left this House, enacted that—
"It shall not be lawful to offer for sale by public auction any right of patronage, save in the case of an advowson to be sold in conjunction with any manor or hereditament."
That, in my opinion, was a very unreasonable distinction, but the Amendment to which the sanction of this House is new asked creates another more absurd still, in my judgment, for it provides that the advowson may not be sold, except—
"With, an estate in land of not less than one hundred acres, situate in the parish in which the benefice is situate, or in an adjoining parish, and belonging to the same owner as the advowson."
That is to say, the owner of an advowson, if he happens to be> in possession of land to the extent of 100 acres, may sell it by auction in conjunction with the estate, but if he happens to possess less than 100 acres, then he is liable to the penalty imposed by this Amendment. Now, the operation of the law, if it be passed in this form, may be illustrated by reference to a gentleman who has attained of late unenviable notoriety. The Bishop of Southwell has thought fit to dispose of the advowson of Risley to Mr. Hooley, who happens to have an estate in the parish. I suppose the Official Liquidator will feel bound to dispose of that advowson for the benefit of the creditors. I do not know the extent of Mr. Hooley's landed estate, but if he happens to possess 100 acres in Risley parish then this advowson may be sold by auction in conjunction with the estate, just as it can be sold by auction now; but if he is the owner of less than 100 acres then he is precluded—the Official Liquidator will be precluded—from selling by auction, and he will have to have recourse to a clerical agent to effect the transaction. What is the difference between the two cases? Simply the difference between publicity and secrecy. In the one case the offender against the law will suffer a penalty of £100, and if he makes a bid in private, or a succession of bids, in private, at the office of a clerical agent, then he escapes punishment. If we are to have these ugly transactions in the name of religion and in connection with the Church, I would rather they were
784
open to the public than that they were carried on in secrecy. The truth is that this part of the Bill is solemn make-believe. It is intended to produce the impression on the public mind that the sales of advowsons by public auction are to be altogether stopped, whereas that is not the case. The traffic, this hateful traffic, is to be conducted with fresh sanction on the part of the Legislature. It is a mere whitening of the sepulchre, while the rottenness within remains untouched.
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 2, line 8, after 'section,' insert 'or commits any breach of the promissory part of his declaration.'"
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 3, line 3, after the first 'ground,' insert 'included in section 2 of this Act, or of unfitness or disqualification of the presentee otherwise sufficient in law.'"
"Page 3, line 6, after 'presentee,' insert 'in the prescribed manner.'"
"Page 3, line 9, after 'archbishop,' insert 'of the province.'"
"Page 3, line 10, leave out from 'court' to 'and,' in line 11, and insert 'who shall be nominated by the Lord Chancellor from time to time for the purposes of this Act.'"
"Page 3, line 12, leave out 'instituted,' and insert 'constituted.'"
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 3, lines 15 and 16, leave out 'his decision thereon and his finding,' and insert 'find.'"
"Page 3, line 17, after 'disqualification.' insert 'and his decision on such questions of law and his finding as to any such fact.'"
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 4, lines 8 and 9, leave out 'of—(a),' and insert 'in the case of the first and second presentations by a patron in respect of the same vacancy of.'"
"Page 4, line 10, after 'or,' insert 'of.'"
"Page 4, line 11, leave out '(b).'
"Page 4, line 12, after 'refusal,' insert 'nor.'"
"Page 4, line 13, leave out '(c),' and after 'banefice,' insert 'of.'"
MR. GEDGE: I wish to say, Sir, I do not understand lines 8 and 9. What is meant to be left in and what is meant to be left out? Perhaps the honourable Member in charge of the Bill will explain.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir R. FINLAY,): My honourable Friend will see in a moment we are obliged to make the alteration by excepting the two periods—the period between a presentation by a patron and the refusal by the bishop to institute or admit the presentee, and the period between the refusal of the bishop to institute or admit and the decision of the Court upon such refusal—or the thing might go on indefinitely. You might have 10 presentations, and until by gathering up the periods between each you got a period of six months, which might take 50 years, you might have no means of presenting the unhappy parish with an incumbent.
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 4, line 17, at the beginning of clause 6, insert—
"(1) A patron may not present again a person who has been refused by the bishop in respect of the same vacancy, and any such second presentation shall be void."
MR. GEDGE: Does that mean at any future time?
SIR R. FINLAY: It is in respect of the same vacancy.
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"After clause 6, insert clause (A)—
"(A) So much of the Statutes 3 and 4 James I., cap. 5, sect. 13, and 1 William and Mary, cap. 26, sect. 2, is hereby repealed as prevents the Chancellor and scholars of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge from presenting or nominating to the benefices and livings there mentioned persons already holding any benefice with cure of souls, provided that nothing be done in contravention of the other Acts regulating the holding of benefices in plurality. And further the said universities shall be permitted to elect to such benefices and to any other benefices or livings that are or may hereafter be in their patronage, and to exercise any other rights that they may possess in respect to them in any way that they may hereafter, by statute or ordinance of the university made in the ordinary
786
manner, from time to time determine to be expedient."
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"Line 23, leave out 'Act,' and insert 'Acts.'"
"Line 27, leave out 'chairman of quarter sessions of the county,' and insert 'person who has presided as chairman of the last preceding quarter sessions for the county or division of the county in which the benefice is situated.'"
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"Line 34, leave out from the first 'the,' to 'as,' in line 36, and insert 'ecclesiastical duties of a benefice are inadequately performed, and that this is due to the negligence of the incumbent of the benefice in the performance of those duties (which report the Commission is hereby empowered to make) the bishop, if he thinks the appointment of a curate desirable, shall himself appoint a curate or curates.'"
COLONEL SANDYS: The point which I wish to draw the attention of the House to is the word "negligence." I should like this word "negligence" to be a little more clearly denned, and I should also like to know that it is not the intention of the framer of this Amendment to use "negligence" as a lever by which to oppress a certain section of the clergy of the Church of England, and I would explain to the House in a very few words, in a straightforward way, what I have in my mind. I believe it to be the intention of certain persons who are connected with the Church of England to insist that every incumbent in the Church of England shall hold daily services within their churches. Many of my honourable Friends say, "Hear, hear!" and I perfectly understand the ground they take, but there are others of us who think that the holding of daily services in all churches throughout this country would be unnecessary, and even oppressive. There are many places in the country where the daily services would have no people to attend it, and there are many places also where there is only one incumbent, on whom, it would be a great burden to have to conduct a service daily. Therefore I should like to be perfectly satisfied, I should like to be assured, that the term "negligence" shall not be held to include, to mean, the holding of daily service in the Church;

