Sitting of 21 June 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  CHRIST'S HOSPITAL (LONDON) BILL [Lords].
  (BY ORDER.)
  MR. RICHARDS, in moving the Instruction standing in his name, said he wished first to protest most strongly against the allegation which was constantly being made, that he and those who were supporting the action of his noble friend and himself had a desire to destroy the sale of the property by the authorities of the hospital and thus prevent them from recouping themselves for the purchase of their new premises at Horsham. But a certain distinguished person before he ascended the Throne, speaking on behalf of St. Bartholomew's Hospital in relation to the action of the governors of Christ's Hospital—
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is not in order for an hon. Member to bring the opinions of the Sovereign into debate.
  MR. RICHARDSsaid the observations were made before His Majesty ascended the Throne, but he would not further allude to them except to remark that what was contended for by St. Bartholomew's Hospital had already been embodied in the Bill which had passed through its various stages in another place and would shortly come before the House of Commons, and that fact effectually disposed to that extent of the contention of the authorities of Christ's Hospital that they were not to be allowed to sell the site except en bloc. He now wished to show how unjustifiable were the suggestions of the authorities of Christ's Hospital. Those who were anxious to preserve open spaces came before the House with full authority for what they were doing. The House had recognised long ago that consecrated ground could not be built upon except by the special authority of Parliament. The House had gone further, and had passed within the last ten years two Acts providing that all ground set apart for burial could not be built upon except with the authority of Parliament. But what was the present position of affairs? The governors of Christ's Hospital were asking for special authority to sell their property, although in the same breath they said there was no necessity to obtain the authority of Parliament because they could get an order from the Charity Commission. He did not deny that the authorities of Christ's Hospital could sell their property under an order of the Charity Commission without coming to Parliament, but he maintained they could not by any such order obtain the right to build on burial ground, whether consecrated or not. He held that this was an attempt to get behind the principle of two Acts of Parliament passed within the last ten years. They were constantly being told that the authorities of Christ's Hospital had been offered £700,000 or more for the site provided they could get it freed from the legal disabilities which existed with regard to the two or three graveyards situated upon it. He ventured to think it would be a public scandal if the permission

  1027
  to build upon those burial grounds were granted. If the Bill passed without this Instruction the authorities of Christ's Hospital would be able to build, if they thought fit, on a portion of the ground which now formed about one-third of the Postmen's Park and which was closed as a burial ground by Order in Council in 1863.
  SIR P. DIXON HARTLAND: It is on a different side of the road.
  MR. RICHARDSsaid he went over the site the previous day; he met the churchwardens of the parish there, and they protested most strongly against this attempt on the part of the governors of Christ's Hospital to secure a piece of land which they believed belonged to the parish churchyard, and which they had laid out and preserved as part of the Postmen's Park. It was supposed to be one of the first principles of Churchman-ship to preserve consecrated ground, but if such ground was to be sold to the highest bidder it was a pity that Oliver Cromwell was unable to carry out the sale of St. Paul's Cathedral to another body for £200,000. It was of no use protesting against disestablishment if they were going to throw over the first principles and sell consecrated land to the highest bidder. According to the high authority of the late Sir Walter Besant, among the names of those whose bones probably lay in this piece of land now proposed to be sold were the following:—Margaret, wife of Edward I.; Isabella, Queen of Edward II.; Joan, Queen of David Bruce; Roger Mortimer, Earl of March; John Hastings, Earl of Pembroke; Sir Nicolas Bramber, one of the great Lord Mayors of London; the Duke of Bourbon, who was taken prisoner at Agincourt; and Sir Thomas Mallory, who wrote the history of the Holy Grail. As he had before stated, Parliament had enforced the law preventing the erection of buildings on disused burial grounds; but the law courts had gone even further than Parliament, for the present Master of the Rolls had decided that land which had been purchased for a cemetery could not be resold, because it was a portion of land set apart for burial purposes. It
  1028
  was asserted that if his Instruction were carried it would spoil the sale of the site altogether. Who was it that made that assertion? The same authority as protested against the sale to St. Bartholomew's Hospital. It was the Charity Commission, represented by his hon. friend the Member for Tonbridge, whom he was surprised to find in favour of desecrating burial grounds. There was an ancient saying that an old poacher made the best game-keeper, and remembering his hon. friend's earliest efforts in that House to defeat proposals of the Charity Commission, he could only say when he saw him now prepared to support one of the grossest acts of desecration that he seemed to have followed the example set by game preservers. It would be a disgrace that land which had been preserved for three hundred years should now be put up for sale for the mere purpose of making the site more valuable. This land could be economically and satisfactorily built upon and the open spaces at the same time preserved. All honour, he said, to the London County Council, who were carrying on the work of preserving the historic sites in the City and the County of London. He could only say that he should decline to have anything more to do with fighting County Council elections on a political basis. He would rather see honest Radicals on the Council who had a respect for history than dishonest Conservatives who were prepared to sell anything for what it would fetch He hoped the House would not decide to reverse the position taken in regard to every burying ground throughout England simply to oblige the authorities of Christ's Hospital and an amiable and misguided Sheriff who had misled the City of London, and he appealed to friends of open spaces in London to present this disgraceful scandal.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: seconded the motion, because this matter affected a large number of his constituents from every point of view. The object of the Bill was to get an absolutely clear title to some five acres of land in the, heart of the City of London in order to sell the land at its highest commercial value, and to the minds of ordinary men of the City this might overrule

  1029
  all other considerations. He could quite understand that gentlemen who had spent their lives in the City accumulating wealth, would consider historical buildings of small value as compared with pounds, shillings, and pence. This the promoters desired, to carry out the Act of 1890 in reference to the transfer of their school to the new site at Horsham. No part of London had suffered more severely than his constituency from the pressure of business outwards from the centre, the erection of huge warehouses, and the consequent serious congestion and the rise in rents of the last ten years. A portion of this site included the burying ground of the Grey Friars Monastery, where there were arches remaining of the thirteenth century buildings, and cloisters designed by Wren enclosed the ground. In the cloisters he had observed a monument on which was inscribed a request that the bones of a benefactor might not be removed. Surely that was the least the governors could do for one of their benefactors! But the gist of the question was in finance. It was said that a sum of £500,000 was required for the purchase of land and erection of buildings at Horsham. But £254,000 had been paid, and it would be quite possible to raise £300,000 on the £550,000 worth of property reinvested at Horsham. The expenses of the school were something like £50,000, and the gross receipts £72,000, of which £62,000 was available for school purposes, leaving a net profit of £12,000. The accounts of the foundation by no means showed that the proposal in the Bill was necessary, and, seeing that the total value of the site was over £730,000, the governors could well afford to leave as open spaces the two disused burial grounds in proximity to the cloisters and much of the work having historical and antiquarian interest. The Postmen's Park had been alluded to. Might he point out that within a few hundred yards of this very piece of ground 10,900 persons were daily employed in the Post Office, and that the park was the only open space available for them. He would be the last to urge any proposal which would cripple the educational schemes of the governors, but he did not believe that that would be the effect of the Instruction. That part of the scheme of 1890 which provided for the establish-
  1030
  ment of day schools the governors had not carried out, although they had a surplus of about £11,000 annually. His contention was that it was only right that the Instruction should be carried, so that the subject might be dealt with, not in the interests of education alone, but in the three-fold interest of open spaces, of the preservation of historical remains, and of the carrying out of the wishes of the donors of the charity for enlarging the educational facilities for Londoners as a whole.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Christ's Hospital (London) Bill [Lords] to consider in what manner the site of Christ's Hospital can be best dealt with, having regard alike to the reasonable requirements of the charity and of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, to the provisions of the Disused Burial Grounds Acts, to the interests of London in relation to open spaces, and to the importance of preserving some at least of the more interesting buildings of the Hospital."—(Mr. H. C. Richards).
  *SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALEsaid, not being a lawyer, he could not argue from a legal point of view the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Finsbury. As a layman he had heard that when a lawyer had a bad case he always abused the opposite side. He was sorry that the hon. and learned Member for East Finsbury should have made use of the words "audacious," "audacity," "desecrating burial grounds," etc., when he was speaking of the governors and almoners of Christ's Hospital, a body of gentlemen who, with rectitude and honour, were endeavouring to carry into effect a scheme which this House passed ten years ago. The resolution proposed by the hon. and learned Member for East Finsbury raised three distinct issues in regard to the Bill now under discussion. First, it was suggested that it was proposed to abrogate two recent Acts of Parliament which now protected ancient burial grounds. Second, that it was desirable that some portion of the site should be retained as an open space. And third, that it was most important to preserve the interesting

  1031
  and historic buildings of the hospital. As to the first contention, it was true that a small portion upon which the great hall was situated was, up to the end of the seventeenth century, used as a place of burial, but under the Act of 1795 this land was made over to the governors, exempted from all further burial claims, and allowed to be built over in consideration of the then governors substituting another ground for burials. That condition was complied with by the governors obtaining the burial ground, in King Edward Street which was outside the site covered by the scope of the Bill now before Parliament. The hon. and learned Member for East Finsbury had asserted over and over again that these were ancient monastic burial grounds and that they had been consecrated. He could only say that the Corporation of the City of London, which had probably greater access than any other body or individual to the most ancient and authentic records appertaining to Christ's Hospital, had been unable to discover the slightest trace of evidence that they had ever been consecrated grounds, and, with the exception of the one portion to which he had referred, it could not be said that they had ever been set aside for burial purposes. It was undoubtedly the case that at one time it was the custom to bury the children of the hospital within its precincts, and there were two vaults, into one of which the remains were transferred during the rebuilding of the school between 1820 and 1831. The last interment took place in 1864. There was not the slightest evidence, so far as could be discovered, that this ground was set apart as a burial ground in the ordinary acceptation of the term, nor was there any authentic record that it had been consecrated. It was only fair to state on behalf of the almoners and governors of Christ's Hospital that, when the Post Office Sites Act of 1885 was before a Select Committee of the House, it was seriously suggested that the Government should acquire the whole site of Christ's Hospital, and the idea was only negatived on account of the unavoidable delay that would be incurred and the extreme value of the property. The Post Office therefore obtained property in the immediate
  1032
  neighbourhood of less value; but had the Government become possessed of the site of Christ's Hospital there was little doubt that the whole of it would have been covered with huge buildings, and nothing would have been heard of these technical and straw-splitting objections which were now raised.
  The second point raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Finsbury was that this valuable property in the heart of the City, and the centre of the commercial world, should be retained as an open space. He could not imagine that the House of Commons would seriously entertain it. As a citizen of London, born in the City of London, and having spent most of his time there, and knowing every inch of it quite as well as the hon. and learned Member, he did not hesitate to say that if there was one spot in the City of London where an open space was not wanted, it was Newgate Street. Within a stone's throw of it was the Postman's Park, and that was by no means overcrowded. They were told that the night population of the City was decreasing, and he could assure the hon. and learned Member that the great bulk of those who travelled east daily did not go with the idea of taking a siesta in open spaces. They went for business—to do their work as quickly as possible, and then go home. If those philanthropic bodies—the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings—could induce their subscribers, or if the London County Council could induce the ratepayers, to believe that it was absolutely essential that there should be an open space in Newgate Street, of the value of at least £140,000 per acre, then the governors and almoners of Christ's Hospital were quite prepared to receive offers from either, provided the amount exceeded the sum they were at present negotiating for, namely, £720,000, and they could then do with the site whatever they liked.
  The third point raised was that interesting and historic buildings should be preserved. In that he had not the slightest doubt but every Member of the House would entirely coincide. Every citizen of London deplored the removal of Christ's Hospital, one of

  1033
  the greatest of City institutions and possessed of a great historic past. They recognised that it had hallowed traditions, but they were not unconscious of the fact that, although the governors of Christ's Hospital opposed the removal of these hospital buildings for twenty years, Parliament in its wisdom ten years ago passed a scheme, and when that scheme became law the governors and almoners endeavoured to carry it out. As to the antiquity of the buildings, the fact was that there were very few ancient structures at all on the site of the hospital, the original fabric having been lost in the great fire of London in 1666. The Great Hall dated only back to 1825. A portion of the court room was built in 1680 and enlarged in 1788. The only really ancient piece of architecture upon the site consisted of a few arches of the thirteenth century. He could inform the House, however, that every care and attention was to be given to the preservation of these and any other matters of antiquarian interest. So also was it the earnest wish of all to pay proper reverence and respect to any human remains that might be found. He might mention that the fact that burying had taken place in a particular spot did not constitute it a burial ground. When his firm excavated the foundations for their bank they came across human remains, but that did not constitute the site a burial ground. The hon. and learned Member for East Finsbury had not brought one tittle of evidence in support of his very weak case. Before he passed from the burial ground question, he would remind the House that the London County Council, who were taking up such a philanthropic attitude that day, were carting away loads and loads of human remains in making their new road from Holborn to the Strand. He understood from the hon. and learned Member for East Finsbury that there was no intention to wreck this Bill, but he ventured to say that if this Instruction was passed it would practically ruin the Bill. The governors and almoners had a firm offer of £720,000, but that was contingent that there was to be an unassailable title. Technicalities might exist, and might be valuable to lawyers hereafter. What they asked, in bringing forward this
  1034
  Bill, was to enable the governors to say to this would-be purchaser, "Parliament has overlooked these technicalities, and we can give you an unassailable title." Upon that, and that alone, depended this large sum, and the successful carrying out of the scheme which had been settled by Parliament. The whole matter shaped itself into a very small compass. After twenty years of controversy the Charity Commissioners passed in this House a scheme for the removal of Christ's Hospital from London to the country. The scheme imposed great responsibility on the governors. It made it compulsory for them to erect a new school in the country for 700 boys, and a school for 300 girls; a preparatory school for 120 boy boarders; a science school for 600 scholars, and a day school for 400 girls. It was obvious to any unbiassed mind that that scheme would never have passed Parliament if it had not been thoroughly and morally understood that this very valuable site was to be turned into money with which to erect and maintain these new schools, with their far-reaching educational effects. The hon. Gentleman opposite had asserted that the governors had a surplus income of £20,000, although upon consideration he had brought it down to £11,000 or £12,000.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid the hon. Gentleman misrepresented him. He had pointed out that the statement published by certain petitioners was an error, and had quoted, in order to correct that error, the report of the governors for last year, showing a surplus of £11,000.
  *SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALEsaid that whether it was £11,000 or £20,000 it was absolutely erroneous. Owing to the prudent policy of the governors and almoners of this great charity they had been cutting down the numbers of their scholars as low as possible, pending their removal to the country. It was quite true that last year showed a paper surplus of £11,000, but if the scheme was carried out and the children brought up to the standard of the scheme the income necessary would be £70,500, or £10,500 more than the present income. To meet this a capital sum was now required of £350,000. The estimated amount of

  1035
  capital required to complete and equip the new schools at Horsham and the girls' boarding school was £290,000, in addition to the £360,000 already appropriated for the purpose by sales and realisations, and but for which appropriation the present available income would, of course, have been proportionately more. If the day and science schools for 1,000 children, as directed by the scheme, were to be provided for, it was estimated that, without reckoning for any free places or exhibitions, a capital sum was needed of £300,000. That made a total fresh capital expenditure required of £940,000. The actual value of the stocks now remaining in the hands of the governors was £223,000, of which £177,000 was alone applicable to educational purposes, the remainder having been hypothecated and earmarked for exhibitions and such like objects. It therefore followed that, even if the site realised £720,000, and if Parliament sanctioned this Bill, they would only have £177,000 more, making the aggregate sum of £897,000, to meet an estimated outlay of £940,000. It was consequently imperative that Parliament should give assistance to those who were carrying out this great educational scheme. The Bill began and ended with enabling the governors to turn a long leasehold held by the corporation into a freehold, and to say to a would-be purchaser, "Parliament has spoken, and has carried through this scheme, and has enabled us to give you an unassailable title." He would conclude by quoting the words of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dartford. Speaking in 1890 as Vice-President of the Education Department the right hon. Baronet said, "The House has only to decide on the educational advantages of the scheme as it stands, and I feel sure that the House will endorse this excellent scheme."
  DR. FARQUHARSONsaid that he might be old-fashioned in his ideas of Parliamentary practice, but he must confess that he resented the system of moving Instructions to Committees upstairs, as if the House had no confidence in the justice with which these Committees would act. Instructions only hampered the discretion of the Committees as to what they
  1036
  ought or ought not to do. His hon. friend who had just addressed the House had said that he deplored the transference of Christ's Hospital School from the City to the country. He would not have ventured to interfere in this debate at all had he not once had the honour of occupying the position of medical officer to a public school, and could claim therefore to have some knowledge of the conditions in which a public school ought to be carried on. He thought that anyone acquainted with Christ's Hospital School knew the inferior sanitary conditions under which scholastic work was carried on—the poor bedroom accommodation, and the miserable conditions in which the boys were compelled to take their play in narrow, sanded courts, instead of in grass fields in the free air of the country. He was bound to say that he thought a very wise step had been taken when the governors of Christ's Hospital, like those of Charter House, determined to pull up their roots in the crowded City and go into the free air of the country. Anyone who had visited Charter House since its removal to the country would realise what a magnificent success the transference had been. No longer were the boys poor, dwarfed, and stunted, but bright, strong, and healthy. The whole case in favour of the aesthetic character of the building had been absolutely shattered. Something had been said about Charles Lamb; but anyone who had ever read the life and writings of Lamb would remember the misery, semi-starvation, and wretched sanitary conditions of these hospitals in former days. He entirely agreed with those who wanted to change the site of the school to the country, and he opposed the motion because he held that it would seriously interfere with the work of the school. Something had also been said about ancient burial grounds. He had a certain respect for the dead but more respect for the living. He thought that if the comfort and convenience of the living required that a burial ground should be used for that purpose, then the comfort and convenience of the dead should give way to that of the living. He went further; he thought it was very inconvenient that dead bodies should be buried at all. He should prefer that they should be cremated.