787
and unless I have an assurance to that effect I intend to divide the House upon that question.
SIR R. FINLAY: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my honourable and gallant Friend I may say I do not think his observations are really pertinent to the Lords' Amendments, because, if he will look at the clause as it went up from this House he will find there we have the adjective "negligent." There does not appear to me to be any difference between the adjective "negligent," and the substantive "negligence" as it came back from the Lords. I may say, also, that if any question arose as to the obligation to have daily services that really would be a question of the law of the Church, which would have to be decided in the regular way in the Courts.
COLONEL SANDYS: I accept the assurance of my honourable and learned Friend that it is not intended that "negligence" shall cover that particular point.
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 5, line 7, after 'pluralities,' insert 'Acts Amendment.'"
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 5, line 19, after 'province,' insert—
"(5) An incumbent so inhibited shall not be liable to any penalty or forfeiture for non-residence, but section ninety-three of the Pluralities Act, 1838, shall apply as if the incumbent were not resident as therein mentioned, and thereupon section ninety-four of the same Act shall apply as in the case where the curate's stipend is not less than the whole value of the benefice. The incumbent shall remain liable for repairs, but shall be entitled to retain out of the curate's stipend such amount in respect of repairs during the curate's occupation, and shall be entitled to such facilities for executing repairs as the bishop may, in case of difference, decide to be reasonable."
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 5, line 20, after 'appeal,' insert 'against the appointment of a curate by the bishop under this section and.'"
"Page 5, line 21, after 'after,' insert 'such appointment or.'"
"Page 5, line 26, leave out 'inhibition,' and insert 'appointment and inhibition if any.'"
"Page 5, line 28, after 'thereof,' insert 'the said appointment should have been made and also whether.'"
"Page 5, line 29, after 'from,' insert 'performing.'"
"Page 5, line 33, after 'Act,' insert 'with respect to procedure.'"
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"After clause 8, insert clause (B)—
"In the case of incumbents presented or collated after the commencement of this Act, if on bankruptcy, or in aid of any writ of execution against property, the benefice of any such incumbent is sequestrated within twelve months after his institution, or if such sequestration, if issued after that period, continues for the space of one whole year, or if any such incumbent incurs two such sequestrations in the space of two years, the benefice shall, unless the bishop in the manner and within the time to be prescribed, otherwise direct, become void, and section fifty-eight of the Pluralities Act, 1838, shall apply in like manner as if the benefice had become void under that section."
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 5, line 36, after 'prescribed,' insert 'and for defining the duties of the officials by whom registration is to be effected.'"
"Page 5, line 38, after 'Act,' insert 'and the application thereof for the remuneration of the officials in the registry in respect of such registration and inspection.'"
"Page 5, line 41, after 'inhibition,' insert 'or appointment of a curate.'"
"Page 5, line 42, after 'court,' insert 'and otherwise for carrying the purposes of this Act into effect.'"
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 6, line 1, after 'made,' insert 'for the purpose of framing rules under this section the judge nominated by the Lord Chancellor for the purposes of this Act shall be added to the said Rule Committee if not already a member thereof.'"
"Page 6, line 3, after 'possible,' insert 'the fees paid in respect of proceedings in the court, under this Act shall be paid over to the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who shall, out of such common fund, defray all the expenses of and incidental to the sittings of the court and the remuneration of its officers, and all expenses which are necessarily incurred in the execution of tins Act in such proceedings: Provided that no portion of any fund destined for the relief of necessitous incumbents shall be applied to the payment of the aforesaid expenses.'"
"Page 6, line 13, after 'Crown,' insert 'or of the Duchy of Cornwall.'"
"Page 6, line 17, after 'institution,' insert 'nor to any private chapel.'"
"Page 6, line 19, leave out 'Act,' and insert 'Acts.'"
"Page 6, line 22, after 'bishop,' insert—
"(3) In section nine of this Act, and in the Pluralities Act, 1838, and the Pluralities Acts Amendment Act, 1885, the expression 'ecclesiastical duties' shall, in all respects, include those duties mentioned in section two of the Pluralities Acts Amendment Act, 1885, and also the observance of all the promises as to conduct which every clergyman of the Church of England solemnly makes at the time of his ordination; and the expression 'negligence in the performance of ecclesiastical duties shall include wilful default in the performance of such duties."
Question put.
MR. GEDGE: Sir, I wish the House to disagree with, this, the last of the Lords' Amendments. It introduces a new definition of "ecclesiastical duties." A great deal of pains was taken in the Standing Committee that these words should be limited to certain duties of clergymen, and special care was taken that the phrase should not enable any bishop to refuse presentation to a clergyman on the ground that he had not had twice a day the whole Morning and Evening Services in his church every day in the week, and also that he had Evening Communion, as to both which there is a great division in the Church of England. It is notorious that for three centuries daily services were almost unknown except in cathedrals, college chapels, and similar places of worship; but of late years there has sprung up an idea that it is absolutely the duty of a clergyman, however hard worked in other directions, to hold this daily service; and a certain party in the Church make a very great point of it. They are increasing in number, but still, at the same time, at the present moment, in a large proportion of the churches of England there is not twice a day daily service in the church, and to make it compulsory on every clergyman to do so, and by a side-wind, would be very unfortunate and unnecessary. If it is the law let it be so decided by the Counts, and that party in the Church to which I have the honour to belong will cheerfully obey any law which is laid down. I am afraid that if we accept the definition of the words "ecclesiastical duties" which has been put in this clause at the last moment, which is extending it far beyond the definition, which we came to after
790
considerable discussion by those most interested in the matter in the Grand Committee, and which was adopted by this House on Report. I am afraid both these matters may be included, a thing which a very large number of the members of the Church of England have protested against. It does not seem necessary that we should enlarge the definition which this House has adopted. We have not time to discuss it at length. We have it from the Archbishop of Canterbury that, while certain Amendments were to be moved, he would be sorry to stop the Bill on account of any Amendment; and as we have agreed to accept every other Amendment I hope this one will not be pressed. This is a matter which really affects a great number of people, a large portion of the clergy of the Church of England, and I think in such a matter as a definition of the words "ecclesiastical duties," when this House had adopted a definition which would suit us all—as contained in the Bill when it came up from the Standing Committee and passed by this House—I submit to the House that it would be a very great mistake for this alteration, made in the other House, to be agreed to. I hope they will differ from it.
COMMANDER BETHELL: Sir, it is quite clear that if the expression "negligence" is to include such matters as my honourable and gallant Friend referred to earlier in the evening, we certainly ought to have an explanation of the Lords' Amendment. I do not think the word "negligence" can be such a, matter as the very questionable question whether daily service ought to be performed by the clergy or not.
SIR R. WEBSTER: Mr. Speaker, I must say, having regard to what has passed in this House since this matter was under discussion, I think it is, perhaps, a little late to suggest that we are to be bound by any particular view which was expressed in the Grand Committee. After all, the Grand Committee is only a means of presenting the Bill in the best shape to the House, and the House must remember that this Bill has been dealt with in this House in the Report stage, when we had a very animated and interesting discussion as to what the views of the clergy are. It seems to me that the honourable Gentle-

791
man, the Member for Walsall, has entirely overlooked the fact that the clergyman is bound by the words in the clause—
"Also the observance of all the promises as to conduct which every clergyman of the Church of England solemnly makes at the time of his ordination."
Now we certainly have heard enough in this House of the breaches of the promises made by the clergyman at the time of ordination, and, in my judgment, it cannot be suggested that the non-holding of public services under circumstances which would be justifiable according to the law of the Church, could possibly be held to be non-observances of promises as to conduct made by a clergyman at the time of ordination. With regard to the word "negligence," difficulty does not arise, because the clause simply includes in the definition of "negligence" "wilful default in the performance of such duties." Now, I deny that there is any hard and fast rule us to the holding of these services. There are circumstances in which it would be a great dereliction of duty not to hold them, and there may be other circumstances in which the law of the Church would not require them to be held, but including in "eclesiastical duties" "wilful default in the performance of such duties," and also promises as to conduct made at the time of ordination, could not refer to any such matter. I think the Amendment moved in another place has really carried out what was the general feeling in this House on consideration of this Bill on Report, namely, that there shall be an obligation on the clergyman to carry out the vows made on his ordination, and also that he should not be wilfully neglectful of his duties.
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
SIR R. FINLAY: I now move, Mr. Speaker—
"To omit in line 7 of the schedule the words 'from A. B., the position thereof.'"
DR. CLARK: May I put a question upon this? This is not a Lords' Amendment, but a new Amendment proposed by the Government. I have never known new Amendments proposed by the Government when Lords' Amendments were being discussed.
MR. SPEAKER: I understand this is a consequential Amendment.
SIR R. WEBSTER: The Lords introduced an Amendment to clause 1, sub-section 5, respecting a breach of the promissory part of his declaration, making it an offence under the Clergy Discipline Act. That being so, it became necessary to alter the form of the declaration so that it might accord with the actual facts of the case.
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
SIR R. FINLAY: I also beg to move—
"That the words 'with A. B., the patron of the said rectory (or vicarage, etc.), or with any person,' in line 16 and 17, of page 7, be left out."
MR. CALDWELL: Could he explain why?
SIR R. FINLAY: The object is simply to make that applicable to a case where he wanted to institute himself.
MR. CALDWELL: The point was the consequential Amendments upon the Lords' Amendments—not whether these words are proper, but how these words are consequential on the Lords' Amendments.
SIR R. WEBSTER: Both these Amendments are in consequence of the alterations made by the House of Lords.
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.

SUPPLY (28TH JULY).
Report; Order read, for Further Consideration of Postponed Resolution—
"That a sum, not exceeding £245,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge for the salaries and miscellaneous charges of the War Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899."
Resolution agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 18th day of July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
House adjourned at 10.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter-past Four of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  ISLE OF WIGHT RAILWAY (BRADING HARBOUR AND RAILWAY) BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ST. HELEN'S CORPORATION BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
Reported with Amendments, and recommitted for To-morrow.
INDIA OFFICE (STORE DEPOT) BILL.
Reported with an Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
GENERAL POWER DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons of Friday last to be considered To-morrow.
BIRMINGHAM, NORTH WARWICKSHIRE, AND STRATFORD-UPON-AVON RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
LANCASHIRE, DERBYSHIRE, AND EAST COAST RAILWAY BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
MANCHESTER CARRIAGE AND TRAMWAYS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned to the Commons agreed to.
BURNLEY CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS, ETC.) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
IPSWICH DOCK COMMISSION BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
USK VALLEY RAILWAY BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
GREAT NORTH OF SCOTLAND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendment.
NEWHAVEN AND SEAFORD WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendment.
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons' Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (EAST SHEEN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read the third time (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AFRICA (No. 8, 1898).
  Report on the progress of the Mombasa-Victoria. (Uganda) Railway, 1897–98.
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Return of evictions in Ireland, for the quarter ended 30th June, 1898.
  LUNACY (IRELAND).
  Forty-seventh report (with appendices) of the Inspectors of Lunatics (Ireland).