  1037
  He was entirely opposed to this Instruction, because he objected to Instructions to Committees; and in the second place, because it would seriously cripple the governors of Christ's Hospital in carrying out their scheme.
  SIR W. HART DYKEsaid that as the Minister who was responsible in 1890 for carrying this scheme through Parliament he would be compelled to oppose the motion. What was the present position of the scheme? Such schemes went through a very harsh process. First of all they were framed under the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, and other Acts; next they went through a certain process at the Education Department; then they were subjected to the machinery of an appeal to the Privy Council, and after that they had to lie on the Table of the House for a certain time in order that the criticisms of hon. Members might be applied to them. He was at the Education Department when the scheme before the House was considered, and he knew that it had been very closely dealt with by the Charity Commissioners, who spent four or five days over it. He himself thought it a great pity that a matter of the kind should be hung up, and he was moved by one argument—namely, fresh air and green fields. The scheme passed the House unanimously. It was twice discussed, and on neither occasion was it pressed to a division. It passed through a searching inquiry at the Education Department, and there was an appeal to the Privy Council in which judgment was unanimously given against the appellants and in favour of the scheme. When it came before the House his right hon. friend the present Chairman of Committees, who then represented the Charity Commissioners, stated that the scheme was assented to by all parties. He wished to make an appeal to the House. It would, he thought, be a grievous shame, eleven years after a decision had been arrived at, for Parliament, by a side wind, to wreck such a scheme as that. There might be difficulties connected with the settlement, but the Committee upstairs was completely competent to deal with them, without the House fettering their discretion by an Instruction. He would appeal to hon. Mem-
  1038
  bers, therefore, while admitting that everything was to be said for open spaces, not to drive the hospital too hard.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he fully accepted the grounds on which the right hon. Gentleman had just appealed to the House; but while accepting the appeal he felt that there were grounds which should induce the House, although quite friendly to the measure, to adopt the Instruction which had been moved. The Bill appeared to have been drawn on somewhat singular lines. Power was given to the governors to dispose of two classes of property, with regard to which at present they had no powers of sale. One was leasehold property, and the other was very vaguely described as property in which interments had taken place. The governors could not deal with that property at present; it did not belong to them in any effective sense, because it could not be converted to the purposes of the charity, and the Bill provided that the governors should be now allowed to dispose of the whole site. He could understand the argument that would be used upstairs, that the Committee could not take into consideration any public interest attaching to the site in special relation to the usor to which it was at present subject. All that the Instruction provided was that the Committee should have power to consider not merely the educational necessities of the charity, but the public requirements of the City of London, having regard to the mode in which the site was at present used. There were two modes of usor to which attention had been drawn—one was consecrated ground, and the other was open spaces and the portions of the site formerly used for burial purposes, which were now used as open spaces. They were dealing with three open spaces which at present afforded a recreation ground for the people living in that portion of London, and which were very advantageous for the public health. The Instruction suggested that the Committee should not be influenced solely by the financial needs of the charity, but should take into consideration, first of all, the reasonable requirements of the charity, and next should have regard to the interests of London in relation to open spaces and

  1039
  the importance of preserving some, at least, of the more interesting buildings. Surely an indication of opinion from the House that the Committee should have regard to these open spaces, and the provision the governors were prepared to make with reference to them, should commend itself to every friend of the measure.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): The House is not now dealing with some case which might possibly arise of a greedy corporation desirous of selling a site for money, and so adding to their resources. It is not a case of that kind at all. What are the circumstances which have brought Christ's Hospital to this House? They did not want to leave the City; they had no desire whatever to convert this valuable piece of ground into money so as to add to their financial resources. They were sorry to leave the City, and the City was very sorry to part with Christ's Hospital, which for years has been one of the most prized institutions within its limits. They were forced to go by the scheme of the Charity Commissioners, very much against their will, and very much against the will of the City. We must, in matters of education, consider what is most beneficial for the young people receiving education, and there can be no doubt that so far as they are concerned—so far as light and air and education are concerned—they will unquestionably benefit by the change. But, whatever the merits or the demerits of that matter may be, I would beg the House to remember, in dealing with this question, that they are dealing with a body that has been forced to part with this property much against their will and to erect buildings in the country. Now, in order that they should do that, they find it necessary to ask for certain powers with regard to the site, and the House is now asked to place a limitation upon them in respect of the sale of the site.
  The hon. and learned Member said they had a right to act as is suggested, as the governors of Christ's Hospital came to Parliament to ask for two or three privileges of great value which they did not now possess. One of the privileges was that a certain piece of land was going
  1040
  to be converted from a leasehold into a freehold. That is perfectly true, but what is the extent of the leasehold? It extends for 790 years, and I am told that the ground rent does not exceed £10 a year. To get rid of this is, of course, a technical advantage, but, after all, it is not very much that Christ's Hospital is asking Parliament for, that they should get their assent to an arrangement which the ground landlords are perfectly willing to enter into—namely, the conversion of a leasehold of 700 or 800 years at a ground rent of £10 a year into a freehold. That is not very much of a ground on which to ask Christ's Hospital to part with a valuable consideration. Then it is said that power is being asked to build over three open spaces. The ground on the other side of the street has been referred to, but I am told that power is not being asked to build over that at all. It was given in exchange many years ago, and will remain exactly in the position in which it now is, even if the House does not pass the Instruction. Then, as to the burial ground, it is spoken of as if it were almost unprecedented that Parliament should be asked for powers to build over a burial ground. Parliament has given that power again and again under certain restrictions and limitations, and the same restrictions and limitations will apply under the Bill.
  The hon. and learned Member spoke of the requirements of the City in regard to open spaces. Anyone who knows the City would laugh at the idea of an open space in Newgate Street. There is no resident population, it is one of the business parts of the City, and the land is worth I do not know how many thousand pounds an acre, and to say that it is required as a recreation ground is really almost trifling with the House. The City has not too many open spaces, but there are open spaces, and hardly a man who knows the City would say that this is the place where anything of the kind is required. So that whether with regard to open spaces or with regard to the burial ground, I do not think there is any case made out for the Instruction, which undoubtedly would have an effect, and it might possibly be a very serious effect, on the finances of the hospital. If the Instruction were passed, and if there were incorporated

  1041
  with the Bill that which the hon. and learned Member who moved it desires, the value of the site would be enormously reduced, without, in my opinion, any adequate return to anyone. I would like to say also that it is not at all certain that if the Instruction were carried the objects which the hon. and learned Member desires would follow. As I understand it, what might follow would be that the Bill would be abandoned and that the Governors of Christ's Hospital would dispose of the site at a lower figure or would themselves build on it, so that, in any event, I do not believe that that desired by the mover of the Instruction would follow.
  I have another point which I should like to impress upon the House. I understand that the London County Council are proceeding to present a petition against the Bill, and that they have raised in the petition every one of the points referred to by the hon. Members who have spoken in support of the Instruction, so that without an Instruction of this kind the Committee will have these matters before them if they consider it advisable to take them into account. That is a very different thing from the House passing an Instruction, because by passing an Instruction of this kind the House will lend important support to the propositions contained in the Instruction, while otherwise they will be considered in the ordinary way by the Committee on a petition presented by the London County Council. But whether that be so or not, I think no argument of any valid character has been used in support of the Instruction, and I very much hope that the House will not give countenance to what I consider a most unfair method of procedure by passing an Instruction which, while it would in my opinion greatly damage the value of the site, would not really secure that which the supporters of the Instruction desire should be carried out. I hope, therefore, the House will not pass the Instruction.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid that the right hon. Gentleman did an injustice to many who supported the Instruction when he said that there was anything unfair in their methods of procedure. The governors of Christ's
  1042
  Hospital had undoubtedly a right to sell their property, but it was not good enough for them without a special Act of Parliament. They asked Parliament to improve and enlarge their title, and the Act of Parliament would be worth from £200,000 to £250,000 to them. Parliament being about to grant that benefit, had not the public some emphatic right to a quid pro quo, especially as Christ's Hospital, which had since its foundation been an essentially metropolitan charity, was now about to be removed from the sphere of the metropolis. He was extremely sorry for it himself, and he applauded the action of the governors in fighting against it for twenty years. It was a pity, too, that when the governors had all England to choose from for their new site, they should have dumped their schools at the side of the railway and on a soil that was five feet thick with clay, and that they should have erected buildings which, even in the opinion of the Local Government Board, were notoriously ugly barrack schools. As to the antiquarian interest of the question, there were buildings by Wren which were extremely fine, and the hall, to which the Corporation attached very little importance, was one of the finest halls in London. Just at this point was Newgate Gaol, also a very fine building, which had only been condemned by the City.
  *SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALE: I must correct the noble Lord; that is not so. There has been no delay on the part of the Corporation. The Corporation has been desirous of rebuilding the Old Bailey for twenty-five years past, but the plans have from time to time been questioned or condemned by His Majesty's judges.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he would not pursue that matter, but with regard to the burial ground he would just say one word. The hon. Baronet had said that it was not certain that this was a burial ground. Then why was the Bill brought in? The cloisters, not merely on the existing southern site, were full of graves The hon. Baronet said that the City authorities had no record of its ever having been a burial ground. It was not in the City that these things were to be found, but in the British Museum, and

  1043
  the fact that this was a consecrated burial ground was unanswerable. These human remains were to be removed and placed elsewhere in spite of what was perhaps the most humble piece of eloquence ever written or spoken; the inscription upon a tablet in the southern cloisters was, "Here lies the benefactor; let no one move his bones." Yet, in spite of that, and in spite of the fact that this has been a burial ground, these human remains were, in the words of the Bill, to be placed in "well pitched shells" and removed elsewhere. There was no doubt whatever that this charity was not such a poverty-stricken corporation as the promoters of the Bill expected the House to believe. The accounts of this charity had to be published annually for general information, but he had found it very difficult to get hold of them. It was evident from them that the almoners had at their disposal for educational purposes very considerable sums which they did not possess ten years ago, and as the almoners appeared to have approached this question from a purely commercial point of view, why should they not consent to raise a considerable sum upon the mortgage of their new freehold—[Sir JOSEPH DIMSDALE: Who would give it?]—as they easily could unless they had been very much deceived in the property on which they had spent £550,000. It had been said that no proposal would be made to build upon that open space known as the Postmen's Park. In the opinion of the governors of Christ's Hospital and of the Home Secretary there was no further need for open spaces in the City. If that was to be the permanent opinion of the right hon. Gentleman he would undertake to come to close quarters with him on many occasions during his term of office. With regard to building over open spaces he apprehended the right hon. Gentleman had again been guilty of rather an error; he said they were not open spaces in the sense that the public had access to them. That was true. As a member of the public he had no access to Grosvenor Square, but as a member of the public he would consider himself legitimately aggrieved if the owner of that property built over it, and the same argument applied to open spaces in the City—especially to such as had
  1044
  been consecrated. He wanted Christ's Hospital to sell their ground, and he also desired that they should be able to use these buildings for the purposes for which they required buildings for schools and offices. They had to have a school within three miles of the Mansion House or the Royal Exchange, and what an ideal spot this would be for the London University, now housed, he believed, in the back parlours of the Imperial Institute. All he asked was that when Parliament was giving a magnificent gift to the governors and almoners of Christ's Hospital, without which the price offered to them would be £200,000 less, the House should pass an Instruction asking a Committee upstairs to inquire whether, subject to the interests of the educational establishment, as set forth in the Instruction, something could be done by which this great, valuable, and historic site might be used for the benefit of the public and of education.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN,)said it was his duty, as representing the Charity Commission in this House, to say he was a supporter of the Bill and an opponent of the Instruction. In the view of the Charity Commissioners the Bill was the best and the only proper means of carrying out the scheme passed for Christ's Hospital ten years ago, and in obedience to which Christ's Hospital was removed into the country. He opposed the Instruction because it would practically destroy the Bill, and would prevent Christ's Hospital from realising their site to the best advantage. It seemed to be thought by a large number of the Members of this House that if the Instruction was carried an open space and ancient monuments would thereby be preserved. If the Instruction was carried and the Bill was withdrawn the result would be, not that the governors would not be allowed to sell, but that, subject only to the consent of the Charity Commissioners, which would be given, Christ's Hospital would deal with the site and lay itself open to the possibility of a lawsuit. The whole site could be cut up and buildings could be erected. No open space would be preserved except that a small courtyard in the middle might be preserved if the courts decided

  1045
  that this was a burying ground, and so far from attaining the object which his hon. friend had in view it would do nothing of the kind; the only result would be that the educational establishment of this great charity would get £200,000 less than they would if this Bill was passed. The hon. Gentleman said that this was a gift of £200,000 to Christ's Hospital, but as a matter of fact all they were doing was to enable this great educational charity to deal with its property to the best advantage, as was done by all other public schools. Why should not Christ's Hospital be allowed to deal with its property to the best advantage? Why should not this site be devoted to educational purposes rather than to an open space? The hon. Gentleman below the gangway said that if this Bill were allowed to pass the Charity Commissioners would be poachers, but if this Instruction were carried the hon. Gentleman would be the greatest poacher of all, because he would take away the
  educational character of this charity and turn it into a charity of quite another kind. This Bill would have to be read together with the rest of the scheme which had been forced by the Charity Commission and Parliament on Christ's Hospital. A Royal Commission was appointed in 1877, and the Commissioners said that it would be better to move the hospital into the country, and that the site should be sold for the purpose of carrying out the scheme. Not a word was said as to imposing any restriction on the sale of the site, and when the scheme was opposed in this House the objector to it said that that was the best part of it. It was because he thought a grave injustice would be done and a great blow dealt to this charity that he asked the House to pass the Bill, and to defeat the Instruction.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 116; Noes, 224. (Division List No. 267.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Flower, Ernest

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Malley, William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Austin, Sir John

  Hammond, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Harms worth, R. Leicester

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Rea, Russell

  Bell, Richard

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Reddy, M.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Boland, John

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Brigg, John

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Leamy, Edmund

  Rigg, Richard

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Leng, Sir John

  Russell, T. W.

  Caldwell, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh

  Carlile, William Walter

  Lough, Thomas

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lundon, W.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cogan, Denis J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Strachey, Edward

  Crombie, John William

  M'Govern, T.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Delany, William

  Mansfield, Horace Rend all

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mooney, John J.

  Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Dillon, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, Patrick (Meath, N.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Norman, Henry

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Duffy, William J.

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Dunn, Sir William

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Emmott, Alfred

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

  Wylie, Alexander

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Field, William

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Mr. Richards and Captain Norton.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  O'Dowd, John

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  Moss, Samuel

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Aird, Sir John

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gretton, John

  Myers, William Henry

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Arrol, Sir William

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nd'rry

  Partington, Oswald

  Bain, Col. James Robert

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

  Paul ton, James Mellor

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Pease, Herbt. P. (Darlington)

  Balfour, Maj K R (Christchurch

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bathurst, Hon Allen B.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

  Helder, Augustus

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Black Alexander William

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bond Edward

  Horn by, Sir William Henry

  Purvis, Robert

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Horner, Frederick William

  Randles, John S.

  Bowles, Capt. T. B. (Kings's Lynn

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm Henry

  Rash, Major Frederick Carne

  Brassey, Albert

  Hoult, Joseph

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Brodrick Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

  Burt, Thomas

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Gl'g'w)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

  Robinson, Brooke

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kimber, Henry

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Coddington, Sir William

  Knowles, Lees

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Labouchere, Henry

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Seely, Capt. J. E B (Isle of Wight

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. William Edw H

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareh'm

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Spear, John Ward

  Dewar, J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Disraeli, Conings by Ralph

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Stroyan, John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum. Penr

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tennant, Harold John

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

  Elibank, Master of

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Wallace, Robert

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Walrond, Rt.Hon. Sir Wm. H.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Garfit, William

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Gibbs, Hn. A.G. H. (City of Lond

  Morgan, Hn Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

  Morton, Arthur H A. (Deptford

  Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Sir Joseph Dimsdale and

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Younger, William

  Sir William Hart Dyke.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ACTON) BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP L).
  MR. BILL reported from the Committee on Group L of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to Horley District Gas Bill, without Amendment.
  That they have agreed to, Cardiff Corporation Bill; Leatherhead Gas Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for empowering the Worcester Tramways, Limited, to construct new tramways in lieu of their existing tramways, and to work the same by mechanical power; and for other purposes."—Worcester Tramways Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the limits of supply of and to confer further powers upon the Newport (Isle of Wight) Gas Company; and for other purposes." Newport (Isle of Wight) Gas Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer powers upon the Corporation of the borough of Smethwick with respect to tramways and to their electric lighting and other undertakings; to make further provision for the improvement and good
  1050
  government of the borough; and for other purposes." Smethwick Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend section four of the Central London Railway Act, 1899, and to authorise the raising of further capital; and for other purposes." Central London Railway (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
  And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the city of Bristol to construct an additional dock and railways and other works; to extend the city and county of Bristol; and for other purposes." Bristol Corporation (Docks and Railways, etc.) Bill [Lords].

  WORCESTER TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
  NEWPORT (ISLE OF WIGHT) GAS BILL [Lords].
  SMETHWICK CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
  BRISTOL CORPORATION (DOCKS AND RAILWAYS, ETC.) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
  Petition from South borough, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Petition from Newmarket Haigh Moor, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (CONTINUATION SCHOOLS) BILL.
  Petition from Hedworth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION BILL.
  Petitions for alteration, from Oldham; Brighton and Preston; and Rochdale; to lie upon the Table.
  FINANCE BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Rotherham Main; Wharncliffe Silkstone; and South Hiendley; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petition from Newmarket Haigh Moor, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION ACT (1874) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Sion College, against; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petition from Dingwall, against establishment; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Llanddona, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Abercrave; Salford Priors; Paddington; Lewannick Kilkhampton; Egloskerry; Calstock; Dudley; Hackney; Nottingham; Cowes; Great Harwood; Eedbourn; and Kettering; to lie upon the Table.

  SOVEREIGN'S OATH ON ACCESSION BILL.
  Petitions against, from Walthamstow and Bath; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Rhodesia, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Return presented, relative thereto ordered 17th June; Mr. Mount]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. No. 220.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 20th June; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 221.]

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 20th June; Mr. Gerald Bal-
  1052
  four]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 222.]

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICA—BOER PRISONERS-INTERNMENT IN INDIA.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the fort within which the Boer prisoners are kept at Ahmednagar is surrounded by a high-walled embankment which shuts out every breeze; whether the huts are roofed with corrugated iron, and the temperature noted at midnight inside the huts was several times over 100, and at times as much as 108 during the month of May; and whether steps can and will be taken to remove the Boer prisoners to a more healthy position.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): I have already stated that there is no intention of removing the Boer prisoners. I have no information as to the details referred to in the hon Member's question; but, as I stated yesterday in answer to the question of the hon. Member for East Clare, the station is considered to be one of the healthiest and most agreeable in India.
  MR. CHANNING: Will the noble Lord make inquiries as to the accuracy of the statements I have laid before him?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No, I will not make any inquiries. The Governor of Bombay has visited the place, and he found the prisoners perfectly well satisfied. The attacks made in this country on the salubrity of Ahmednagar are received with universal ridicule throughout India.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the subject on the first opportunity.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the noble Lord whether it is not absolutely the fact that the Army Medical Department has declared this place, last year or the year before, to be the most unhealthy station in India?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question has been answered.

  CAMPS OF CONCENTRATION.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total number of children in the camps of concentration in South Africa, and how many of such children are now under instruction; whether he is aware that the Bloemfontein camp contains about 2,000 children, while school accommodation is only provided for 200; and whether the necessary steps will be taken as soon as practicable to provide all the children with school accommodation.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): The total number of children in these camps was 34,112 at the end of May. No figures of the actual numbers attending school have been reported, but every effort is being made to provide ample school accommodation at all the camps. Schools have been started in most of the camps, being held either in a large room set apart in one of the iron and wood structures or marquee tents.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has yet been taken as to relaxing the rule under which all persons in the concentration camps in South Africa have been compulsorily detained in them, and how soon he expects to be able to publish the new regulations on this subject; and whether he will give orders that very young children who cannot be properly fed in the camps where they are now confined shall, with their mothers, be removed to camps in Cape Colony where nosimilar difficulty would exist.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have nothing to add to what I have already said on these subjects.
  MR. DILLON: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that he told me about six weeks ago that in every one of these camps persons were free to come and go as they liked?
  MR. BRODRICKdid not reply.
  MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman made the statement to me across the
  1054
  floor of the House—that everyone was free to come and go as they liked.
  MR. BRODRICK: I said nothing of the kind. What I did say was that in respect to the particular camp in Cape Colony, so far as my information went, those who were there were free to come and go, but I warned hon. Gentlemen that if these questions were pressed on me when I had not full information I could only give such information as I was aware of.
  MR. DILLON: This is a very serious matter, but I suppose I shall only be in order in giving notice that at the earliest possible moment I will call attention to the fact that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman now is not correct, and that he did inform me some weeks ago that every person was free to come and go.†
  MR. BRODRICK: I must say that the question was pressed on me, among several others, as a supplementary question, and I gave such information as I could on the spur of the moment.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Mr. Speaker—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Of any further questions notice must be given. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to the question, said that he could add nothing to the information he had already given.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The question I wish to ask—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I have said that no further questions can be put without notice.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Then I beg to give notice that I shall ask the right hon. gentleman at what date these unfortunate women and children will be released.
  DR. AMBROSE: On a point of order, Sir, I wish to ask what authority the right hon. Gentleman has—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  † Refer to Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xciii., p. 930; also Vol. lxxxix., p. 1021.

  BLOEMFONTEIN CONCENTRATION CAMP.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received a report from the medical officer on the state of the health of the children in the Bloemfontein camp; if so, what is the nature of the report; and will the recommendations it contains be acted upon.
  MR. BRODRICK: The report in question has not reached me.

  NEGOTIATIONS WITH BOER LEADERS.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state when and by whom communications were made to the Boer leaders asking them to undertake the responsibility of feeding the women and children in the denuded districts; whether they were accompanied by an assurance that the food supplies provided by the Boers for that purpose would not be taken away or destroyed by the British troops; and whether he will lay on the Table of the House the correspondence, if any, which passed on the subject.
  MR. BRODRICK: Information on some of these points will be found in the correspondence relating to farm-burning which I propose shortly to lay upon the Table of the House.

  ARMY REMOUNTS—TRAMWAY HORSES.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Corporation of Glasgow, in consequence of the adoption of electric traction on their tramways, are disposing of their stud of horses, numbering between 4,000 and 5,000, which horses are being sold in batches, the last batch averaging £26 per horse; and whether, seeing that the average price of an artillery horse in this country is £42, and that up to the present time no attempt has been made by the remount department to secure any of these horses, nor any of the same class sold some time ago under similar circumstances by the Liverpool tramways companies, he will consider the advisability of now securing some
  1056
  of the most suitable of these hard-conditioned horses.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am aware of the sales in question. The horses, however, are not considered suitable for artillery services.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Are none of them suitable for remount purposes or any other military purpose?
  MR. BRODRICK: I can add nothing to my answer.

  HORSE TRANSPORT—THE "CERVONA."
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it has been brought to his notice that during the voyage of the transport ship "Cervona" from New Orleans to the Cape the remount officer, contrary to the advice of the veterinary surgeon, threw 270 horses overboard in the belief that they were suffering from glanders, whereas when bad weather put a stop to this operation it was proved that the horses had only common colds; and whether, seeing that this action represents a waste of £6,750, exclusive of the cost of freight, he will consider the advisability of appointing none but officers of the Army Veterinary Department to the Remount Department.
  MR. BRODRICK: My attention has been drawn to this matter, which is now under the consideration of the military authorities.

  ARMY CONTRACTS—SOUTH AFRICAN CONTRACTORS.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state approximately the total amount payable or paid to contractors in South Africa in connection with the war up to date.
  MR. BRODRICK: As I have explained to the House on a previous occasion, this information can only be obtained by a very laborious process. A letter, however, was despatched to South Africa to inquire what informa-

  1057
  tion could be readily obtained and forwarded to the War Office.

  RETURN OF THE SEAFORTH MILITIA.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that when the Lewis section of the Seaforth Militia, numbering about 600 men, reached Kyle of Lochalsh last Tuesday night from Egypt, it was found that the steamer "Lovedale," which had been appointed to convey them to Stornoway, could carry only 370 of the men, in consequence of which the remaining 230 were left at Kyle, where there are but few houses and only limited accommodation, at the station to await the sailing of the "Clydesdale" on the following afternoon; and, seeing that the "Lovedale" affords little protection from the weather for so large a number of men, and was unsuited for the conveyance of troops just returning from a hot climate on such a night as the 11th June, which was cold, wet, and stormy, will he state who is responsible for having neglected to provide sufficient steamer accommodation to admit of the whole of these men proceeding to Stornoway on the night of their arrival at Kyle.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): Under ordinary circumstances the men would have found their own way home after disembodiment at Dingwall, but in deference to the desire of the local authorities for a public reception at Stornoway, arrangements were made with the agent of the Highland Railway Company to secure their transit by the "Clansman," a vessel capable of conveying the whole 600 men. At the last moment, however, this vessel proved not available, and the "Lovedale" was substituted by the owner of the steamboats. Every effort was made by the local military authorities to secure further accommodation at once, but without success. No blame can be attached to the military authorities.

  AMMUNITION FOR VOLUNTEER CORPS—MESSRS. KYNOCH'S OFFER.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War
  1058
  whether he is aware that Messrs. Kynoch, Limited, are offering to supply to Volunteer corps reliable ammunition for the service rifle at a lower price than that charged to Volunteer corps by the Government; will he state whether the Order recently issued by the War Office, forbidding Volunteer corps to purchase ammunition from any other source than the Government, was made on the grounds that Messrs. Kynoch's ammunition is of inferior quality to that supplied by the Government; and, if not, for what reason Volunteer corps have been forbidden to avail themselves of this cheaper source of supply.
  MR. BRODRICK: I understand that Messrs. Kynoch have offered to sell a Volunteer corps small-arm ammunition that has not passed the Government tests. No new Order has been issued on the subject, but attention has been called to paragraph 2,035 of the King's Regulations, which lays down that, as serious damage may be done to rifles by the use of unsuitable ammunition, commanding officers are to forbid the troops under their orders to use any ammunition, whether ball, blank, or dummy, except that provided by the Government.
  MR. NORMAN: But is that the fact that Messrs. Kynoch offered to sell their ammunition at £1 per 1,000 rounds less than it is supplied by the Government?
  MR. BRODRICK: I have informed the hon. Gentleman that it is understood the ammunition which they offered to sell was ammunition which had not passed the Government test.

  MILITIA DISEMBODIMENT.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether it is now intended to disembody any of the Militia battalions serving at home; if so, can he name them and give the dates of the intended disembodiment.
  MR. BRODRICK: No decision has yet been arrived at.

  WHALE ISLAND BANDSMEN.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that certain Army pensioners engaged in the band at Whale Island only receive second class lodging allowance instead of the first class which was granted to them on joining, and is still enjoyed by the remainder of the band who are not pensioners; and whether the Admiralty will consider the possibility of granting to these pensioners the maximum allowance.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The allowance referred to is not a lodging allowance, but compensation in lieu of provisions, fuel, and lights. On their first appointment in August, 1895, the rate of compensation paid to certain Army pensioners serving in the Whale Island band was 1s. 6d. a day, the amount granted to active service ratings. In the same year, however, it was decided that the allowance to these men should be made uniform with that granted to the whole of the other pensioners in reserve and stationary ships—namely, 1s. 1d. a day. This arrangement took effect on 1st September, 1895, and is now in force.

  STOKERS FOR THE NAVY.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that owing to the insufficient number of stokers rating at Chatham, Portsmouth, and Devonport, many warships during the last six months while in the reserves have had to be content with barely more than one-third of their proper allowance of men for care and maintenance of machinery and double bottoms, and what steps he proposes to take for increasing the allowance.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is undoubtedly the fact that, owing to the large number of ships at present in commission, the number of stokers available is inadequate. In order to meet the deficiency 500 additional stokers are being entered during the present year.
  MR. FLYNN: Is there any intention of increasing the pay of the
  1060
  men in order to induce a sufficient number to join?
  [No answer was returned.]

  RUSSIA AND THIBET.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the Embassy from the Dalai Lama of Thibet to His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, with the alleged object of soliciting the protection of Russia against British encroachments; and whether His Majesty's Government has made, or proposes to make, any communication to the Russian Government upon this subject.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,: It has been recently reported in the Russian press that a special mission from Thibet, consisting of seven persons, headed by the Lama Daroshiyeff, was on its way to St. Petersburg, but His Majesty's Government have received no confirmation of this statement.

  SALE OF WINE FROM THE ROYAL CELLARS.
  MR. M'DERMOTT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the wine from the Royal cellars, advertised to be sold on Monday next as duty paid, has paid duty; and, if not, whether duty will be now charged to the purchaser.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): It has been arranged some time since that the duty on the wine in question will be paid out of the proceeds of sale, and not by the purchaser.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the catalogues which have been extensively circulated state that the duty is paid. Is not that a false description?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Not if it is to be paid out of the proceeds of the sale.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: But it is not paid.

  COAL DUTY.
  *MR. PLUMMER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state when and under what circumstances the tax already paid upon coal shipped for export under contracts made before 19th April, 1901, which have since been duly filed and returned by the Customs authorities, will be refunded.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The duty already paid upon coal shipped for export under any pre-Budget contracts which may be accepted and registered by the Board of Customs will be refunded by them upon verification of the shipments under the contracts.
  *MR. PLUMMER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the person responsible for placing the coal f.o.b. is, upon the Tyne, usually not the person who enters the coal for shipment, he can state who, under these circumstances, is responsible for' paying the export duty.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The person who enters the coal for shipment is the person to whom the Board of Customs look for payment of the export duty.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—RETURN OF SEAMEN.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Return of the number, ages, and ratings of seamen, in continuation of Command Paper 8579 of 1897, which was to be postponed for the Census, can now be given.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Return asked for is in course of preparation, but it will not be ready for presentation for some time. The figures are taken from the inward lists of vessels, many of which were absent from the United Kingdom on Census day and some of which will not return for some months.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—OFFICERS' CERTIFICATES.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of
  1062
  Trade whether foreign merchant officers' certificates are accepted as the same as British certificates for officers in British ships.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir; certificates required under the Merchant Shipping Act to be held by officers of British ships must, in all cases, be British certificates.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any information as to the number of certificated officers ordinarily carried on ships of various tonnages?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Every British foreign-going merchant ship and every passenger ship of 100 tons and over is bound to carry at least one certificated officer besides the master.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether large vessels—ships of over 2,000 tons—are not required to carry more than one mate with the captain?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is no legal requirement of that kind. The legal requirements are set forth in Section 92 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.