NATIONAL GALLERY (IRELAND).
Report of the Directors of the National Gallery of Ireland to the Board of Governors and Guardians;
Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
Report of the Commissioners, for the period from 1st April, 1897, to 31st March, 1898.

SUPERANNUATION.
Treasury Minutes, dated 22nd July, 1898—

I. Granting a retired allowance to Mr. Percy Charles Johnson, second division clerk in the Money Order Office of the General Post Office.

II. Declaring that William Butler, Royal Carriage Department, War Office, was appointed without a civil service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his department.

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITION.
  ALIENS BILL. [H.L.]
  Against; of persons signing; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
BILLS PASSED.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION (BORDER COUNTY COUNCILS) (No. 2) BILL.
Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
THE PUNJAUB.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I beg to give notice that I propose to-morrow to call attention to the statement that has been made respecting impressments in the Punjaub, and to move for Papers.

RAILWAY CONCESSIONS IN CHINA.
THE EAEL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I rise to ask the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to safeguard British interests as regards railways in, the provinces bordering on the Yang-tse Kiang. I think the noble Marquess will not be surprised, considering the amount of anxiety which appears to prevail very generally in regard to the concessions for railways in China, that I should, before the House separates, give him the opportunity of making any statement he may think desirable on the subject. My Lords, the course of affairs in China seems to me to have been very much in one direction. Our original policy, which we all agreed upon—that of the open door—seems now to be very little more than a council of perfection, and with rapid strides it seems to me that China is being parcelled out into spheres of influence. No one can have read what has taken place in regard to Manchuria without seeing that the Russians are taking the most effective and rapid measures to appropriate the entire control of that country, and to exclude, as far as
650
they can, any foreigners—by which I mean those who are not Russians—from any participation in railway projects in that very important region of China. We are supposed to have a very important sphere of influence in the provinces bordering on the great river Yang-tse-Kiang; and, so far as the use of the river is concerned, I believe we have obtained considerable concessions with regard to navigation from the Chinese Government, which, of course, are very valuable indeed. But it seems to me of importance, as regards commerce in China, that the future will lie chiefly with those who are able to establish a network of railway communications throughout that Empire, and unless the information which reaches us from China is extremely at fault, it would seem as if other Powers are making the most strenuous efforts to obtain the command of the railway communication, even into the Yang-tse-Kiang region. We have heard of a concession which is said to have been made to Belgium. Of course, there is no reason why we should be jealous of the Belgians, if they should embark their capital in useful works in China. But I confess to have considerable suspicions that Belgium will not be alone, and that other Powers will be found to have a finger in the pie. If that should not be so, so much the better. My Lords, the concession to Belgium is, I believe, for a railway from Pekin to Han-kau, which will pass through a most important part of China, and must be regarded as a trunk railway of the first importance. My Lords, there are also rumours, which may have no foundation, that the Germans are contemplating obtaining some concession in the same direction. But perhaps the most remarkable statement of all is one which appeared two or three days ago in the Times newspaper—namely, that a British company, having desired to obtain a concession to make a railway from Kau-Lung to Canton, the French Government remonstrated against the concession on the ground that the province of Kwang-tung lies within then-sphere of influence. Now, it certainly does seem to me, looking at our long connection with that part of China, that the contention that this great province, which includes the city of Canton, should be exclusively the hunting-ground for

651
concessions for one great Power only is one of the most extravagant propositions I ever heard of. Possibly it may have no foundation, for I have, of course, no special information on the subject. But what I wish to point out is that there is never smoke without fire; and the amount of smoke which appears to be passing through these regions in regard to railway concessions must lead anyone to conclude that there is a great deal of fire at the foundation. There cannot be the smallest doubt that Russia and other great Powers are making the most strenuous and determined efforts to appropriate as far as they can the right to use the Chinese Empire for the construction of great railway works. Of course, it may be said that it will be a long time before such great works can be constructed; but I believe that if we do not exert ourselves strenuously now, and see that we are not ousted from our fair share—for we ask for no more—of these great enterprises, we may find, as we have found in other quarters of the world, that we have been supplanted, or that we may have to face the difficulty when there would be more danger and more friction in the position than there is at the present time. My Lords, of course, it may be said that, looking to the traditions of our Government, it is extremely difficult for us to fight with the same weapons as are employed by other Governments. But in a matter of this kind, so deeply affecting the commercial prospects of this country, I cannot but feel that we may be compelled to depart from our usual practice, and I feel quite certain that the noble Marquess and Her Majesty's Government must be sensible of the gravity of these affairs, and must be anxious to do everything in their power to reassure the public mind on this subject. I do not, of course, ask the noble Marquess to reveal to me any diplomatic secrets, or to make any statement which would prejudice any action that Her Majesty's Government may be engaged in; but, nevertheless, I think it may be in his power to indicate in some clear way the policy which Her Majesty's Government are pursuing, and are intending to pursue. My Lords, there is no doubt that the Chinese Government, being extremely weak, is at the mercy of, such great Powers as may not be very scrupulous as
652
to the pressure or even other means that they may use to influence it. We heard when Wei-hai-Wei was acquired that it might be regarded, at all events, as a means of showing the Chinese Government that we were not disposed to be left out in the cold; and if you reflect upon the enormous share of trade still possessed by us in those regions, if you reflect upon the whole history of our connection with China, where we have played a far greater part than any other Power, I think that Her Majesty's Government has a right to expect that the Chinese Government will listen to their remonstrances; and I should hope that such pressure may be applied, if necessary, as may prevent the Chinese from making concessions to other Powers which are obviously directed against British interests. I need not mention the great efforts which are made to prevent Englishmen being employed on such works. But all these things are indications that no means will be left untried, be they fair means or foul means, to damage our interests and establish other Powers in regions where we, at all events, have the right to exercise great influence and to have a larger share. We have had numerous discussions in regard to China, and there is no necessity, therefore, to repeat the general arguments over again. I will therefore conclude by simply asking the noble Marquess the Question of which I have given notice.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OP STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I listened to the noble Earl with great interest, because he is a man with a very clear head, and I hoped I should trace in his speech an apprehension of the confusion which commonly attends the discussion of these matters. The noble Earl was, in effect, making an arraignment, though in all moderate language, of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. I was very anxious to see what he thought it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do. My belief—and, I imagine, his belief also'—is that the duty of the Government in foreign countries is to give protection, and, so far as in their power lies, assistance to all British subjects who have commercial or other