  SEA FISH CULTURE.
  MR. LAYLAND-BARRATT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole question of sea fish culture; and, if so, what form the Committee will take, what the terms of reference to the Committee will be, and if the Committee will hold local sittings to collect information in the principal centres of the fishing industry.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I propose to appoint a Departmental Committee "to inquire and report as to the best means by which the State or local authorities can assist scientific research as applied to problems affecting the fisheries of Great Britain and Ireland, and in particular whether the object in view could best be attained by the creation of one central body or department, acting

  1063
  for England, Scotland, and Ireland, or by means of separate departments or agencies in each of the three countries." It will be for the Committee to determine the manner in which their inquiries will be conducted.

  COMMERCIAL INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the fact that some time since a Commercial Intelligence Committee was appointed in connection with the Foreign Office representing Government departments and commercial interests, whether he can give the names and composition of that Committee, and state what duties it performs, how often it meets, and when the last meeting was held; and whether any Report or recommendations have been issued relative to the commercial interests of the country.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Committee consists at present of two representatives of the Board of Trade, one representative of the Foreign, Colonial, and India Offices respectively, two representatives of the Imperial Institute, and seven representatives of the commercial community appointed on the recommendation of the Associated Chambers of Commerce. Some representatives of colonial commerce are about to be added. I shall be happy to show a list of names of the present members to the hon. Member if he so desires. The duties of the Committee are to supervise generally the collection and diffusion of commercial information through the Commercial Intelligence Branch of the Board of Trade, and to advise the Board on any matters that may be referred to it. The Committee has met four times during the past year, the last meeting having been on April 30th. The Committee being an advisory one, it is not the practice to publish its Reports and recommendations but I may mention that among the subjects which have recently been under it consideration have been the probable effect on British trade of the forthcoming revision of the German tariff and the improvement in the methods of obtaining commercial information with regard to the colonies.

  QUEEN'S HALL MEETING OF OPPONENTS OF THE WAR.
  SIR JOHN STIRLING-MAXWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state what numbers of police were employed at the meeting held in favour of the Boer cause at the Queen's Hall on Wednesday last, in the hall itself and in the approaches to it; and will he state what numbers are usually employed at other political meetings in the same hall, and what extra expense has been entailed on the ratepayers or taxpayers of the country.
  The following question also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. MALCOLM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of extra police employed to maintain order in connection with the recent meeting on 19th June at the Queen's Hall; whether the constables thus employed were withdrawn from their ordinary duties or leisure for the occasion; whether any parts of London were thereby deprived of their normal police protection; whether the cost of such extra protection will now and in the future be paid by the promoters of meetings; and whether he will consider the advisability of prohibiting similar meetings as calculated to cause a breach of the peace.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Before the question is answered I wish to call attention to the expression in the question, "the meeting held in favour of the Boer cause," and to ask whether this is not controversial matter, and whether therefore such an expression is in order.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is desirable to exclude controversial matter from questions, but I presume that this is an account given by the hon. Member, who vouches for the description himself.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I was chairman at the meeting, and I entirely deny the accuracy of the statement. The meeting was held against the Government, sitting on that bench.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is very difficult to draw the line exactly as to whether a

  1065
  phrase in a question is controversial or merely descriptive. If my attention had been called to it, I think I should have suggested a less controversial form.
  SIR JOHN STIRLING-MAXWELL: I should like to say that I had no wish to put this question in a controversial form, and the form in which it was put arose simply from my having read the resolutions passed by the meeting.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOB THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): In answer to these two questions, I have to say that, in accordance with the invariable practice in the case of meetings of a political nature, there were no police employed inside the Queen's Hall. The total number of police employed in the course of the evening in the vicinity of the hall in consequence of the meeting was 357. So far as I am aware, there have been no political meetings there before with which a comparison can be made. Promoters of meetings are never asked to pay anything in connection with the employment of extra police for the purpose of keeping order in the streets, but on this occasion no extra expense was incurred. Whenever an abnormal number of people are likely to assemble, extra police must necessarily be present, and necessarily also these extra police are withdrawn from their ordinary duties and leisure for the occasion. It is not in my power to prohibit meetings in private buildings.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the presence of the extra police was in any way due to the incitements which appeared in various London newspapers for several days in connection with this meeting, also by way of handbills circulated on the Stock Exchange and anonymous placards published in the press?
  *MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir. I am not aware that the presence of the police was due to any such cause. It was known that in all probability a great amount of feeling would be displayed, and that a large crowd would collect, and it is the duty of the police in these circumstances to keep order in the streets.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: May I ask whether it is not the fact that the policy of allowing extravagant opinions to be expressed in perfect freedom is the best means of bringing those opinions into contempt?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That question does not arise out of the answer.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Arising out of the answer of the Home Secretary, may I ask him whether on the next occasion that extra police are required—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Whether he will draw them from County Mayo, where they are not required?
  *MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member asks an irregular question and I call him to order, it is not usual to disregard my ruling. It is highly disrespectful, and contrary to the rules of the House.

  CITY CHARITIES—ST. GEORGE, BOTOLPH LANE.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division of Kent, as representing the Charity Commissioners, if he can state whether the sum of £60 per annum allotted by the Charity Commissioners for the payment of an assistant curate in the parish of St. George, Botolph Lane, has been paid during the past seven years, or during what period since services have been discontinued in the said church of St. George, Botolph Lane, and St. Botolph, Billingsgate; and if, as set forth in the scheme now lying upon the Table of this House for the union of benefices of the said parishes of St. George, Botolph Lane, and St. Mary-at-Hill, the said sum continues payable; and whether he can give the names of the rector and the assistant curate by whom the allotted stipend has been received.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The annual sum of £60 was assigned to Canon MacColl during his tenure of office as rector of St. George, Botolph Lane, for the payment of a curate under a clause (48) of the central scheme for the City

  1067
  parochial charities, which deals with ecclesiastical vested interests and payments. This payment has been made for the last seven years, during which period the services have been discontinued in the church of St. George. In the event of the union of the benefices of St. George, Botolph Lane, and St. Mary-at-Hill, and the appointment as incumbent of the united parishes of some other person than the present rector of St. George, the payment in question would fall into the residue of the City Church Fund, and become applicable by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The Commissioners are without information as to the name of the assistant curate by whom the payment has been received.

  MALLAIG MAILS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any agreement has yet been arrived at with the North British Railway Company in regard to the conveyance of mails over the new railway between Fort William and Mallaig; and, if not, will he explain the cause of the delay and state the terms of the proposed contract.
  ME. HAYES FISHER(for Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN): An agreement has not yet been arrived at with the North British Railway Company in regard to the conveyance of mails over the new railway between Fort William and Mallaig, the company being unwilling to accept the terms offered. Negotiations are proceeding. The failure to come to an agreement has not, however, prevented the Postmaster General from making use of the line so far as it has been found advantageous to do so.

  POST OFFICES SAVINGS BANK—RURAL POST OFFICES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state whether, with a view to the encouragement of thrift in rural districts, he will consider the advisability of arranging for the transaction of savings bank business at all rural sub-post offices serving a population of 200 and upwards on at least one day a week, preferably Saturday; and, having regard to the fact that postal
  1068
  orders cannot be cashed at a large proportion of the sub-post offices in the rural districts, will instructions be given for these orders to be cashed on the day selected for savings hank business.
  MR. HAYES FISHER (for Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN): The restriction of savings bank or postal order business at small post offices to one day a week would not reduce the cost of administration or the difficulty of finding suitable persons to do the work, which are the grounds on which the present limitation in the number of offices doing such business is based. The Postmaster General is, however, usually ready to extend savings bank and postal order business to any post office under a guarantee for the necessary expenses.

  HOUSE TO HOUSE DELIVERY OF LETTERS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state whether the house to house delivery of letters, authorised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget for 1897, is now effected throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland; and will he state, approximately, the number of letters per annum estimated to have been thus brought into the official delivery; and which, under the arrangements existing prior to 1897, would have been left at post offices or places of call.
  MR. HAYES FISHER (for Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN): The house to house delivery of letters is now effected throughout England, and practically throughout Scoltand and Ireland as well. There are a few places in the two latter countries at which it has not yet been possible to afford a delivery, but steps are being taken to provide a service in all cases where it is practicable to do so. From May, 1897, up to the end of September, 1900, it is estimated that about 57 millions of letters a year had been brought into the official delivery, and since that time it has not been considered necessary to keep special records.

  PUBLIC HOLIDAYS IN THE POST OFFICE.
  MR. HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury,

  1069
  as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state why certain sections of the Post Office employees received a holiday on 24th May, 1901, while others did not have one; whether overtime was worked subsequently in order to perform the work that would otherwise have been done on 24th May; and whether steps can be taken to provide that in future when a holiday to civil servants is granted it shall be given to the more poorly paid members of the staff as well as the major establishment of the Post Office.
  MR. HAYES FISHER (for Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN): Only those employees who could be spared from their duties without inconvenience to the public service received a holiday on the 24th May last, and on the corresponding day in previous years. It is probable that in some cases overtime was worked subsequently in order to perform work that would otherwise have been done on that day. It has never been possible to grant a holiday on the occasion in question to those of the operative staff whose attendance is required on that day, and it is not practicable to make any change in that respect.

  LONDON TELEGRAPH CLERKS—MEAL RELIEFS.
  MR. HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that telegraph clerks in London employed on evening duties from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. and 4 p.m. to midnight do not receive a meal relief, being employed upon telegraph duties without intermission, and whether, seeing that seven months have elapsed since the Postmaster General promised to consider the advisability of altering the arrangement, an answer can now be given.
  MR. HAYES FISHER (for Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN): The Postmaster General has sanctioned meal reliefs on the duties to which the hon. Member refers, and arrangements will be commenced as soon as practicable for this purpose. Some little time must, however, elapse before full effect can be given to the decision.

  REGISTRATION OF TEACHERS.
  MR. BOND: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Consultative Committee have framed Regulations for the registration of teachers; and, if so, at what date an Order in Council dealing with the question will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): Yes; the matter is now under the consideration of the Board of Education.

  COCKERTON JUDGMENT.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, in view of his suggestion* that the school boards should arrange with the local municipal authorities for the continuance of their evening school work, rate expenditures upon which have now been declared illegal, whether his attention has been called to the fact that, of the two funds at the disposal of these local authorities, the first, the whisky money, is practically all absorbed for purposes of technical instruction, and the second, the penny rate leviable under the Technical Instruction Acts, is also wholly or partially absorbed in a number of cases for the same purpose; and, seeing that under the Technical Instruction Acts the municipal councils are debarred from aiding the instruction of pupils, adult and otherwise, in the obligatory and standard subjects of the Whitehall Code out of the rate fund at their disposal, whether he can suggest any other course for relieving school boards of their present disability.
  SIR J. GORST: The question and answer referred to by the hon. Member related to the City of Leeds, which, like the County Council of London, has as yet expended no part of the rate under the Technical Instruction Acts. The question and answer referred to related to instruction for commercial and industrial pursuits, and not to reading, writing,

  * See page 909.

  1071
  and arithmetic, though I must not be understood to accept the construction which the hon. Member puts upon the Technical Instruction Acts.
  DR. MACNAMARA: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is of opinion that money raised under the Technical Instruction Acts can be used in the maintenance of the instruction in the obligatory and standard subjects of the Whitehall Code?
  SIR J. GORST: No; it is no part of my duty or that of the Board of Education to interpret Acts of Parliament.

  WELSH INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether Sub-section (2) of Clause 6 in the Education Bill, introduced by the Government this session, would enable an urban district council in Wales or Monmouthshire under any conditions to claim from the education authority any share in the management or control of a county school (situated within such urban district) established under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act of 1889.
  SIR J. GORST: I should think that no such claim could be substantiated under Clause 6 (2) against the will of the education authority, but the point shall be considered when the Bill is in Committee.

  BRECHIN INTIMIDATION CASE.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the sentence of thirty days imprisonment without the alternative of a fine imposed upon James Bean at Brechin on the 31st May for the offence of intimidation; whether he is aware that nothing was proved against the prisoner beyond the use of opprobrious epithets directed to certain men who had refused to join in a local strike and whether, under the circumstances, the Secretary for Scotland can see his way to recommend a remission of the remaining portion of the man's sentence.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): I have already stated in reply to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil that the Secretary for Scotland sees no reason for advising any remission in this case. This decision was reached after a careful consideration of the circumstances of the case, and the Secretary for Scotland cannot depart from it.

  AFFORESTRY IN IRELAND.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the Cork County Council, on the 13th instant, in connection with the subject of tree planting; and whether, in view of the want of timber in many parts of Ireland, the Government will introduce a short Bill giving county councils power to compulsorily acquire waste lands for the purpose of re-afforesting, or in the alternative give facilities to private Member's Bills in this direction.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The Department of Agriculture is advised that county councils are empowered under Section 19, Sub-section 5, of the Agriculture and Technical Instruction Act, 1899, to borrow money for the purchase of land for tree planting, the consent of the Local Government Board being first obtained. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  NEW RULES ON IRISH INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what percentage of pupils who successfully pass through the junior grade of intermediate education in Ireland succeed in subsequently passing the senior grade; and what opportunity members of this House will be afforded for discussing the new rules brought forward by the Commissioners of Intermediate Education.
  MR. WYNDHAM: For the last three years 7 per cent., approximately, of students who passed in the junior

  1073
  grade succeeded in passing in the senior grade. It may be stated that but a small percentage of successful junior grade students proceed to the senior grade.
  ME. FLYNN: And when are we to have an opportunity of discussing the new rule?
  ME. WYNDHAM: That depends on the arrangement of the business of the House.

  MARLBOROUGH STREET, DUBLIN, TRAINING COLLEGE.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the position of principal of the male department in the Marlborough Street Training College is now vacant; is he aware that the Commissioners of National Education, on the inception of the scheme of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in 1890, made a rule that from that date appointments would be made to the college with due regard to the various denominations attending it; and seeing that this rule was sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant, will he state whether it is to be acted upon in making the new appointment to the principalship; and if no regard is to be had to religious denomination, will the senior professor of the college be appointed principal.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The principal of the Department referred to resigns from the 31st August next. In April, 1891, the Commissioners made an order providing that in respect to all future appointments to this college the appointments shall be made, as far as practicable, with due regard to the relative number of students in training of the several religious denominations, so as to provide that each denomination shall be represented in due proportion on the staff of the training college. This order does not appear to have been submitted to the Lord Lieutenant for sanction. The Commissioners have not yet considered the question of appointing a successor to the principal.

  TEMPLEMORE WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary
  1074
  to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in October, 1899, the Urban Council of Templemore, by a majority, decided to bring in a water supply scheme in consequence of the present source having been pronounced unfit for human use by Sir C. Cameron; that engineers were appointed, and plans, etc., drawn; that the military authorities have complained of the insufficient and impure water; and that the Local Government Board have been for years urging the necessity for a better and more satisfactory supply; and seeing that the urban council instructed their solicitor nearly two years ago to take the necessary steps for obtaining a Provisional Order for this purpose, will he explain why an inquiry was not held and the wishes of the local public representatives acceded to.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are generally stated in this question. The Local Government Board is not aware why the solicitor to the council has not lodged a petition for a Provisional Order with the Board. No steps can be taken by the Board in the absence of such a petition, or of a formal complaint made under the 15th section of the Public Health Act, 1896.

  SERGEANT SHARKEY, ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  *MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a case of assault heard recently at Dundrum Petty Sessions, in which Sergeant sharkey. Royal Irish Constabulary, was charged with having assaulted and kicked a blind boy named Martin; whether he is aware that the chairman announced that an assault had been committed, but that in view of the long service of the defendant they would not inflict any punishment, but would dismiss the case with a caution; and will he state whether long service in the police force secures immunity from punishment for such an assault, and whether the police authorities intend to take any action in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are correctly stated in the first and second paragraphs. I cannot criticise the action

  1075
  of magistrates in the exercise of their judicial functions. The conduct of the sergeant, from a disciplinary point of view, is now under the consideration of the Inspector General.

  MR. P. T. WALSH, J.P.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any official information to the effect that the Mr. P. T. Walsh, recently elected chairman of county Waterford, is the same person who was recently a defendant in a United Irish League conspiracy case, and whether it is the intention of the Lord Chancellor to sanction his appointment as a justice of the peace.
  MR. P. J. POWER: Is it a fact that Mr. Walsh was not convicted, although forty-three jurors were ordered to stand aside, and is it not also the fact that the majority of those on the bench which returned him for trial were against so doing?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I must ask for notice as to that. As to the question on the Paper, the reply to the first query is in the affirmative. Proceedings are pending against Mr. Walsh at the approaching summer assizes, and this being so, the question of his retention on the Commission of the Peace cannot be determined by the Lord Chancellor until after the trial.
  MR. P. J. POWER: But is it not the fact that the jury disagreed, although forty-three were ordered to stand aside?
  MR. WYNDHAM: They did disagree.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is not Mr. Walsh one of the most highly respected gentlemen in—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  SWANLINBAR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state who is the resident magistrate in charge of Swanlinbar petty sessions
  1076
  district, and how often he has attended the petty sessions in Swanlinbar during the past two years.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The petty sessions at Swanlinbar are held on the same date as those at Belleek. Mr. Bull, the resident magistrate of the district, has attended all the sessions at Belleek during the past two years. No inconvenience appears to have been caused to the public by his absence from the Swanlinbar Petty Sessions, but the question of a revision of the existing arrangements is under consideration.

  CORK GASWORKERS' STRIKE.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the interference of Police-sergeant Williams, of Cork, in the strike now existing in that city; whether he is aware that this action of Sergeant Williams is resented by the Cork United Trades' Association and the Gasworkers' Society, and whether, in the event of Sergeant Williams having exceeded his duty, he will be warned not to interfere again in this dispute between employers and employed.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member has communicated to me a copy of a statement containing a report of an alleged conversation between a man named Cronin, lately employed in the gasworks, and Sergeant Williams, to the effect suggested in the question. The sergeant emphatically denies that he used the language attributed to him by Cronin—who, I may observe, was convicted of intimidation arising out of the strike, on the 15th instant.

  BELFAST DISTURBANCES.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the owners of the building in Belfast on which the street preacher Trew delivered the speeches inciting to riot requested the Government to prevent these speeches being delivered.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I presume the hon. Member refers to the steps of the

  1077
  Custom House in Belfast, from which many of these speeches have been delivered. The control of this building is vested in the Board of Works, and the steps have also been used for many years as a platform by persons representing various sects and religious denominations. The expediency of enclosing the steps so as to exclude the public is doubtful.
  DR. AMBROSE: Have these steps ever been used by Roman Catholic preachers?
  [No answer was returned.]
  MR. NANNETTI: was putting a question about the Dublin Custom House steps when he was stopped by the Speaker.

  WEXFORD LOCAL GOVERNMENT INQUIRY.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Local Government Board for Ireland have refused to give the Wexford County Council a copy of the report of their representative who conducted the recent inquiry at Wexford into the question of the salaries of the county and district surveyors, and if he will lay that report upon the Table of the House; if he is also aware that the Local Government Board have refused to give any reasons for their increase of the salaries of the officials in question; and if, in view of the fact that these officials admitted at the inquiry that they had no increase of duties under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, he can explain how the salary of the county surveyor has been raised from £650 to £846, and the salaries of the three deputy surveyors from £240 to £428; and if he will give the difference, respectively, between the salaries now fixed by the Local Government Board and those previously fixed by the Local Government Board and declared by the Court of Appeal to be illegal.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reports made by the inspectors of the Local Government Board in such matters are confidential documents and it would be
  1078
  contrary to invariable practice to lay them upon the Table. The decision of the Board was based on the evidence given at the inquiry and on Section 115 (18) of the Local Government Act of 1898. The officials did not admit they had no increase of duties; on the contrary, the surveyor stated, on oath, that his duties had increased over 70 per cent. The other officers also gave particulars of their increased duties, and no rebutting evidence was offered on behalf of the county council. The difference between the salaries now fixed and those originally fixed is £26.

  ATTACK ON A CLERGYMAN, CO. DUBLIN.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the assault, by three young men on the evening of Sunday, the 2nd June, upon the Rev. Nevin Bradshaw as he was returning from Kill o' Grange Church, whether he is aware that Mr. Bradshaw, after being insulted, was knocked down by a blow, for which assault the accused were sentenced to fines with the alternative of terms of imprisonment, and whether he will take steps to protect Mr. Bradshaw from such treatment in future.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are, generally, as stated. The assault was committed by three men under the influence of liquor, and the evidence showed that their misconduct was attributable to that cause. There is no reason to apprehend that the reverend gentleman will be further molested.

  LIMERICK COUNTY COUNCIL MEETINGS.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will recommend the Local Government Board for Ireland to empower the Limerick County Council and district councils to hold their proposal meetings, in connection with the Local Government Act of 1898, half-yearly instead of quarterly, which would save them expense and otherwise facilitate matters

  1079
  for them, and which would be in accordance with the wishes of the county and district councils as well as of the Finance Committee, as expressed by resolutions of those bodies; or whether he will recommend the purport of such resolutions to be embodied in the amended Local Government Act, as, according to Order in Council, at present under consideration.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Under the Application of Enactments Order, 1898, the county and district council are bound to hold four quarterly meetings every year for the transaction of general business. This provision of the Enactments Order could not be amended by the Procedure Order now before Parliament. The Local Government Board has not received any representations which would lead them to believe that the course indicated in the question would meet with the approval of county and district councils generally.

  FERMOY AND CORK DIRECT RAILWAY.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a position to state, as the result of his communications with the Irish Government and the Fishguard and Rosslare Company, when the works for the construction of the Fermoy and Cork Direct Railway will be commenced.
  MR. HAYES FISHER (for Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN): The Treasury is in communication with the company and the Irish Government on this subject, but I regret that it is not yet possible to make any statement upon the subject.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON IRISH UNIVERSITY EDUCATION.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the sittings of the Royal Commission on University Education will be held in Ireland; whether the Secretary to the Commission has been appointed by the Commissioners or by the Government, and whether he can give his name.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,):
  1080
  The Royal Commission will, of course, determine for itself the places at which it will hold its inquiry. I have, for reasons well known, taken pains to make the majority of the Commission residents on this side of St. George's Channel, being persons engaged in the work of higher education. Under these circumstances it is inevitable that, many of these gentlemen being busy men, especially at certain times of the year, regard will have to be paid to that fact in relation to the meetings of the Com mission. In regard to the last part of the question, no name has been fixed upon at present.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. STUART WORTLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state which will be the Government Orders that will be placed at the head of the list on Wednesday next, and in what order they will stand.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not brought with me the extract of my speech in which I informed the House what would be the course of business on this Wednesday, but I think I made it explicit that after the first two Orders of the day, which were respectively the motion to send the Sale of Liquor to Children Bill and the Pure Beer Bill to the Grand Committee, the rest of the day would be devoted to Private Members' Bills, taken in the order in which they would have been taken had there been no interference with the usual course of business.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: What will be the business next week?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Finance Bill will be proceeded with day by day next week, but the arrangements announced for Wednesday will be adhered to, and Irish votes in Supply taken on Friday.
DR. MACNAMARA: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to proceed with the Education Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  TOOK THE OATH.
  One other Member took and subscribed the Oath.

  LARCENY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Law, etc.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 223.]
  Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 223.]
  Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 222.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEE).
  Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures:—Sir Walter Thorburn and Mr. John Redmond (added in respect of the Factory and Workshop Acts Amendment and the Factory and Workshop Acts Consolidation Bills), and had appointed in substitution Mr. Arkwright and Mr. William Redmond.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to Drunkenness." Drunkards Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to alter the qualifications of Licensing Authorities and the time of holding Licensing Sessions." Licensing Bill [Lords].

  SOLICITORS BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 223.]
  COUNTY COURTS. (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 224.]

SUPPLY [12TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY [12TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1901–2.

    Class IV.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £713,881 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for Public Education in Scotland, and for Science and Art in Scotland, including a Grant in-Aid."
    MR. BRYCE: When this Vote was before the House about six weeks ago we were discussing the question of training colleges. I believe that the motion for a reduction which was then made by my hon. friend the Member for North-West Lanark has lapsed. If that is so, I propose to renew the motion of my hon. friend, not, of course, with any intention of taking a division, but with a view to confining the discussion for a short time to the subject then raised. My hon. friend brought forward a question with regard to training colleges which is one of great importance. Since he did so, there has occurred an event which I think will be memorable in the history of Scottish education. I mean the gift, by a munificent benefactor, of an enormous sum of money for the benefit of Scottish universities. I should like to be permitted to join in the tribute which has been paid on different occasions to the public spirit and generosity which has been displayed by Mr. Andrew Carnegie. It is not irrelevant to do so here, because I believe Mr. Carnegie's gift has a most important bearing upon the question we are discussing. I would pay this tribute not only to Mr. Carnegie's generosity, but also to the care and thought which he has devoted to the question, because he has shown other qualities almost as admirable and uncommon as his generosity itself. He

    1083
    has shown a singular wish to obtain and to profit by all the counsel that could be given him as to the best way to apply the fund; he has shown a resolution to omit no precaution that could possibly be taken to render that fund effective for good and to prevent it being in any way misapplied; above all he has shown a wise foresight and sense of the possibility of change of circumstances in the future which have caused him to vest in his trustees very wide powers of varying the application of this gift to meet new conditions, so long as the main purpose of the gift is observed. That, I think, is a somewhat rare event in the case of these large gifts, and it is likely not only to contribute very largely to the value of the fund, but also to furnish an admirable example to other benefactors who may follow.
    This gift has made a very important difference to the proposal brought forward on the last occasion by my hon. friend. It has made the case for that proposal stronger than it was before. I must admit that in his reply on that occasion, the Lord Advocate was sympathetic, but I think he was far from being specific. He hardly gave us a definite indication of the policy that the Scottish Education Department was supposed to follow on the view which he took of my hon. friend's suggestion. I may tell the Lord Advocate what I think my hon. friend desired. I think he desired that no more money should be spent at present in further equipping or developing the training colleges. I think he desired, and certainly it is what I myself should desire, that any further grants given by the Government for this purpose should be spent on developing the university work and not on the training colleges themselves. When I say "training colleges," I mean the Presbyterian training colleges, because the case of the Presbyterian training colleges, maintained by the United Free Church and the Established Church of Scotland, is quite different from the case of the great training colleges maintained by the Roman Catholics and the Episcopalians. The Roman Catholics and the Episcopalians continue to desire that the teachers whom they employ should be prepared in their training
    1084
    colleges. They wish these institutions to be strictly and wholly denominational. In 1898 they had, I believe, only eight of their students in attendance at University courses. That is not at all the case with regard to the Presbyterian colleges. I do not think that any of us would desire to interfere with the Roman Catholics or the Episcopalians in the conduct of their system. At any rate that would raise a larger question, into which I do not now wish to enter. My desire is to keep controversial issues out of a question which I think may be considered from a purely educational point of view. The Presbyterian colleges are not denominational institutions in the sense in which the Roman Catholic and the Episcopalian colleges are. I believe that a certain number of students at the Established Church colleges belong to the United Free Church, and, similarly, that a certain number of students at the United Free Church colleges belong to the Established Church. I do not think that either of these churches regards its training colleges now—whatever may have been thought formerly—as agents for the propagation of its particular creed or for in any way strengthening its position in the country. In Scotland we are very far from having the same kind of denominational spirit in these matters as that which largely prevails in England. There is no desire on the part of the Scottish churches to make these training colleges denominational institutions. I believe that both churches are at present perfectly willing to consider any scheme which the Government may propose for dealing with them. I understand, also, that both churches are unwilling to spend more money on their training colleges; in fact, I believe they have intimated as much to the Government. If that is so; surely the way is quite open for the Government to adopt a plan for training teachers at the universities' rather than at these colleges. The two churches have not yet delivered any official opinion upon the subject, but I believe I am expressing their views correctly. It is fortunate that at this moment there reigns in Scotland a state of good feeling and harmony between the two great Presbyterian churches, which encourages the hope that no controversial matters between them will emerge

    1085
    in any proposal that may be made with regard to the training of teachers. I put it to the Government that it would be a very great pity to spend any more public money upon these training colleges when we have before us a more excellent way of spending it, namely, in developing the university training. At present a certain amount of money is spent on King's students, and it would be better to spend more money on King's students than in maintaining the training colleges. Here comes in the importance of Mr. Carnegie's gift, because a part of the expense incurred by the Government in regard to King's students, and which is incurred in any education of intending teachers at the universities, is the expense connected with fees. Mr. Carnegie's gift is intended to relieve the students of these fees. That is a large contribution, and, as I understand it, greatly diminishes the expense to which the Government would otherwise be put. Why should the Government spend £28 a year upon the instruction, altogether apart from the maintenance, of a student in a training college, when a better instruction can be obtained at one of the universities for a smaller expenditure; while now, owing to Mr. Carnegie's gift, that expenditure will be saved altogether? If I am right in that view, Mr. Carnegie's gift furnishes a strong reinforcement of the arguments presented by my hon. friend.
    What we should like is that those who are preparing for the educational profession in Scotland should go to the universities just in the same way as medical, theological, and engineering students now go, and will, I hope, when we have improved our scientific instruction, go in much larger numbers. We desire them to go not as seminarists, not as persons who are to receive from the first special instruction for a special profession, but as art students who are to take their instruction as much as possible along with other students, and who are not to embark upon a specific and special course until their general education has been concluded, that education having been carried on in company with students intended for other professions. The only difficulty which I understood the Lord Advocate to make was that there is not so much hold over King's students at the universities as over persons who are
    1086
    being prepared at the training colleges I cannot see why that should be so unless it arises from the fact that students in training colleges become professional from the first, that they are isolated from other men, are subjected to a purely professional atmosphere, and in that way are, so to speak, run into the teaching mould at an earlier age than is the case with those who remain in the freer and larger life of the universities. If that is so, I think it is a disadvantage. But I am not sure that there is really any stronger hold over training college students when they emerge from the colleges, because if they choose to devote their abilities and knowledge to following other professions, they are quite free to do so. I therefore fail to appreciate the Lord Advocate's argument that you have a better security for a supply of teachers through the training colleges than from a system of King's students.
    I will sum up what I believe to be the three benefits to be expected from the proposal of my hon. friend. The first is that it will make the teaching profession more attractive, because whatever tends to improve the status of the teaching profession and to make it one profession all through, from the universities down to the elementary schools, renders it more attractive to aspiring and ambitious men. If you have a larger proportion of your intending teachers passing through a university course you have a larger proportion of men who are fit to rise from an elementary to a secondary school, and the prospect of rising to a secondary school tends to induce abler men to enter the profession than would do so if their horizon was bounded by the prospect of an elementary school. I do not think anything does more to improve a profession as a whole, and to elevate the tone and spirit in even the humblest portions of its work, than the prospect of rising to the highest posts it can offer. In the second place, this proposal would be a good thing for the universities themselves. It would keep up one of the characteristics which has been the pride of our Scottish universities, that they have been in an eminent degree popular institutions accessible to the whole of the people in a way which the English universities have not been. They have always had a large proportion of students who have come