653
enterprises to conduct, and to take care that they are not treated with injustice or illegality. What a different conception has animated much of the discussion we have had on this Chinese question! The impression seems to be—and I am not satisfied that the noble Earl is free from it—that it is part of the duty of Her Majesty's Government to trace out plans for railways in that foreign country, to construct railways, to find capitalists and undertakers, and to provide the capital. If that is the impression of the noble Earl, I can only say that I do not share it. And that my view is not entirely imaginary as to the doctrines which prevail, I will merely cite the utterances of some commercial bodies. I have received addresses from Worcester, Waddington, Stockton, and, I think, two or three other places, in which they urge that Her Majesty's Government—I will quote their own words—should lose no time in insisting upon a concession for a railway from the Burmese frontier to the Yang-tse-Kiang River, with a branch line to Canton, and a line connecting Canton with Han-kau. So far as I can see, that means, at least, 2,000 miles of railway as the crow flies, and probably considerably more. Then the London China Association has to-day published a letter impressing upon us with scarcely less emphasis that it would be immeasurably preferable that important trunk lines should be laid by China herself with foreign capital, and suggesting that Parliament might be invited to protect British interests by a British guarantee. If we came to a discussion of this question, I think I could show grounds for thinking that such a policy would be unwise. But what I wish, as a preliminary step, to insist upon is that as the tradition of the English Government has been for generations in the opposite direction, and its conduct in such matters is well known, it would not be fitting, it would not be tolerable, for the Executive Government of the country to undertake an entire reversal of the traditional policy of the country without giving to Parliament some opportunity of expressing its opinion thereupon. I am bound to say that I see in no authoritative quarter any indication of a support of such a policy. Perhaps I ought to accept the language of the noble Earl
654
to-night; but he spoke very vaguely, and I cannot fasten on him such a policy without a more distinct avowal. But there has been no resolution, no Vote of Parliament, no avowal of policy, from any person of political authority or position of any party, which would justify the adoption of such a line of action as that which is recommended to us by these commercial bodies. I do not, therefore, believe that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to make railways in China, or to find the money for making them; and I wish to state that quite clearly, that I may not seem, by silence or avoidance, to admit such an extraordinary extension of the duties of the-diplomatic profession. But then, perhaps, the noble Earl will say to me, "I quite agree that it is your duty to help British subjects in their commercial enterprises, and to protect them, but why do not you help British subjects in undertaking to make railways in this foreign country?" My answer, which I might put in a proverbial form, is that there are no British subjects to help. There is one railway—I must not mention names or go into details—but there is one railway for which, I believe, up to a certain point, a British syndicate has sought, and has obtained, a preliminary concession. But even in regard to that the terms are not settled. With respect to other railways, I have never heard anything on the side of English capitalists, except the claim that on account of the general importance of Chinese trade the British Government should guarantee the railway capital necessary to construct the important trunk lines in China. Now, of course, we may be indulging in premature discussion. It is quite possible that British capitalists may come forward, and if they come forward the noble Earl may be certain that Her Majesty's Government will do all in their power to obtain for them concessions for the work they undertake, and I think we may claim that we have, for the purpose of persuading the Chinese Government, a diplomatist of singular ability and success in Sir Claude MacDonald, and that all that can be done will be done by him to obtain just and equal treatment for British applicants for concessions to make railways in China. But until applications are made, and until the concessions

655
are asked for, of course his intervention will be of no use. I am speaking, of course, with respect to the Yang-tse-Kiang Valley, because that is the matter to which the noble Earl has specially pointed my attention. I shall come in a moment to another matter that he raised, with respect to the Canton railway, which is not in the Yang-tse-Kiang Valley, but which undoubtedly deserves our attention. Now, I maintain that it is not our duty to make railways until we are masters of a country, which could only happen after a successful war. We cannot force the Chinese Government to give concessions, but we can, I think, urge upon them such arguments that in a general way would induce them to give proper treatment to the applications of British subjects when they are made. The Chinese Government we have hitherto found certainly well-intentioned to this country, and though I think they have a shrewd view of their own interests, and are very anxious that the possession of railways shall not be made a means of taking the government, of their country out of their hands, I believe they are exceedingly well disposed towards British applications. But there is one apprehension which I think I traced in the speech of the noble Earl, and which I have frequently heard; it lies at the bottom of all the uneasiness of this matter. It is not that people deny the right of the Chinese Government to settle this matter for themselves, if they are left alone, but it is, I believe, that they are threatened by other Powers into giving undue advantages to those Powers to the detriment of English applications. It is very difficult to know how far that impression is correct. There are a good many things stated in the papers for which I cannot find any foundation. But no doubt the Russians—the diplomatists of other countries are skilful in all the arts of persuasion, and some of the arts of persuasion which they employ I think belong to that category which the noble Earl alluded to when he said it was not open to us with our traditions to adopt. But as regards the matter of threatening to take aggressive action if a concession is granted to a British applicant, that is a point upon which we have a clear right to be heard, and have a power to interpose; and we therefore, about a fortnight
656
ago, communicated to Sir Claude MacDonald this instruction—
"You are authorised to inform the Chinese Government that Her Majesty's Government will support them in resisting any Power which commits an act of aggression on China on account of China having granted permission to make or support any railway or public work to a British subject."
Well, that is the utmost we can do. We are willing to repeat that, and act upon it. It is obvious that it is the utmost we can do. We will support China if there is any attempt to bully or drive her into refusing British applications. My belief is that we shall gain our full share of profitable railways, but our capitalists are very good men of business, and I do not think they are in the least inclined to risk their money in unprofitable railways. One railway of which I hear very much is the railway from the borders of Burma to the Yang-tse-Kiang. It looks to me as if it would be a railway of exceedingly doubtful value. It passes over most impracticable country, and a country much of which is very sparsely populated. But I think you must bear in mind that in all new countries English capital has hitherto not entered upon railway enterprise, you may say generally without the assistance of a Government guarantee. In India, populated, wealthy, orderly as it is, every railway of importance has been made with a Government guarantee. In South America, where there is an enormous mass of British capital invested in railways, in almost every case the undertaking was begun by a concession, or the promise from the Government whichever it was, of a Government guarantee. You will get no Government guarantee of that kind from China; in the first place, because they do not very much wish for railways; and, secondly, because I do not think they have the money. But you cannot, without departing from every tradition that you have hitherto observed, supply its place by offering that guarantee yourself. That consideration, no doubt, hinders the application of British capital to the construction of railways in China. I do not think it will hinder it entirely. I think it is probable that we shall have some profitable parts, but I believe that our nerves must prepare themselves for witnessing the bestowal of

657
unprofitable concessions upon our rivals and our neighbours. No doubt a great noise will be made at the time that those concessions are granted; there is something almost morbid in the tendency to believe that no bargain can go on with China on the part of any Power without its being really a concealed bargain on the part of Russia. As far as our information goes, derived both from China and from Belgium, we have no doubt whatever that it is a complete mistake to imagine that this Pekin-Han-kau railway is in the hands of Russia; it is in the hands of a number of Belgian syndicates and firms, who obtained the first promise of the concession some 15 or 18 months ago. I have endeavoured to indicate to the noble Earl the extent to which, and the means by which, we think it our duty to intervene in this matter of railway concession in China. I have only one thing more to which I should like to direct his attention—has he satisfied himself that the construction of a railway in a country will give you political power in that country? I do not know on what precedent that very popular doctrine is founded. We have an admirable railway, the chairman of which is a well-known Member of this House—the Smyrna Railway. I believe that is one of the few Turkish lines which pay; but I never heard that the construction of that line by British capital, or its officering by British directors, has given to England the slightest influence or control over the Asiatic provinces of the Sultan. The lines in Eastern Roumelia were made by Baron Hirsch; but I have never heard that Austria has obtained from that success on Baron Hirsch's part the slightest influence in the management of Eastern Roumelia. If you come to examine it in detail, I do not see how the liberty to make a railway and to run a railway can give to any foreign country a political power over China. I quite admit that if the concession is allowed to run in such a form as to give an unequal right to Russia, if they can exclude or hamper in any degree our trade—I quite agree we should be very deeply wronged and that it would be a substantial breach of the Treaty of Tien-tsin, on which we rely, and which we shall resist to the very utmost of our power. But my own inclination is to say that, granted that
658
sufficient care is taken that there is no undue favouritism in the administration of the railway, if other Powers are disposed to make railways which our capitalists do not choose to undertake, then it is rather a matter for congratulation to us than for lamentation. At all events, it would not be possible for us to adopt, as a last alternative, that which was addressed to us in one sentence of the noble Earl's speech, which I think he must have expressed unintentionally, and that is, if we could not make the railway ourselves we should prevent anybody else making it.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I certainly did not intend to convey that. I may have used language which conveyed it, but that was not the intention which was in my mind.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I am very glad to hear that disclaimer. That is a policy which it would be perfectly impossible for us to pursue. If our capitalists are able and willing to make railways in the Yang-tsze Valley, or anywhere else, we will give them the utmost possible support, but if they cannot we will not try to deprive the Chinese people of the benefits of railway construction. My Lords, that is the only answer I have to make to the Question of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Marquess said he would refer to the action of the French Government with reference to the proposed railway I mentioned—the railway from Kau-Lung to Canton.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I cannot believe that the French Minister has done anything so ill-advised. It is an intolerable pretension, and we are bound to support China against any Power who makes the grant of commercial facilities to a British subject the ground of aggressive action. I will only say our object is to maintain the open door, and I still declare that we have done so. Our object is that our rights under the Treaty of Tien-tsin shall be in no way invalidated or invaded, and that object we will pursue to the best