    1087
    from what may be called the humbler classes. I remember that when I was a student at the University of Glasgow there were students who worked as blacksmiths and stone-masons during the summer, and attended the classes in the winter. In many cases they carried off the highest prizes in the classes, and received nothing but respect and deference from their fellow students. That, characteristic of Scottish universities is a thing we are most anxious to preserve and develop, and we may hope that Mr. Carnegie's gift will help in that direction. Nothing will contribute more to that end than having as large a proportion as possible of teachers trained in the universities. English Members may be interested to know that in 1898, out of 3,867 male teachers in Scottish elementary schools, there were no less than 781 who had graduated at Scottish universities. That is a very fine showing for Scotland as compared with England, but we should be glad to see the proportion even larger yet. Those who remember Scotland in past times will recollect that many of the teachers in the old parish schools had been university graduates, and one reason why so many promising students came up from the old parish schools was that the schoolmaster was able to give an instruction in Latin, Greek, and mathematics to the most likely boys, which fitted them to enter the universities and to profit by university education. That state of tings seemed for a time to be endangered in the system which came in about fifty years ago under English educational methods, but I am happy to say that the proportion of graduates is now largely rising, and we desire to see it still further enlarged.
    Another point to which, perhaps, I ought to refer is that Mr. Carnegie's gift must have a very important effect upon Scottish elementary and secondary education. If students are to come in larger numbers to the universities because their fees are paid, it is all the more important that both elementary and secondary instruction in Scotland should be improved. There must be better and wider instruction given if the full benefit of freeing the universities from fees is to be obtained. If follows from that that it will be necessary to improve the quality of our elementary and secondary education, and I
    1088
    suggest that that can best be done by improving the quality of Scottish teaching. Therefore the third benefit which I think we ought to expect from sending, teachers to the Universities, instead of to the training colleges, is that their tone and teaching capacity will be improved. It will be a great benefit to them for their minds to be liberalised and enlarged by the teaching that they, will, receive in the universities It has been one of the greatest benefits for the clergy, of Scotland and of England that they have been, unlike the Roman Catholic clergy on the continent of Europe, educated, not in seminaries, but in company with other young men of their own age who were being prepared for other professions. The same thing; would apply to the teaching world. Training college work has a kind of seminary character about it. Young men are separated from others who are to follow different professions; they do not breathe such a stimulating atmosphere as in the universities. All the benefits which a university education gives will be given to the teaching profession if the plan of my hon. friend is carried out. I believe that whatever enlarges and stimulates the minds of the teachers will be a great benefit to Scottish education, and will enable elementary, secondary, and university education to advance to an even higher level than that on which we are proud it at present stands. For these reasons I venture to hope that we shall have a sympathetic reply from the Government. I beg to move, pro forma, to reduce the Vote by £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item Q (Grants for Training-Colleges) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Bryce.)
    MR. RENSHAWsaid he was sure every Member who was interested in education—and he thought that included every Scottish Member in the House—felt that they were indebted to the hon. Member for North-West Lanark for having raised this question of the training colleges. The sentiments also of the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen were very much those entertained by many hon. Members

    1089
    in approaching this question from the educational point of view. He wished to direct the attention of the Committee to a more practical side of the question, and that was the continuing difficulty of obtaining a sufficient number of teachers under the existing system. It seemed to him that the existing system was threatening to break down, and in view of the great and munificent gift of Mr. Carnegie and of the passing of the Bill last Wednesday, which would undoubtedly increase the attendance at the elementary schools, he thought it absolutely essential that those responsible for maintaining the teaching staffs in the Scottish schools should have their attention directed to the insufficiency of the provision for the training of teachers. The training colleges had only accommodation for 1,370, and the total number of certificated teachers was 10,845. Now, in his opinion, that number was obviously insufficient for the requirements of the Scottish educational authorities. In support of his argument he referred to the advertisement pages of the Scotsman and Glasgow Herald. In these journals school boards were advertising for every class of teachers, whereas scarcely ever was there an advertisement by a teacher wanting a situation. That indicated that the demand for teachers was outrunning the supply. The teaching profession was a highly honourable one, and had always appealed to the sentiments and sympathy of the Scottish people. And now it was attractive even financially, as was shown in the last Report of the Committee of Council on Education. The average remuneration earned by certificated teachers for the last year was £142, whereas in 1870 it was only £101. Fifty per cent. of the total number of certificated teachers had got incomes of over £150. Why was it, therefore, that they had such a comparatively small number of men coming forward to enter the ranks of the teaching profession? He imagined that there must be a period in the life of very many young men when they asked themselves whether they would become teachers or clerks, and why was it that the number who applied to go into offices as clerks was apparently almost innumerable, while the number who went into the teaching profession
    1090
    was so limited? He could not see that the life of a clerk was pleasanter than that of a teacher; and certainly the position and the prospects of a teacher were, in his opinion, infinitely better than those of an ordinary clerk. The teacher had longer holidays and a bigger salary, and by an Act passed in the last Parliament, provision was made in respect to superannuation. Notwithstanding all these advantages they had the fact that there was an unlimited number of applications by young men, from twenty to twenty-five years of age, for clerkships where the remuneration was not more than £60 to £80 per year, while if a; school board wanted a certificated teacher they had to pay at least £120 per year, and even then the choice was so limited that they were compelled to accept whatever they could get. There; could be only one reason why a larger number of young men did not seek to enter the teaching profession, and that was the restrictions and difficulties to their becoming teachers. There was; too great a congestion in the training colleges. If the suggestion of the hon. Member for North-west Lanark was capable of being carried out, they might increase the facilities given for young men and young women going through a course of university training, and having their minds broadened and freed from the narrow influences of ordinary schools, and so becoming capable of giving to the scholars in Scotland better and wider training than under the opportunities afforded at the present time. For his part he hoped that the discussion of this question would focus attention in Scotland on the matter; and unless; the Lord Advocate could give some assurance to the Committee as to the prospects in future in the direction of improvement, they should have either a Departmental Inquiry or a Select Committee on the question of the supply of teachers.
    MR. HALDANEsaid that the appearance of tranquility which the House of Commons presented when it went into Committee on the Scottish Estimates was phenomenal, but he would be a very superficial observer who was misled as to the importance of the business that was being transacted.

    1091
    They were really the Great Council of the Scottish nation. They were there to discuss thoroughly practical topics about which they all knew something, and in which all Scottish Members were interested, and which they were able to discuss without introducing party feeling. There were no supplementary questions, no motions for adjournment, not even any party political differences. His hon. friend opposite had made a speech just as progressive, satisfactory, and reforming in tone as that of the hon. Member for North-west Lanark. On the last occasion on which this question came before the Committee the Lord Advocate had spoken in a sympathetic, if also in a somewhat cautious spirit; and his right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen had examined the whole matter with a fulness of knowledge which showed that complete and thorough grasp of educational subjects which his long studies and academic position entitled him to do. What was the practical point—for they were a practical people in Scotland, and tried to come to the practical point at once? They had got a suspicion—not at all a hostile suspicion—that the Government had in contemplation to do something to deal with an evil which was admitted on all hands, namely, the difficulty in getting a supply of Scottish teachers in the schools. To cope with that evil it was necessary to make some further provision for the training of teachers. That might be done in two ways, one bad, and the other good. They had a fear lest, with the breakdown of the existing arrangements, that it would enter into the minds of those who had the control of these matters that, instead of making use of the universities, they would try to take over the training colleges from the churches and put them under the control of the Education Department. They did not know whether such a policy had been definitely come to, or was even contemplated, but they had the feeling, from fragments and traces in recent speeches, that that was possible. Now, he thought there was a general agreement on both sides of the House that that was not the most auspicious way of entering upon the task of getting a better supply of Scottish teachers. The training colleges were very peculiar bodies. There were
    1092
    four Presbyterian colleges, one Roman Catholic, and one Episcopalian—all managed by the churches. The Presbyterian colleges were managed in a spirit which was wonderfully free from sectarianism. They were really great pieces of machinery which, only by a sort of accident, were managed by the churches, although the Government found the money. They were national institutions, and must be treated on that footing. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire that there was difficulty in getting young people to enter the teaching profession. They did not care to go into the training colleges because they were not of the status of certain other educational institutions in Scotland. There was nothing more striking, he thought he might say, than the decay of individuality in the teaching profession. What they were suffering from was a certain dead level. It was a high level; it had improved very much in the last few years, but there was less of that rugged individuality of character, that sort of Carlylean characteristic in the Scottish schoolmaster which existed twenty-five years ago. They had come to a time when there was some hope of something like a chance being obtained of getting back to the old position.
    About the great gift of Mr. Carnegie he would not say more than that it would enable an enormous stride to be taken in Scottish education. Through the splendid munificence of Mr. Carnegie it was now possible to do something not only in the direction of assisting students to go to the universities, but in the direction of developing the universities themselves and making them more attractive and comprehensive. There were two alternative plans. One was to take over the training colleges and manage them from Dover House. Dover House was a most efficient institution, but he could not help feeling that if they did that they would not get rid of that tendency to a dead level which he deprecated. He would rather see the development of the policy of training the teachers in the universities themselves. That would be no new departure. The hon. Member for West Renfrewshire had spoken of the number of teachers in the training colleges as being between 1,200 and 1,300; but there were besides that

    1093
    380 of what were called King's students at the universities, whose training for the teaching profession was supervised by local committees—some at Aberdeen University and the others at St. Andrews University. Experience had proved that that system was an enormous success, and the number of King's students was rapidly increasing. The system, which was much appreciated, gave every indication of showing the way in which the training of students for the teaching profession in Scotland might be greatly popularised. He would not talk of the Roman Catholic or the Episcopalian colleges, for they were sectarian institutions; but surely it would be better, instead of doing anything in the direction of State control of the Presbyterian colleges, rather to look to the universities as the training ground for teachers. He would like to say that, although the right hon. Gentleman opposite had on the last occasion on which this question was debated alleged that this was not a very practicable scheme, inasmuch as it provided no substitute for the training colleges in supervising the young teachers while being educated at the universities, experience had shown that that work of supervision was being efficiently carried out by local committees in Aberdeen and St. Andrews; and there was no reason why it should not be done in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Surely it was for the school boards themselves to take part in the supervision of the students while undergoing a course of university training. Glasgow, indeed, had already told the Government, through the lips of the school board, that it was quite ready to take in hand an experiment such as that which had succeeded so well in Aberdeen and St. Andrews. They had got in the Carnegie Trust a means of developing that side of university life—the means of cheapening the entrance to the universities for these students. But he thought that, even without resorting to the Carnegie Trust, the university training was cheaper than that of the training colleges. The cost of the training college was £28 per year and of the university £16 per year. Speaking for himself, he first of all advocated this change in the interest of getting more individuality in the teacher, and secondly because it was good for the
    1094
    teaching profession, good for the university, and for what they all aimed at—the reform which should bring the university, the secondary school, and the elementary school all into line and relation with one another. They were on the verge of a new departure, and if the Lord Advocate could give them an assurance on this matter he would confer-an obligation on the whole people of Scotland.
    *MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid he was in general sympathy with what had been said. He knew that the difficulty of getting teachers had been very much felt. He also agreed that it was very desirable to encourage the attendance at the universities of young men and young women who were preparing for the teaching profession. That was already being done to an increasing extent. He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen admit the efficient way in which the training colleges had done their work. These colleges were under denominational management; but their teaching was not denominational in the sense of being peculiar to any Church, and the general work that they had done had been acknowledged to be excellent. He did not think it could be said that the training colleges had scared young people from proceeding towards the teaching profession. There had been no objection on their part to the training colleges. While the colleges had not been the only avenues to the teaching profession, the fact still remained that they had been the main avenue, and the only complaint against them of late years had been their insufficiency to train the number of teachers that was required for the staffing of the schools. He hailed the suggestion that more should be done through the universities, and he was glad to know that the experiment that had been made in regard to King's students had been satisfactory in Aberdeen and St. Andrews. They must remember, however, that that system was in the experimental stage as yet. He hoped the experiment would continue to be successful, and that by-and-by they would find a large accession of

    1095
    teachers through that channel, and that the authorities in Edinburgh and Glasgow, when they saw that the system had succeeded elsewhere, would adopt it. At the same time, he must express the hope that the Scotch Education Department would not be encouraged by this discussion to withdraw or lessen their assistance to the training colleges until they were quite sure that a good substitute had been found. The training colleges had done their work well and were worthy of all the assistance they received. They were originally founded by the churches, which had raised the money for the buildings, and now the churches were taking an interest in their management, not in any sectarian, but in a broad educational spirit. He should think that the churches would not put any obstacle in the way of any new system so long as they were assured that that new system would produce equally good results with the old.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid that before the Lord Advocate replied he wished to say a few words. For many years before this question had been brought before the House the necessity had been felt for increased facilities for training teachers. Scotch education had undoubtedly suffered from the want of a sufficient supply of accommodation in the training colleges. He was not going into the comparative merits of the university system and the training college system. There were a great many arguments in favour of both but, as the right hon. Gentleman had just pointed out, he did not think they had yet had sufficient experience of the working of the university system to lead them to determine now any change on a very large scale. What he was particularly anxious about was that they ought to have an increase in the means of training teachers in the training colleges. It had been said that then had been a difficulty in getting young people to enter the profession. He die not think there was any difficulty of that kind, because they found from the Report of the Scotch Education Department that the great source of supply of teachers came from the pupil teachers, and at the examination for
    1096
    admission to the training colleges hundreds of pupil teachers who had passed the examination were not admitted to the training colleges because there was not room for them. The Glasgow newspapers had many letters from parents complaining that their children who had qualified by passing the examinations to enter the training colleges, could not do so simply because there was no room. The last report showed that out of 972 who had qualified, only 342 were able to be taken into the training colleges. Only thirty-six King's students and thirty-eight graduates had been appointed teachers, so that the number of teachers to be obtained from those sources was not very large.
    As regarded pupil teachers who had been qualified by exam., but had not been admitted to the training college, there was a gross injustice. They had been encouraged to enter into a contract of service. They fulfilled that contract so far as they were committed to it by qualifying to pass the exam., but they had not been given the advantage of trained teachers as regarded emoluments, simply because the Education Department had not accommodation to enable them to fulfil their own part of the obligation. That was grossly unfair. It was not astonishing that so few joined the teaching profession, because it was found that after a person had qualified in every way he was not admitted to a training college, and did not receive his certificate as a trained teacher at all. Persons in the towns were able to pass the exam, owing to the special facilities they had, but pupil teachers in the country districts, who had not similar advantages, were naturally left out in the cold. Obviously the teachers were the mainspring of education. As had been pointed out, the characteristic of education in Scotland in other days was the individuality of the teacher. It was the teacher, and not the parents, of a boy that induced him to prepare for and to go to a university, and he ventured to say that there could be no real education without thoroughly trained teachers.
    In the inspector's report the great difference between teachers trained in the training colleges and teachers without that training was noted, and the inspect-

    1097
    tors deplored the increase in the number of untrained teachers. In the Report it was stated that of the new teachers 207 were males and 765 females; or three and a half times as many females as males, and that the total number of teachers was roughly 4,000 males and 6,000 females. The female teachers were increasing year by year. Why? The school boards found such difficulty in getting male teachers, and the salaries were so high, that they were driven in self-defence to employ as many female teachers as possible. Under the present system managers had no choice, and practically had to take every man coming out of the training colleges. There was no subject of more pressing importance than the training of teachers, and it was an extraordinary thing to find men qualified as pupil-teachers who could not attend the training colleges because there was no room. He admitted that there was a little improvement recently as regarded the number of teachers trained, but it should also be remembered that the school attendance was increasing. Last year 14,000 pupils were added to the school registers and 8,000 to the average attendance, and that swallowed up the increase in the number of trained teachers. He hoped therefore that the training of teachers either at the universities or at the training colleges would be attended to. The reason why the training colleges were not enlarged was because they were private property, although they were practically State institutions. They were not increased because of the difficulty of breaking away from the old traditions of denominational institutions. But that difficulty must be overcome, and it must be recognised that the training colleges were no longer of a denominational character, but really State institutions. They should be worked to the very best advantage, and more accommodation should be provided for, and a little more money spent in, the training of teachers.
    DR. MACNAMARAsaid that as an English Member, and a Member of the largest school board south of the Tweed, he wished to state that he had studied the Report with envy and admiration. First of all, as to the age to which children remained at school, it
    1098
    was very remarkable indeed that, although the statutory limit in Scotland was ten years, yet according to the Report 42¼ per cent. of the children in the elementary schools in Scotland were over that age, whereas in England, where the statutory limit was twelve years, only 30 per cent. of the children were beyond the age of ten. Therefore, it was quite clear that the Scottish people were a much longer way ahead of their statutory obligation than the English people. He also observed that in Scotland 3 per cent. of the children at school were over fourteen years, whereas in English schools not 1 per cent. was over the age. Then as regarded the higher grade schools, no smaller a proportion than 35 per cent. of the children were over fifteen years of age.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that the debate is now confined to the question of the training colleges.
    DR. MACNAMARAsaid he understood the Committee were discussing the Scotch Education Office.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: A reduction has been moved in respect of the training colleges, and the discussion must now be confined to that particular reduction.
    *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): I had better now reply to the further remarks that have been made on this subject which has been reintroduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen. Of course, he need make no apology for further discussing this subject, because I have made it perfectly clear that, so far as the Department is concerned, we are fully alive to its importance. Indeed, I think the right hon. Gentleman quite admitted that the reply I made to the speech of the hon. Member for North-west Lanark was sympathetic, although he said it was somewhat wanting in specialisation. I should be the first to admit that it was wanting in specialisation, and for the reason that I have already explained, namely, that although I found that the hon. Member for North-west Lanark was entirely in sympathy with the views that we held, what I was left rather in

    1099
    doubt about was what he proposed, and exactly what in a practical way he wanted. The right hon. Gentleman to-night spoke of the "proposals" of the hon. Member for North-west Lanark, and he afterwards, in the latter portion of his speech, actually spoke of his "plans." I only wish I could discover what the plans of the hon. Member were, and I do not think his observations could be exactly characterised as proposals. I entirely agree that we should as far as possible foster the connection between the training of teachers and the universities, and, so far as we possibly can, take advantage of university education in the training of teachers. That is, of course, entirely our view, and I need scarcely tell the Committee that we have tried to do a great deal in that direction. I am only recapitulating, but at the same time let me remind the Committee that, so far as the training colleges are concerned, we encourage them to send students to the universities by paying, as part of the expenses of the training colleges, the fees which the students pay in attending university classes. Over and above that, we have introduced this system of King's students, of which I think every hon. Member who has addressed the Committee thinks well; and beyond that we have given special grants to allow the training of teachers in special subjects under another branch of the Code.
    Now, the question is, What further? I cannot help thinking that if we could imagine an intelligent foreigner listening to this debate he would have gone away with the impression that a man could only be a teacher in a Scottish school if he had in some way or another passed through a training college or had been a King's student, or had been at one of these particular classes. That, as hon. Members know, is not the case. There is nothing to stop a man with the highest university degree in the kingdom from becoming a teacher. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen might become a teacher if he went for six months, or whatever it is, to a public elementary school. But why does he not become a teacher? Why, because he has other and better things to do. It is regarded as curious that we do not have a greater
    1100
    number of persons entering the teaching profession. I am afraid the reason is that for the highly educated there are other things which offer more attractive fields than the teaching profession. Let us compare the career of a teacher with the possible career and opportunities of a clerk. The clerk begins as an office boy, and then becomes a clerk. He earns his own subsistence at a very early age, and accordingly, I think, there will always be a redundancy in that particular class, because, although the position may not have the attraction or the certain prospect of getting as good a salary as a teacher, yet it is an easier career on its inception and may eventually lead to higher things than the teaching profession.
    Now, I pass from that to the question, What next? The hon. Member for West Renfrew told us that we must not be deceived by the seeming tranquillity of a discussion of this sort—that other things may be hidden under it I confess I could not listen to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman without wondering whether there was not something underneath it. I am not, of course, suggesting anything on his part; but what I want to know is, Does he go the length of saying; that we had better give up the training, colleges? because that is a question which neither he nor the hon. Member for North-west Lanark at all faced.
    It is all very well to say—and we all agree—that we should foster connection with the universities as much as we can, but are we to give up the training colleges? The training colleges, as the Committee knows, are conducted by the churches. The right hon. Gentleman made it perfectly clear that he did not mean for a moment to propose any change in either the Episcopalian college or the Roman Catholic college. The Roman Catholic training college, as he knows very well, is very much the strongest of the whole set, and it is so for one very good reason, that it is the only residential college in the set, and therefore it has a great hold, and, for the matter of that, spends a great deal more money on the students than is spent on the students in the other training colleges. But as regards the other training colleges, would he give them up or not? The right hon. Gentle-

    1101
    man said something vague as to there being a sort of feeling that no more money should be spent, but does he think that the abandonment of these training colleges is in accordance with Scottish opinion? It is all very well to say that these colleges, although they belong to the churches, have not been conducted in a proselytising spirit, but there is no great incentive to proselytism when everyone believes the same way as you do, and inasmuch as the great majority of the Scottish people is Presbyterian; and although there are differences as regards church government, which I should be very sorry to enter upon, between the two great churches, yet, fortunately for the people of Scotland, these differences have never practically affected the elementary education of the children in religious subjects, and it has been common ground between all the Scottish churches that the children shall be denominationally taught. The hon. Member shakes his head, but it is my opinion, and the opinion of many other people. It is not a training, for instance, that would please my noble friend the Member for Greenwich. It is denominational in the sense of being Presbyterian as against anything else; consequently there has been no necessity to proselytise, and, of course, like every other educational institution of the sort, there is nothing in the shape of a test. We are absolutely free in that way. I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman, would he have the courage to stand up in Scotland and expect the Scottish people to agree with him, and say that the time has come, so far as the training of teachers is concerned, to cut the connection with the churches altogether, and have no church control of any sort? Personally I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would—I do not mean he would not have the personal courage, but I mean he would not have the courage of that opinion in Scotland. Surely that is, I will not say an answer to the hon. Member for North-west Lanark, for my criticism is that he did not put forward a proposition that admitted of an answer, but it is an answer, to a great extent, as to what we are going to do.
    I have a little fault also to find with the hon. Member for Mid Lanark. He
    1102
    has addressed himself to this subject for several years, and he says that the practical difficulty in making the training colleges larger is that they do not belong to us. That brings me to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Haddington. He seems to have conceived a fear that we are going to take over the training colleges, and to make them Government institutions. Whether that would please the hon. Member for Mid Lanark or not I am not quite sure, but it would at once get over the difficulty he sees in the way of making the training colleges larger. I can, however, assure the hon. and learned Member that such an idea, so far as I know, has never entered the head of His Majesty's Government up to the present, and that consequently there is no practical proposition or idea to take over the training colleges, nor have the churches given any intimation that they propose to give them up. Of course we are entirely in sympathy with the view of the right hon. Gentleman that we should get as many university men as possible, but does he think that it would ever be possible to really practically supply the whole teaching profession in that way? Personally I think not. May I ask him to consider the difficulties? In the first place there must be for the training of teachers a systematic training in very elementary subjects; in other words the universities should provide classes which they have not at present, and which really do not belong to university education. Of course we should all like every one to be a graduate of the very highest class, but we cannot have that; and, as a matter of fact, for the humbler ranks of the teaching profession it would, unless the circumstances are altered very much be quite impossible that they should come up to the standard of the higher classes in the universities, and I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would be one of the very first to deplore anything which would have the immediate result of tending to lower the present university standard. It is not a theoretical but a practical difficulty, and there are many in the humbler grades of the teaching profession for whom, in present circumstances, it would be Utopian to expect that they would ever come up to the university standard.

    1103
    One word as to what has been said about the King's studentships not prospering in Edinburgh and Glasgow as at Aberdeen and St. Andrews. So far as the Department is concerned there is no reason, but the local authorities have not taken them up in the same way at Edinburgh and Glasgow as they have at Aberdeen and St. Andrews.
    AN HON. MEMBERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to allow the establishment of King's students side by side with the training college at Edinburgh and Glasgow.
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I understand there is nothing against it, and I believe that the authorities at Glasgow are conferring upon that subject at the present time, but these matters must be dealt with largely upon the initiative of the local committees. Now, one other word. I hope I have given the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen sufficient assurance that, so far as strengthening the ties of the university is concerned, I am entirely with him, but I think, in discussing this subject, we must discuss it purely from the point of view of whether we are prepared to abandon the training colleges or not. We are not prepared to do so at the present moment, and I very much doubt whether any hon. Member would get up and say that he was. I do not know whether I shall be strictly in order, but perhaps, Mr. Lowther, you will allow me to reciprocate the well-chosen words used by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the magnificent gift of Mr. Carnegie. It is a matter for congratulation that Mr. Carnegie has taken studious care to eliminate from his proposals and their discussion all party politics, and I am glad to think that among his most trusted advisers were not only two gentlemen sitting on the Front Opposition Bench, but the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman rather indicated that the gift of Mr. Carnegie would make the matter all the easier for the Government, because, whereas we have paid the fees of the students of the training colleges at the universities in the past,
    1104
    now these fees may be got from the Carnegie fund. We do not entirely know what the whole plan is, but I understand that fees are only to be paid for those students who are not in a position to pay for themselves. I assure the Committee that the Education Department are fully alive to the importance of doing everything they can to strengthen the connection between the training colleges and the universities, and that they are not in the position to give up the present system.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    DR. MACNAMARAsaid that by whatever touchstone the matter was tested the Report upon Scotch Education showed a considerable advance on the north of the Tweed on anything that had been prayed for on the south. He ventured to point out to the Committee that although the statutory obligation in Scotland to keep a child at school was ten years of age, yet the percentage of children beyond that age still attending the schools was 42¼ whereas in England, where the statutory obligation was twelve years of age, only 35 per cent. of the children attending the schools were over ten. With regard to the question of higher grade schools, as set out in the Report, he found in the higher-grade schools in Scotland 35 per cent. of the pupils were over fifteen years of age. In England a child was not permitted to remain at school over fifteen years of age, and he could only look with admiration upon a system which permitted 35 per cent. of children to remain at school over that age, when in England they were compelled literally to turn them into the street. He noticed that 4 per cent. of the children in the Scotch higher grade schools were over seventeen years of age. What would happen in England if children were kept at school until such an age he would not venture to suggest, but even yet the Scotch Education Department were not satisfied. The average daily attendance of those enrolled in the schools was 84 per cent. in Scotland; in England it barely reached 82 per cent. In the matter of regular attendance England to-day was where Scotland was ten years ago, and that was

    1105
    the state of affairs which represented England's position in all educational matters. With regard to evening schools in Scotland, the number of pupils enrolled was 11½ per cent. of the number enrolled in the day schools. England and Wales could not show 9 per cent. The most striking fact, however, was the scope of work which was permitted in Scotch evening schools, which was far more extensive than that permitted in the English. The new evening school code for free instruction from school board rates for pupils of any age permitted subjects which took the pupil up to the most advanced stage of technical and artistic training. Some of the subjects mentioned in that Code as elementary were, the study of any language—ancient or modern—approved by the Department; commercial correspondence; business procedure; the study of any language with a direct view to its use in business; algebra; mensuration; dynamics; the application of mathematics and science to specific industries; machinery construction; building construction; naval architecture; various electrical industries; mining, agricultural, and horticultural, or any other industries, the scientific principles underlying which demanded attention. Those were a few of the elementary subjects, but he had never heard the Lord Advocate come to the House and gibe at the differential calculus, as he had heard the Vice-President of the English Board of Education. He would like to see a Scotch Cockerton come forward and challenge some of these subjects. He thought if anyone ventured to come forward on such an errand he would have a very bad time at the hands of Scotch Members. All these things were legitimate in Scotland, and why should they not be so south of the Tweed? If all the partially-qualified assistant teachers and pupil-teachers were excluded from this Return, and only the certificated adult teachers allowed to remain, the percentage of certificated adult teachers for the Scotch schools was 63 per cent. In England the corresponding percentage was only 42, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen might, therefore, take comfort from the fact that there was a much larger percentage of adult teachers in Scotland than was
    1106
    permitted to England. The Scotch schools had a certificated teacher for every 69 children enrolled, but in England it was one for every 90. The amount of money which was spent in the maintenance of education given in the ordinary schools was 2s. 2d. per head more than in England and Wales. The maintenance charge for the county of Inverness-shire was 61s. 2d., while in the county of Cambridge it was 44s. 2d. In Argyll-shire it was 71s. 11¼d., whilst in Cornwall it was 42s. 4d. He could only say that he hoped Scotch education would go on and prosper. There was not an English or Welsh town of any importance which had not at the head of the municipal body or at the head of some firm interested in the great undertakings of the city a Scotchman who had been induced to become a not unwilling exile from his native heath for a large salary, and if the Scotch Education Department went on as they were going on at the present time, and English education was to be left in the position it was at present, he would not be surprised to see these unhappy exiles increase to a very large extent.
    2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for a Grant to the Board of Trustees for manufactures in Scotland in aid of the maintenance of the National Gallery, School of Art, and Museum of Antiquities, Scotland, &c."
    MR. CALDWELLsaid that he desired to ask one question with regard to this Vote. He did not think that Scotland was getting anything like the amount that it should get for the maintenance of the art galleries of Scotland, and last year he found that the whole of the money granted was not spent. He noticed that there was a balance of £303 11s. 1d. What he wished to know was whether any of the money was being spent in buying pictures, or what was being done with it, and whether the trustees had any scheme for spending

    1107
    this little money, or whether it was being accumulated in the same way as the moneys which were given to England and Ireland for this purpose.
    *SIR JOHN STIRLING-MAXWELLsaid that he did not think that the hon. Member who had just sat down could have looked at the Estimates. The National Gallery in Edinburgh had been handicapped throughout its career by being tied up in the Board of Manufactures with a bundle of other institutions. It was much to be wished that the National Gallery should be allowed to stand on its own legs, but in the meantime it was only proper that Scotland should realise the gallery was in such a financial position that it had no money to spend on pictures, and though it was given a grant which might be expended in pictures, it had all to be spent in repairs. He regretted the temporary grant had not been continued, and he commended to the Government the advisability of increasing the grant, so that the National Gallery in Edinburgh might be a place of some interest and less a subject of laughter to their neighbours than at present.
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am not able to give the exact details of the expenditure of this money. With regard to a further subvention to Scotland for purposes of art, we should all like to get as much money from the Treasury for this purpose as we can, but it is not always possible to get all we could wish.
    *SIR JOHN STIRLING-MAXWELL: Will you ask?
    *MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: We have often asked, but we do not always get what we ask for.
    DR. FARQUHARSONasked whether the money not expended was allowed to accumulate, or whether it was paid back to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the end of the year.
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: It is allowed to accumulate.
    MR. CALDWELLsuggested that, as there were convenient buildings in Glas-
    1108
    gow and Edinburgh, an addition should, be made to the grant in order to enable those cities to get loan collections down from London, much in the same way as the Corporation of London obtained them for the Guildhall. It was a great pity when they had such excellent buildings in Scotland that they should not be used. It only meant the cost of removal and that was a very good reason for increasing a Vote of this kind. Of course, it meant money, but the complaint with, regard to this Vote was that it was too little; and as the only way of obtaining, an increase of the Vote was to move to reduce it still less, and also having regard, to the fact that this was the only opportunity which offered for at least a year, and that it would be a thousand pities to allow the Vote to pass without emphasising it a little, he moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    DR. FARQUHARSONsaid the hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction had failed to appreciate the extent to which, both Glasgow and Edinburgh had taken advantage of the South Kensington circulating collection. When in Glasgow last year he met the travelling superintendent of South Kensington, who was there in charge of the finest collection of water-colour drawings he had ever seen. At Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, and Dundee this loan system, had been carried on to great advantage The art treasures of London were, so far as he could see, freely placed at the disposal of the provincial towns.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: expressed the opinion that the hon. Member for Mid Lanark had taken the proper course in moving the reduction of the Vote. Scotland in this matter had a grievance, in which Ireland shared; the treatment meted out to the national galleries of Scotland was only equalled, by that meted out to Ireland. The House was always ready to provide money for the National Gallery of London, or forgiving the people of London all sorts of opportunities of enjoying and studying

    1109
    valuable works of art; but in Scotland, as in Ireland, the people were differently treated. It was absolutely impossible to get a niggardly Treasury to pay proper attention to the wishes of the people either of Scotland or Ireland, and especially was it impossible to induce them to grant sufficient money to provide a proper collection of pictures. The principle seemed to be that English Members were to be entitled to all they asked for, and Scotland and Ireland were to have nothing.
    MR. PARKER SMITHsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down had dealt with two separate questions. He did not think Scotland wanted any assistance in regard to loan collections, and he thought that Glasgow was quite equal to arranging any loan questions she desired, but that was a totally different thing to increasing the grant. He was entirely in favour of an additional grant to the National Gallery.
    *SIR JOHN LENGsaid at this moment there was an excellent and valuable collection of pictures in the Art Gallery at Dundee sent from South Kensington, and if other cities had not a similar collection it was because they had not applied for them. There was not only a very competent inspector in charge, who had selected an admirable collection, but that gentleman gave excellent lecturettes, explaining to those who went to see his pictures their historical and other connections. So far as loan collections were concerned, they had nothing either to complain of or desire.
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: So far as this Vote is concerned, it does not pretend to be a Vote for the purchase of pictures. There have been Votes in the past for that purpose, both for Scotland and for Ireland. The view of the Treasury is that the Votes for the actual purchase of pictures should be made equal to the contributions from the locality. Through the munificence of Mr. William M'Ewan and the late Mr. J. R. Findlay, who gave a sum of £5,000 each, the Trea-
    sury gave an equal sum for the purchase of pictures, and a similar course, I believe, is followed in the case of Ireland. This being a grant-in-aid, it does not come under the rule of the Treasury with regard to unexpired balances.
    *MR. WEIRsaid he was glad to find the Lord Advocate in sympathy with the hon. Member for Mid Lanark in so far that he did not think this was an adequate sum, and he assumed all Scotch Members would be glad to support the right hon. Gentleman in asking for an increased amount. The amount granted for this purpose was really only £1,400, the other £2,000 being allocated under the treaty of Union. He hoped his hon. friend would go to a division in order to support the application of the Lord Advocate for a larger grant from the Treasury.
    *SIR JOHN STIRLING MAXWELLsaid that in the present grant hon. Members were introducing a new subject in asking for money to purchase pictures, but whether such a grant should be given was a matter well worthy of consideration, and the Lord Advocate would be well advised in considering whether pressure could not be brought to bear upon the Treasury with regard to it. There was another point to which he wished to draw attention. He had asked some years ago, as to whether it was necessary to harass every visitor to the galleries by charging a penny for taking care of his umbrella, and the answer he received was that it was necessary to get all the money they could. That was a very regrettable state of affairs. He hoped the Lord Advocate would take the matter up and press for a grant for the National Gallery from the Treasury. The poverty of the institution was a discredit, he would not say to Scotland, but to the Empire, of which Scotland formed a part.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 94 Noes, 128. (Division List No. 268.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

    Ambrose, Robert

    Boland, John

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Brigg, John

    Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

    Black, Alexander William

    Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

    Burt, Thomas

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    O'Malley, William

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Mara, James

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Helme, Norval Watson

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kennedy, Patrick James

    Perks, Robert William

    Crean, Eugene

    Leng, Sir John

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Crombie, John William

    Levy, Maurice

    Reddy, M.