659
of our ability. But, whether capital should be found to make railways in China, and whether that capital should be English capital, or capital of other nations, that is a thing which will depend more upon the action of others than Her Majesty's Government, and is a matter for which Her Majesty's Government are not responsible.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.
  Order for the reconsideration of the Commons' Amendments read.
  Several of the said Amendments agreed to.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: My Lords, I agree with the Motion of the Lord Chancellor that the House should accept the Commons' Amendments down to the point he has indicated. My absence on circuit prevented me having an opportunity when this Bill was before your Lordships' House of expressing my views upon it, and I therefore ask your Lordships' permission to do so now. I am the more anxious to express my views upon this Bill, because of the character of the criticisms to which the Bill has been subjected. Some of the criticisms undoubtedly have been directed towards it from persons well able to speak upon the matter. Their views are therefore entitled to consideration, but I think a great many of the criticisms have certainly not been of a very enlightened or a very well-informed character, and have proceeded from quarters not particularly well able to usefully criticise this Measure. For my own part, I hail this Bill with great satisfaction. Your Lordships are now, in part—not fully, but in part.—giving effect to the policy started as long ago as the year 1878 by one of the most experienced and distinguished criminal lawyers this country has ever produced.
  660
  I mean the Recorder of London, Mr. Russell Gurney, who supported the Bill introduced in 1878—I think it was by Mr. Evelyn Ashley—which went even further in some respects than the Bill now before your Lordships. What has been the policy of the Legislature since that Act? There have been altogether some 25 statutes passed, many of them dealing with very important subjects, as to which, under, not one Government, but several different Governments, the law has provided that a person accused of the subject-matter dealt with in those. Bills shall have a full opportunity of being heard, and of being heard upon oath. The position, therefore, is this: if the opponents of the Bill, the critics of this Bill, are to be consistent, they ought to ask this House and the Legislature to reverse the policy of the last 20 years, and to repeal some 25 Acts of Parliament. My Lords, speaking for myself, with a professional experience1 which is not a brief one, and so far as my judicial experience goes, I have never had brought to my attention or notice one single case in which the existence of the law as it now is, after the passage of these various Acts, has been the cause of any injustice to anyone. On the contrary, I have a strong belief that, while it is possible to conceive cases in which an unscrupulous and adroit person charged with an offence may escape the punishment of his offence, yet I believe such a case would be of a most exceptional kind. But I cannot conceive any case in which an innocent person will be in any way prejudiced or damnified by having the facility given to him of tendering evidence upon oath upon the matter of which the Bill treats. Nobody can doubt that theoretically the provisions made by this Bill is absolutely right. A person charged is the most interested and knows most about the subject-matter, and yet, according to our law, he is to be excluded, in a certain number of cases—some of them the more important cases—from giving his own explanation, on oath, and subject to cross-examination.. The inconsistency of the position is made more marked, I think, by drawing attention to one of the existing provisions of

  661
  our law. In the preliminary inquiries into indictable offences a magistrate, before he is entitled to commit a prisoner for trial, is bound by the law to inform the accused person that he may, if he desires, make any statement, and at the same time he is warned that if he makes a statement it may be used as evidence against him. He is, therefore, allowed to make a statement, but what is the character and weight of that statement? It is not evidence in the ordinary sense of the term at all. It is evidence, of course, against the man who makes it, but it is not evidence of the facts contained in the statement; and a judge, dealing with the statement of a prisoner under such circumstances, is compelled to do this—absolutely he can do no more—to tell the jury that the statement of the prisoner made before the magistrate is not evidence in point of law, because, according to the law of this country, except where a statutory exception is made, the evidence must be given upon oath, or upon the equivalent; and all the judge can tell the jury is to take into account the statement, to view it in the light of their impression of what the probabilities of the facts involved are, and if that statement fits in with, and is consistent with, their view of the true facts of the case, then they may, in that indirect way, give effect to the statement. That is not, I venture to submit, a satisfactory position in which to leave the matter, and it seems to me, therefore, that the propositions in the Bill are theoretically right. The 25 Acts of Parliament giving the accused party the opportunity of tendering evidence has worked well, and I see no reason whatever to apprehend in future that the extension which this Bill proposes will not work equally well. There are two points as to which I desire to say a word. Once you admit an accused person to be accepted as a witness, to be competent as a witness, it seems to me that it is impossible logically to maintain any kind of artificial safeguards as to the cross-examination of that witness, and for this reason: the object is, after all, to get at what is the force and effect of the statement the man makes, and you cannot get at the true estimate of what is its force unless it is subjected to the ordinary test of truth—cross-examination. I there-
  662
  fore am strongly of opinion that the limitation of cross-examination which this Bill proposes is not one that is logically defensible and cannot be long maintained. I admit that the point raises a question of considerable importance, and I should be unwilling, especially at this stage of the Bill, and at this period of the Session, to raise any topic which might imperil the passing of the Bill, which I regard as a great boon, and which I believe will operate for good, so far as it goes. The Bill makes the evidence of the husband against the wife and the wife against the husband admissible in certain cases in which it has not hitherto been admissible. It seems to me the time has come when the evidence of both the one and the other ought to be, not only competent, but compellable. The law as it is at the present moment is not possibly defensible. For instance, a wife who has been wounded by her husband is a competent witness to give evidence against him; but if the husband has killed one of her children, and one of his children, she is not a competent witness. This is an extraordinary state of the law, which ought to be set right as speedily as possible. My Lords, I do not intend to occupy the time of your Lordships further, but I did think that, holding the position I do in relation to the criminal judicature of this country, I should avail myself of the opportunity of saying that I regard this Bill as an important step in the right direction, and that I cannot anticipate that it will work any injustice in the administration of the criminal law.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I am sure it will be felt that the speech we have just listened to from the Lord Chief Justice is likely to prove a speech of great utility. During the progress of this Bill through Parliament many adverse criticisms have been applied to its provisions, and much prophecy has existed that it will prove an engine of injustice. I say, my Lords, it is satisfactory to hear the Lord Chief Justice of England, who must represent, to a great extent, the judges of this country, expressing the confident opinion that the Bill ill be a great aid to the administration of true and complete justice. My Lards,

  663
  it is but to be expected, when a great reform of this kind is proposed, that many persons should be somewhat frightened at its application, and we find from experience that very often opposition to legal reform comes from within our profession more than from without. There are many who can recollect the strong objection that was made to that legislation which allowed parties to a civil suit to give evidence, and it was then foretold, on the authority of the judges, that it would be impossible to secure true verdicts if such evidence were allowed. It is somewhat interesting to read the account which was given by the Lord Chief Justice of that time of that intended reform. Lord Campbell, in his diary, says—
  "The great controversy now is upon the Evidence Bill, allowing the parties to be examined against and for themselves. The Bill is opposed, as might be expected, by the Lord Chancellor. If it passes it will create a new era in the administration of justice in this country. I support it, and I think it will be carried, although the Common Law judges, with one exception, are hostile to it."
  After four years' experience of that Act—in 1856—he adds the note—
  "The Act has been made to work most admirably. All mankind praise it."
  That was a reform very similar to the one which is now proposed, and experience has proved that it is a wise and just provision. For 20 years now some of us have been working in support of this Bill, and the experience of those who have had to deal, either as advocates or as judges, with the administration of law, if it could be fully told, would confirm the opinion that this reform can only result in justice. The great object we should have in view in the administration of criminal justice is that no innocent man should be convicted. It is an evil, doubtless, that a guilty man should escape, but of far more importance than the escape of a guilty man is the conviction of an innocent man. I could give you many instances wherein gross injustice has proceeded from the present state of the law. If your Lordships will forgive me, I should like to mention two of them. An elderly gentleman of position, 80 years of age, was indicted criminally for having placed a prospectus fraudulently before
  664
  the public. He was convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. Immediately after the expiration of his term of imprisonment he had to defend a civil action brought against him on the same ground—the issue of this prospectus—and in the trial he went into the witness-box, gave his evidence, supported his statement with documents, and thereupon the jury stopped the case, giving a verdict for the defendant, the judge remarking that there was not the slightest ground for the assertion that he had been guilty of fraud. If in the criminal suit he could have given evidence on oath, he would never have suffered the injustice and indignity which he had to bear. Another instance arose under the administration of the Explosives Act, which was passed through every stage, under the direction of my right honourable Friend Sir William Harcourt, in a single day, for the purpose of punishing persons in possession of explosives. Twenty years' penal servitude was the sentence to be imposed upon those who had explosives in their possession under certain circumstances. The following year after the passing of the Act a man was indicted for having explosives in his possession under circumstances which entailed the heavier sentence. Happily, as the Lord Chief Justice has stated, wherever we have created a new offence, we have, for the past 20 years, always allowed the accused person to give evidence. The person to whom I am referring had against him a primâ facie case, containing almost certain proof that he was guilty. He went into the witness-box and explained away the evidence. It is true that one juryman refused to find a verdict of "not guilty," but the remainder wished to return a verdict of acquittal. The law officers of that time had to inquire into the facts, which led to the abandonment of the prosecution. But for the clause allowing the accused to give evidence upon oath, that man would probably now be undergoing penal servitude. I have had before me many other cases of a similar character, but I do not wish to detain your Lordships by referring to them. But I desire to offer my sincere congratulations to my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack upon the result of his persistent

  665
  and determined efforts to secure this great reform. Many attempts have been made to pass this Measure into law. Some of us, as private Members of the House of Commons, have had charge of the Bill, but all our efforts failed. My noble Friend Lord Herschell, as Chancellor, made several attempts to bring this Measure into force, but in those attempts he failed also. But the determination, I may say the pertinacity, of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor have at last succeeded, and in time to come many an innocent man who will secure his freedom through the provisions of this Bill ought gratefully to associate the benefit he receives with the name of my noble Friend.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to say one word with regard to the criticisms that have been referred to. I observe that in some criticisms of the Bill it has been suggested that there is a possibility that innocent persons might be convicted who otherwise would be acquitted by reason of their being exposed to cross-examination. The only reply I have to make to this is that, after 20 years' experience of the result of allowing defendants to give evidence, nobody can assert that in a single instance an accused person has suffered from giving evidence. It does appear to me that that is one of those facts which is worth a great deal.
  Other Amendments considered.
  LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: My Lords, I should like, in reference to the proposed Amendment as to the application of the Act to courts-martial, to express the opinion that it is important in proceedings in courts-martial that an accused person should be allowed to give evidence.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understand that in the House of Commons it was assumed that the Act would apply to courts-martial. The language of the Amendment moved is such that it will in due course apply under an existing Act giving power to apply the procedure of
  666
  ordinary courts to courts-martial. As to the ultimate application, I do not think there can be any doubt that it was proposed.
  Other Amendments agreed to, with Amendments, and Bill returned to the Commons.

BOARD OF EDUCATION BILL.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I need hardly gay at this period of the Session I do not propose to ask your Lordships to make any progress, even to the extent of giving them a Second Reading, with the Bills which I am going to introduce; but as no other stage of them can be taken during the present Session, it will perhaps be convenient that I should be permitted to make a statement—which I am afraid must be rather long, but which I will endeavour to make as short as I can—as to the principal objects aimed at by these Bills. I must, in the first place, refer to a Report of the Royal Commission on Secondary Education, which was appointed by the late Government, and presided over by Mr. Bryce, and which made its Report in 1895, and also to the Education Bill introduced by the present Government in 1896. Your Lordships may remember that two of the principal recommendations of the Royal Commission were the establishment of a central authority and of local authorities for the purposes of secondary education, and I think that in their Report they attach about an equal importance to both. The Bill of 1896, dealing, as it did, with a great variety of subjects affecting both elementary and secondary education, did not contain any provision as to the establishment of a central authority. It did, however, provide for the establishment of county educational authorities, who were charged in the first place with certain duties concerning elementary education, with which at the present time I am not concerned. They were also empowered, for the purpose of promoting education other than elementary, to aid any school to provide such education, to establish such schools, and also to establish and maintain

667
scholarships, to supply, or aid in supplying teachers, to make inquiries as to education in any local schools, and to publish the result of such inquiries, and to aid any establishment or organisation for the training of teachers, elementary or secondary. In order to enable them, to perform these duties, the powers of county councils for the purposes of technical instruction were conferred on them, and the local taxation fund—or, as it is variously known, the beer money or whisky money—was placed at their disposal. A further power was also conferred upon the Science and Art Department to entrust the new authorities, by arrangement, with the administration of science and art grants in their areas. In fact, the provisions of the Bill of 1896 provided in the main for the carrying out of the recommendations of the Commission on Secondary Education as to the constitution of local authorities. In the earlier discussion on that Bill, whilst very strong objections were taken to many of the provisions concerning elementary education, these provisions as to secondary education were, on the whole, much more favourably received; but very early in the discussions in Committee in the other House, great differences of opinion manifested themselves both as to the areas and as to the constitution of the proposed local authorities, and the first fatal blow which the Bill received in Committee of the House of Commons was the Amendment which was forced upon the Government largely by their own followers, the effect of which was to include municipal boroughs of over 20,000 population as educational areas under the Bill. In the opinion of the Royal Commission, and also, I believe, in that of almost all educational experts, the area of the local authorities to which secondary education should be entrusted, ought certainly not to be less than that of a county or county borough. But I do not disguise from myself the fact that the spirit of municipal patriotism, or pride—I will not venture to call it the spirit of municipal jealousy and narrowness—was then still so strong, and I believe is still so strong, that any attempt to create an authority which would merge for all educational purposes the large boroughs in the counties in which they are situated, would still meet with very strong and deter-
668
mined opposition. That part of the question, therefore, appears to stand in this position: the principle of decentralisation of secondary education has met with very general acceptance, but almost insuperable difficulties still exist to prevent the practical application of the principle. My Lords, if in 1896 we had been dealing with secondary education alone, I should have felt great doubt—I still feel great doubt—whether it would be wise to attempt to constitute local authorities with defined powers without the preliminary, or, at all events, concurrent establishment of a central authority. If we could have overcome the difficulties which we had to encounter as between counties and county boroughs on the one hand, and smaller urban authorities on the other, I doubt whether those authorities could have done much in, reorganising the educational arrangements of their counties. They would have had to deal with school boards as to the higher grade schools, many of which are practically giving secondary education, and they would have had to deal with managers of science and art classes, and with the governors of endowed schools, under schemes of the Charity Commissioners, and with schools under private management so far as they might have been willing to come into any general organisation. For this purpose they would have had to enter into communication and correspondence with the Education Department, with the Science and Art Department, and with the Charity Commissioners, and from none of these Departments, organised as they at present are, do I think that they could1 have obtained all the guidance and assistance which they would require. None of those Departments have ever, so far as I am aware, been accustomed to look at educational questions as a whole, or to work together with each other for the co-ordination of educational agencies. I do not know whether airy President or Vice-President of the Council has ever attempted to place before Parliament a complete and well-defined scheme of the objects to which elementary education should be directed; but I am quite sure it has never been the duty of any Minister to attempt to place either before his colleagues, or before Parliament, any complete and well-defined scheme of the

669
objects to which the secondary education of the country ought to be directed. This is, I submit, an indefensible position of affairs. Beginning from some small grants for the encouragement of the teaching of the elementary principles of science and art, the Department of Science and Art is now maintaining central colleges of science and art at a cost of about £26,000 a year, and it is also distributing a public grant of £276,000, divided among local institutions, some of which profess to give the highest scientific and artistic teaching, ranging from highly equipped schools and colleges to the most elementary village classes. Local authorities have also been induced to tax themselves to a small extent, and a sum of £800,000 of public money has been placed at their disposal absolutely, for the same object. There is at present no demarcation—no definite line of demiarcaition—between elementary and secondary education, and therefore it is impossible to distinguish between ordinary elementary schools and the higher grade schools, or to state with any approach to accuracy what amount of public money derived either from the Exchequer or from the rates is now being applied by school boards to what is practically secondary education. In addition to that, Parliament has made itself responsible for the reorganisation of most of the old educational endowments with an approximate income of not less than £800,000. Thus we have a sum of not less than a million provided directly by Parliament, which is now being expended on certain branches of secondary education, in addition to further sums, which it is impossible accurately to estimate, derived from rates, the expenditure of which the Government has undertaken more or less to control. To these large figures may be added an immense number of private proprietary schools all over the country, a great number of which it is believed would be only too willing, in return for some public recognition, and perhaps some limited public support, to come into a general educational scheme. It seems to me that it is quite time that the direct administration of such of these agencies as derive direct support from public funds, as well as the indirect influence which can be
670
brought to bear upon others which are not so circumstanced, should come under the consideration of Parliament through a Minister who shall be understood to be directly responsible for the direction to be given to secondary as well as to elementary education. As an instance of the class of question with which such a Minister would be called upon to deal, I may mention that not long ago an important memorial was presented to the Prime Minister and to myself from the Associated Chambers of Commerce, asking that the same description of aid as is now given to instruction in science and art by the Government should be extended to subjects of a commercial character. I am not now expressing any opinion as to whether this ought to be done or not. Evidently it is a question of very great importance, and under existing conditions it is a question which has to be considered by all the Departments concerned—by the Education Department, by the Science and Art Department, and by the Treasury—almost entirety on the advice and with, the assistance of the Science and Art Department, which must necessarily look at it from the point of view of its own resources and its own regulations, whereas it is a question which ought evidently to be considered from the widest point of view, and in connection with the whole system of education in the country, whether given in public or private schools. I need not say that, in recommending the establishment of a central authority, responsible for secondary as well as primary education, I have not in my mind the establishment of any system of strict uniformity such as must necessarily exist in relation to elementary education. I believe, on the contrary, that the principle laid down in the Report of the Royal Commission, and adopted in the Bill of 1896, was a sound principle—that local authorities should be created, and that much should be left to their discretion. But I also think that a central authority has become an almost indispensable preliminary to the constitution of any satisfactory local organisation. The ground upon which we have to build is not clear. We have already created local authorities of all kinds, and of all dimensions. We have school boards under the Education Acts; we have

671
county and borough authorities under the Technical Education Acts; and we have committees of managers under the regulations of the Committee of Council. Some of these are dispensing large sums raised locally, and all of them are dispensing very considerable sums which have been placed at their disposal by Parliament, so that it will not be easy to displace them. Many of the areas which these authorities administer are too small to enable them to form anything like a properly co-ordinated system. But the point, as I have already said, on which the Bill of 1896 actually broke down was the revolt of non-county boroughs against the counties and county boroughs, and I believe that similar opposition would still be found to exist against any similar proposals which might be made at the present time. But, on the other hand, there are some signs that these authorities, although they cannot easily be displaced, may be induced to combine more or less voluntarily. A tentative suggestion has recently been introduced into the Science and Art Directory, by which county organisations have been invited to assume certain responsibilities to the Department, and minor authorities and committees have been invited to group themselves for certain purposes under these organisations, and that attempt has met with a certain amount of success. However, I am aware that a great deal of misapprehension exists in relation to this clause, and the change in the directory, and perhaps I may be permitted to state as briefly as I can what its purport and intention is. Where, in a county or county borough, an organisation for secondary education exists which has been recognised by the Department of Science and Art, that Department has notified its willingness to hold it responsible for the science and art instruction within that area. Grants earned by schools and classes in that area will be paid to and distributed by the county organisation. That organisation will perform, in respect of a great number of schools and classes, the duties which are now discharged by numerous separate bodies of managers. This arrangement is at present purely voluntary. Under it no school board acting under the Science and Art Department regulations, no
672
managers of a Voluntary school receiving grants from the Science and Art Department, no local committee of any kind, can be compelled to come into this organisation. In counties this clause is being adopted extensively, and apparently without much opposition, but in many, perhaps most, of the county boroughs it is still looked upon with some suspicion. In these boroughs there are two public bodies which are actively engaged in the management of science and art schools and classes, and which more or less interfere with and overlap each other. We have, first, the technical instruction committee of the municipal, council, working under the Technical Instruction Act, and possessing certain rating powers and disposing of the local, taxation residue. We have, next, the school board, with no statutory authority, extending the operation of elementary and evening schools, under the Evening School Code, into the region of science and art, and applying the rates, to that purpose. The object of this clause is to invite these two bodies, who are engaged in similar, and in many cases competing, work, to come to an agreement whereby science and art instruction in the boroughs can be carried out under one comprehensive system, adapted to the wants of the district. That is the intention of the clause, but the organisation which is recognised by the Department, and which is necessarily founded upon the technical instruction, committee of the borough which possesses the rating power, and disposes of the Government grant, is still regarded in many of these boroughs with a considerable amount of suspicion. Some school boards see in it an intention of displacing them, or, at all events, limiting their spheres of operation. But I believe the difficulty not to be insuperable, and these organisations have been formed already in some of the county boroughs. But something in the nature of organised opposition on the part of the Association of School Boards is being carried on against them, owing, I believe, to misapprehension as to the objects of the clause to a great degree. However, the difficulty is not insurmountable, and it certainly is one which the ratepayers have the very strongest interest in overcoming; but, at the same

673
time, the objection which, as I have shown, has been raised to this tentative Measure supplies a proof of the difficult; which we should encounter if we were to endeavour to establish any such system by force of law. But I have very little doubt that if a central authority were established which would inspire confidence, it might, by the advice and guidance which it would give, while avoiding any appearance of compulsion induce the ratepayers from motives of economy, and educational reformers from motives of efficiency, to insist upon the adoption of some such system as that to which I have referred, either voluntarily or by legislation. The Bills which I ask leave to introduce do not aim at the present creation of local educational authorities. We are perfectly well aware that the establishment of such authorities must come, and before long, and I am not without hope that the discussion which will probably follow the introduction of these Bills may show that the difficulties are not so great or insuperable as they might appear to be. The objects of all of us who are concerned with this question cannot be very wide apart. We all desire to see the establishment of a sound system of secondary schools, which shall be open alike to the most promising students from the elementary schools, and to the middle classes generally. We all desire to see these schools providing an education to which can be added that specialised education applicable to the industrial and commercial pursuits which we must have if we are to retain our place in the competition of the world. We all desire that these objects should be attained without any undue burdens being cast on the taxpayers and ratepayers. We desire that those who benefit from these schools should contribute equitably to their cost; and when so much substantive agreement exists, as I believe exists, I do not think that any petty jealousies or rivalries, which are at present delaying the more complete organisation of our secondary schools, can permanently be permitted to obstruct that object. Those rivalries have been called into existence to a very large extent by the fortuitous, piecemeal, and haphazard process by which our educational system has up to the present time been constructed. These rivalries
674
exist mainly between municipalities and school boards, both popularly-elected bodies, both representing the same people, both having substantially the same interests; and I do not think that these rivalries, although they undoubtedly exist at present, when the question comes to be more considered and better understood, will be permitted permanently to obstruct the establishment of a sound system of secondary education. But although we feel certain that the establishment of a local authority is merely a question of time, we believe it is one that can afford to wait, perhaps, for another year or two; at all events, we do not think it would be wise to postpone or endanger what we believe to be a still more pressing reform, in order to enable us to produce what might appear at first sight to be a more complete and comprehensive Measure. Therefore the Bills I have to propose are of an extremely limited character. The first proposes to create a central educational authority. Much of what is done in it could probably be done by administrative order by the Government; but in order to obtain Parliamentary sanction to the policy which we propose, we have thought it more desirable to embody the whole of our proposals in a Bill. At the present time the President of the Council, or the Vice-President of the Council, is, for many purposes, the Minister of Education; but under them are what are virtually two distinct Departments—the Education Department and the Department of Science and Art. We propose to bring these two Departments together, and to make them divisions of one office, and probably under the control of one permanent secretary. We propose to put an end to the Committee of Council, and to the office of Vice-President of the Committee of Council. We propose to create a Board of Education on the model of the Board of Trade, the Local Government Board, and the Board of Agriculture. A President and a Vice-President, or a President alone, of this Board may be appointed. If the Education Minister should be in the House of Lords, it is provided that the President of the Council will be the President of the Board, and the Department will be represented by the Vice-President in the House of Commons. If the Minister of Education should

675
be in the House of Commons he will have the office of President, and there will be no Vice-President, and the Department will be represented in this House by some arrangement such as has been found practicable in the case of other Departments. We think that the present time is extremely opportune for such a reorganisation of the Education Department. Next year the Secretary, for the Science and Art Department retires under the age rule. The office which he holds is one that has never escaped criticism, and perhaps the strength of Sir John Donnelly's convictions, and the energy with which he has supported them, has exposed him to even a larger share of criticism than some of his predecessors. I think it only due to Sir John Donnelly to state that the Government has never possessed a more devoted public servant, and that, under conditions which have often been extremely difficult, I believe the Department has, under his administration, taken part in the very great development both of scientific and artistic training. But the changed conditions of education, the growth of the Department itself, the growing conviction of the necessity for a better and a more special technical training for our people—a conviction that has found expression in the Technical Instruction Acts—all these have rendered a revision of the scope and character of the Department absolutely necessary at the present time. I believe that revision will be greatly assisted if we are able to obtain, what we are asking Parliament to give, sanction for the establishment of one central responsible department which shall be charged with the supervision of secondary as well as elementary education, and of all the agencies appertaining to both. The Bill, I need hardly say, will not contain the details of the proposed organisation. They cannot well be promulgated until Parliament has given its sanction to the principle of the establishment of a central authority. But I may say that the reorganisation will not necessarily be confined to the Department of Science and Art. It would be entirely a mistake to suppose that there is any intention of simply merging the Department of Science and Art into that of Education. The Education Department itself may probably under our plan require some reorga-
676
nisation. Some of the duties which are performed by the Education Department—such as those in relation to training colleges, to training pupil teachers, to the higher-grade schools—pertain rather to secondary than to elementary education; and it may be that it will be found expedient to group those functions which are now discharged by the Education Department, with others which are now discharged by the Science and Art Department under a Secondary Education Department proper, while a third division may possibly be charged with the supervision of the more technical branches of science and art instruction, and at the same time the control and management of the science and art museums which exist both in the Metropolis and the provinces. These details of reorganisation will have, of course, to be worked out by the Departments concerned—by the Education Department, by the Science and Art Department, and by the Treasury—and that is a work which will be undertaken in anticipation of the approval which we hope we may obtain in another Session to the proposals we are now making. I do not know whether there are any of your Lordships' House who are interested in the subject of economy. It has been said, I believe, that no one in the House of Commons cares about economy except the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or, perhaps, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. But, I am afraid that I am not of opinion that this proposed re-arrangement need necessarily lead us, or ought to lead us, to any increased expenditure on administration. It is, of course, impossible for me to say what this Parliament or future Parliaments may think fit to spend directly on secondary, technical, scientific, or artistic education. But, so far as administration is concerned, which is all we are dealing with at present, I see no reason why this arrangement should lead to any increased expenditure. I rather think it will tend towards economy. Already by the transfer of drawing in elementary schools from the Science and Art to the Education Department a very considerable saving has been effected; and, in my opinion, the system under which grants in aid to science and art teaching are now dispensed is, in consequence of the rapid and unforeseen extension of the system—a

677
system which, has extended and developed from very small beginnings indeed, so cumbrous and complicated, and, therefore, so costly, that I shall be very much disappointed indeed, if, under a reorganised system, and a scientific rearrangement of duties, a very considerable economy in administration cannot be brought about. I have said that a great deal of what we proposed to do could no doubt be done simply by an administrative order to which the sanction of Parliament might be given when the Estimates are presented; but, as I have said, we thought it better to embody the main principles in this Bill. But one portion of the duties which we propose to transfer under the Education Department cannot be transferred without legislation. I refer to the supervision of endowed schools under schemes which have been formed by the Charity Commissioners. Logic and symmetry might perhaps appear to require that the whole of the powers of the Charity Commissioners, so far as they relate to educational endowments, should be transferred to the Education Department. But the subject of endowments is so delicate, the distinction between charitable and educational objects and charitable trusts, the extent to which the necessities of special cases are to be regarded, the sectarian questions which they involve, are all so difficult and controversial in character, that we have hesitated to propose to transfer all such questions from a quasi-judicial to a political authority. Under this Bill, therefore, the administration of charitable trusts and the framing of schemes under the Endowed Schools Act will remain untouched except that an instruction will be given to the Charity Commissioners to frame schemes, so far as they are educational, in consultation with the Education Board, and the Education Board will have power to move the Charity Commissioners to promote or alter schemes where such promotion or alteration is necessary. But all these educational schemes contain a provision with regard to the educational examination of the schools, and the result of that examination is reported to the Charity Commission. They also institute from time to time an administrative inspection of these schools, of their own, as to the management of the funds of
678
the school and other matters. The educational examination and the administrative inspection, so far as it relates to educational matters will be transferred to the new Department. In other respects the present powers of the Charity Commissioners will not be interfered with by the Bill. But for the first time a most important part of our educational system will be under the cognisance, and to a certain extent under the guidance of a responsible Minister of Education. The Royal Commission laid considerable stress on the appointment and constitution of an educational council with consultative and administrative powers. We have been unable to accept those recommendations as a whole. For the purpose of forming and maintaining a registry of teachers a separate and more or less independent council is necessary. A Bill for the purpose of establishing such a council was introduced in 1896. As far as I am aware no opposition was manifested to that Bill, but it was not proceeded with after the failure of the other education Bill. That Bill I propose to-day to re-introduce. It provides a council for this purpose only, some of whose members will be nominated by the Crown, some by the universities, and ultimately it will contain members directly representative of the registered teachers themselves. But we have not seen our way to give to this council or to any other council wider statutory powers. We recognise, however, that the advice of educational experts may be of great value to the Board of Education. We have taken power to authorise the President of the Board of Education to appoint an educational committee to advise the Board on such matters as may be referred to it. Such a committee in all probability will be largely founded upon the registration council. In our opinion it would only tend to hamper the responsibility of a Minister if a consultative council were appointed by statute and endowed with statutory powers; in our opinion the Minister must be responsible for the choice of his advisers as well as the action which he takes upon that advice. While it is desirable, almost necessary, that the registration council of teachers should have a fixed and permanent character, it has been thought desirable to reserve

679
complete discretion to the Minister as to the choice of his advisers as well as of his administrative officers. I have now endeavoured to explain what these Bills contain, and also I have touched, perhaps, at greater length upon what they do not contain. It may appear to be a somewhat rash act to submit proposals of this character to be exposed to discussion and criticism during the long months of a comparatively unoccupied recess. It may be so, but for my part I can only say that I welcome the fullest discussion and criticism. I welcome discussion on a subject in which, in my opinion, too little interest has been hitherto felt by the general public as distinguished from professional experts, and I only trust that these proposals may receive very full examination and criticism. I have no doubt that they will be condemned by some on account of their incompleteness; I have admitted that they are incomplete, and incomplete on a vital and essential point, but I have endeavoured to show that we have not been insensible to the importance or the urgency of that portion of the question which we propose at present to postpone. If we have postponed it, it is because we are convinced that the constitution, preliminarily, or concurrently, of a strong central authority is necessary for the equally important, perhaps more important object—the creation of strong local authorities also. If the discussion which may follow the introduction of this Measure shows that we have over-rated the difficulties which I think still exist to the constitution of satisfactory local authorities, it may still be possible in another Session to enlarge the scope of this Bill. But, however that may be, we feel confident that these limited proposals, standing even alone, will be an important step in the direction of placing our national education upon a sounder and more satisfactory basis. I beg leave to introduce these Bills.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am not about to embark on criticism of the very important proposals, which have been explained to us so fully and clearly by the noble Duke, but I wish to make one observation, only subject, of course, to further consideration, on a point which
680
is of great importance. I heard with very great regret that so small a change was to be made as to the powers of the Charity Commissioners. My reason is this: the endowed schools play so very large a part in the secondary education of this country that I am afraid any Measure that does not in some way more completely place those schools under the control of the Department which the noble Duke intends to found will practically be by no means sufficient, and may prove to a considerable extent a failure. I do not at all wish to anticipate that it will be so, but I certainly hoped that the Government would have had the courage to deal more completely with the Charity Commission. The subject is an extremely difficult one; that I fully admit; but if you reflect upon the powers of the Charity Commission—knowing, as I do, from a little personal experience, how impossible it is to bring any action against the Commissioners themselves—I hardly see how the existence of two such authorities as the central Department and the Charity Commissioners can be made to work efficiently, if it can be made to work harmoniously. While I have made this criticism, I am quite certain that those who are far more able to express an opinion upon this subject will, in the Recess, give the fullest consideration to these Measures which the noble Duke has brought forward, and I welcome, if he will allow me to say so, the courage which he has shown in placing them before the public, convinced as I am that the chances of placing some efficient Measure on the Statute Book will be far more likely to be advanced by a full examination of the proposals than by keeping them secret until they are produced before Parliament. My satisfaction will be great if it should be found that there is a general approval of the scope of the Measures which the noble Duke has proposed.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That the Bill relating to the subject of secondary education and the Bill relating to the registration of teachers be read a first time."
Agreed to.

VACCINATION BILL.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Is it the intention of the Government to move the Second Reading of this Bill to-morrow?
THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Yes, and Committee on Thursday.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE FUND) BILL.
Second Reading (which stands appointed for To-morrow) put off to Thursday next.

VAGRANCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Third Reading (which stands appointed for To-morrow) put off to Thursday next.
House adjourned at 6.30.