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Lundon, W.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Cullinan, J.

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Redmond, Wm. (Clare)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Reid, Sir R Threshie (Dumfries)

    Davies, Altred (Carmarthen)

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Rigg, Richard

    Delany, William

    M'Govern, T.

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

    Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

    Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire.

    Dillon, John

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Doogan, P. C.

    Newnes, Sir George

    Taylor, Theodore Cooke

    Duffy, William J.

    Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

    Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    Dunn, Sir William

    Norman, Henry

    Weir, James Galloway

    Emmott, Alfred

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Penwick, Charles

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Ffrench, Peter

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Field, William

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Dowd, John

    Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Charles Douglas.

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Hammond, John

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

    NOES.

    Acland Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

    Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford)

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x

    Mount, William Arthur

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nde'y

    Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Arrol, Sir William

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Austin, Sir John

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Higginbottom, S. W.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (D'rlingt'n.

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manc'r

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffi'ld, Brightside

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

    Hoult, Joseph

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Purvis, Robert

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Randles, John S.

    Bigwood, James

    Kemp, George

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Keswick, William

    Renwick, George

    Bull, William James

    Kimber, Henry

    Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Knowles, Lees

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas Thomson

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Law, Andrew Bonar

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

    Lawson, John Grant

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

    Leamy, Edmund

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

    Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lowe, Francis William

    Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

    Spear, John Ward

    Dickinson, Robt. Edmond

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Dickson, Chas. Scott

    Lucas, Col. F. (Lowestoft)

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinbu'gh W

    Valentia, Viscount

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Fielden, Edw. Brocklehurst

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Warde, Col. C. E.

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts-

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

    Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

    Morgan, David J. (Walthams'w

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh

    Wills, Sir Frederick

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Wylie, Alexander

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Sir William Walrond and.

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Younger, William

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Class III.
    3. £58,193, to complete the sum for Prisons (Scotland).
    [MR. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.), in the Chair.]
    MR. ORR-EWINGsaid he wished to bring before the Committee one or two points in connection with prison administration in Scotland. He would deal first with the matter of governors. Some years ago it was generally agreed that the system of appointing governors was not satisfactory, and an inquiry was made into the matter. It was the opinion of those who conducted the inquiry that the best man who could be appointed governor of a prison was one who had served in the Army or Navy. A very large number of those appointments had been made. No less than twenty-nine of the prison governors in England were colonels, majors, or captains; but in Scotland, where, of course, there were not so many prisons, only three of the governors were discharged soldiers. There had been a few appointments made in the last year or two, but in none of these cases were they given to discharged soldiers or sailors. They were given to men who had risen from the ranks in the prison service. He quite agreed with appointments from the ranks. The fact that it was known a man could rise to the highest rank naturally had a very good effect on the service, but at the same time he thought those appointments should be made only in very special cases, and the men to whom they were given should be very exceptional men. He had not a word to say against those men, but when it was so hard to find employment for those who had served the country, and when there were so many good men amongst them who would make excellent governors, in every possible case the appointments should be given to them. He hoped the Committee would receive some assurance that such appointments were only made in special cases to others. Dealing with
    1114
    the matter of visiting committees, the hon. Member said that in the old, days the prisoners were practically under the control of the local magistrates. There was not the same necessity then for visiting committees, but it was felt by this House that when the prisons; came under direct official control it was absolutely necessary to have some sort of buffer—some sort of safeguard against stereotyped official rule. Official rule had never been popular in this country, however excellent the particular official might be. If the visiting committees disappeared the safeguard would also disappear. The visiting committees were appointed largely to give confidence to the public in the new prison administration. They had done excellent work up to now, and although it might seem to some a sort of dual control, they had never clashed with the prison authorities. He wished to direct the attention of the Committee to a special case of Ayr prison visiting committee. That committee had practically retired, and so far as, the county was concerned they had retired altogether. The committee when appointed consisted of twelve members—five from the Royal and Parliamentary burghs, one from the county of Argyll, and six from the Ayr County Council. The five gentlemen appointed from the Royal and Parliamentary burghs had practically left all the work to the members appointed by the county council. The gentleman appointed from the county of Argyll never attended at all. The duties of the visiting committee were defined in a letter from the Secretary for Scotland, dated 1st January, 1898, as follows—
    "Lord Balfour has decided to call upon the visiting committees to make an annual report to the Secretary for Scotland on the 31st of October of each year with regard to all or any of the matters referred to in the rules with respect to visiting committees, or to any other matters pertaining to the prison that they may deem expedient."
    That seemed to give a pretty wide margin. In accordance with that rule the Ayr visiting committee made a report, recommending various things. They pointed out the disparity between the salaries of

    1115
    the chaplains and medical officers in England and Scotland, and stated their opinion that an inquiry should be held regarding the position of Scotch prisons as to staff and remuneration.
    MR. O'MARA: called attention to the fact that there were not forty Members present.
    THE CHAIRMAN: We have just had a division, and I am satisfied that there are more than forty members within the precincts.
    MR. ORR-EWINGsaid no notice was taken by Lord Balfour in his letter, dated 21st November, 1898, of the recommendation in regard to salaries, and so the committee pointed out to him that part of the report had not been answered. On 18th January, 1899, an answer was received simply acknowledging the letter, and saying it was noted that the committee wished this inquiry made. In the same year an inquiry was granted into the Scotch prisons, and naturally the visiting committee were very pleased that they would have a chance of ventilating their grievances. The Clerk of the Commission wrote to the chairman of the committee asking for a precognition of his evidence. When the Commission came the chairman, Lord Elgin, called the chairman of the committee aside and told him that some of the points mentioned in his precognition were outside the scope of the reference, and therefore he would be asked no questions on them. Well, what was left for this committee to do? They had been told by the Secretary for Scotland to make a report on all matters pertaining to prisons. Having taken evidence, the Commission issued a Report in which they said in the introduction that they understood it was not within the scope of their reference to investigate any feeling of dissatisfaction which might appear to exist among members of the prison staff, and they added—
    "Accordingly we express no opinion on this question, but we cannot ignore the fact of the existence of dissatisfaction in certain quarters."
    All their efforts having failed, the visiting committee resigned their positions. He asked the Lord Advocate on 7th May last
    1116
    if he was aware that the county council of Ayrshire at their statutory meeting in December refused to appoint members because of the way the recommendations had been dealt with by the Prison Commissioners, and if any steps could be taken to remedy the present state of affairs? In his reply the Lord Advocate said he was aware the county council resolved not to appoint members to the visiting committee, but that no official intimation of the fact had been made to the Secretary for Scotland. As a matter of fact the Clerk to the Prison Commissioners was informed by letter, which he acknowledged. The Lord Advocate went on to say that the Secretary for Scotland did not propose to take any steps in the matter, fie then asked the Lord Advocate if he was aware that the recommendations of the county council had never been inquired into, and the hon. and learned Gentleman replied that some members of the council gave evidence before the Committee, and if they were so inaccurate in their evidence as not to bring the recommendations before the Committee it was their own fault. They were not allowed to give their evidence because of the scope of the inquiry. This position of affairs was extremely unsatisfactory, and in the interest of the prison service it should not continue. It appeared to him to be setting this House at defiance. He trusted they would get some assurance now that full inquiry would be made into this condition of affairs, and that things would not be allowed to go on as they were.
    [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
    MR. PARKER SMITHsaid he concurred with his hon. friend as to the desirability of choosing officers and men of high social position for appointment to prison governorships. It seemed to him a matter of very great importance that the men should be in an unquestionable social position, and if they looked at the governors they would find no complaint could be made as to lack of quality. He was a member of Lord Elgin's Committee, and he understood that the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs did not differ from them on the question that the points the visiting

    1117
    committee desired to raise were outside the scope of the inquiry. The Committee, therefore, had no right to go into them, but they indicated in their Report that there were questions they thought ought to be investigated. The Committee investigated certain charges made from various channels against prison administration in Scotland, and he was glad to say that they found there was no foundation for them whatever. They found a very sound condition of things. They found that the prisoners were treated very well all through Scotland, and they formed a very high opinion of the capacities of the Chief Commissioners.
    Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
    MR. PARKER SMITHsaid the Committee formed a high opinion of the officials, and considered that the warders were more humane in the performance of their duties than was the case in England. Certain criticisms were made upon the system, but on the whole the Committee considered that the Scotch prisons were fulfilling their dreary purpose adequately. The Committee felt that the reference was limited in its scope to the actual conditions of life and of treatment, and that they were not free to deal with the wider questions which visits to the prisons necessarily brought to their minds. They saw how little discrimination could be made between the criminal ruffian who was there, and the man who was merely in prison because he had failed to pay the fine for some absolutely non-criminal police offence. They found how little distinction could be drawn between the hardened offender and the juvenile or semi-juvenile of eighteen. The Commissioners thought these questions needed more examination. They were not satisfied with the rigidity of the present system. They felt that there was no danger of physical ill-treatment, and that they need not be afraid of the prisoners being starved or abused, yet they did feel that the existence was a dingy one, and that the reforming element had hot sufficiently come into their life. They felt that foreign ideas might wisely and properly be considered in order to see
    1118
    whether they could learn anything from other countries. In regard to that he was glad to see that the Chairman of the Prisons Board was paying a visit to the United States, and he hoped that on his return they might have his report published.
    The last report of the Board showed that a considerable number of the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee had been carried out, and the Prisons Bill contained a good many of the other recommendations of the Committee. He asked how much was being done in the way of properly training nurse warders, who would have to undertake in the prisons the care of those cases that were not grave enough to justify regular medical treatment in the hospital? Hitherto the doctor had just gradually trained a warder to attend to such cases, but the Commissioners considered that the English system should be adopted, and that a six months course of training should be given in the large prisons to some of the warders. He wanted to know whether anything could be done in regard to probationers. Probationers were treated as part of the staff, but, of course, for the first two months after a man came into the prison service he was of little use. In England they were treated as supernumeraries for some months.
    In regard to Duke Street prison he mentioned that the hospital accommodation there was inadequate, and although something was being done to remedy that, a great deal more ought to be done. A sum of £250 had been put down for that purpose, but that would go but a very short way towards doing what was required. When the Commissioners were there they found that three ordinary cells had been run into one, and the place was used as a hospital. When the prisoners there were suffering from delirium tremens the noise they made disturbed other people. The Commissioners considered this was a wholly unsatisfactory arrangement, and the only excuse they found for it was the cramped condition of the ground round Duke Street prison. He hoped that his right hon. friend would be able to say that as soon as possible something more radical would be done than this expenditure of £250, and that an effective separate hospital would

    1119
    be established in Duke Street, where all the prison warders from the whole of Scotland could be trained. Then in Duke Street they found that the chapel was a wholly inadequate building, entirely un-ecclesiastical in design, and unfitted for the purpose for which it was intended. The only excuse for that was the difficulty in connection with the want of space. But if the Government were not willing to consider the possibility of moving the great women's prison out of Glasgow and were determined to keep the prison in the middle of Glasgow, near the court house, they should obtain more land in the neighbourhood and make those changes, so as to provide a proper chapel, a proper separate hospital, and improved houses for the accommodation of the staff. Duke Street Prison was in fact starved in comparison with English prisons. In England one saw fine buildings, beautiful chapels with a real ecclesiastical aspect worthy of any place, and when one compared these with the miserable penny-scraping erections in Scotland one felt that the Scottish prisons, from one cause or another—it might be from the parsimony of the Treasury—were not sufficiently furnished for what was proper in public buildings of that description. Without any undue claims on the Treasury one might ask that more money should be spent on them.
    Another point on which the Commissioners made observation was in regard to the prison doctors. They found that these were over-burdened with work and underpaid; the work was heavier on their shoulders than they could adequately perform. Some improvement had been made in this direction, but more and more the treatment of prisoners was getting to be a medical question, and more and more they must have doctors with modern ideas as to the treatment of criminals. They had also made a recommendation, which had not yet been carried into effect, that there should be a medical member on the Prisons Commission. That was the case in England and Ireland, and they thought that it should also be the case in Scotland, and it could be accomplished without any great additional expense. There was an inspector who was considered rather a superfluous officer under present circumstances, and he believed he might be
    1120
    dropped and a medical man placed on the Commission, for many questions as to the treatment of prisoners should be decided by a medical officer who could speak with the authority of a member of the Commission. He wanted to know what was going to be done in regard to juvenile and semi adult prisoners. That, they regarded, as an important part of their inquiry. They found that the magistrates would not send boys to prison, and quite rightly; and the Secretary for Scotland had the strongest objection to boys being sent to prison, and quite rightly. But how were they going to punish them? There was far more hope of the recovery from a criminal path of these youths from sixteen to twenty-one years of age than of older criminals. A special place for the separate treatment of these youths was required, like Petworth in England. Could they not find a prison in Scotland, even if it meant bringing all these young men from every part of the country, where this hopeful treatment might be applied to young prisoners separated from the older and more hardened offenders? If they had such a prison the magistrates would be more willing to commit the youths, and these could be treated more effectually and with greater success than under the present system. What was being done to carry out the Inebriates Act? No sum appeared upon the Estimates for that purpose at all. It was thought to use Perth Prison for that purpose, but he did not believe that Perth was suited for the treatment of inebriates. These ought not to be treated in a closed-in place; they ought to be sent into some country place where they could work in the fields, as at Springfield. Another matter he wished to press on his hon. friend was the classification of prisoners. In the English Prisons Act very great power was given in that direction. The second division was intended to be for non-criminal offences, and the court laid down the classification so as to secure separate classes and segregation. That system had been worked in England, and highly approved of by the English commissioners, and there ought to be no difficulty in its being introduced into Scotland.
    Various other points, he was glad to say, were met in the, Government Bill, which

    1121
    he hoped would be passed, such as additional visiting committees for the convict prison and for Perth Prison. It was provided, he gladly recognised, that women might be made members of the visiting committee, for the commissioners found that it was women prisoners who were most susceptible to the influence of women visiting them. He was also glad to see that the Bill contained provision for the remission of sentences for good conduct in the case of all prisoners. What was a prison for? Most people would say it was to hold criminals in seclusion, and to punish them. But they had no longer a great criminal population. Serious crime was steadily decreasing both in England and Scotland, but the number of committals of prisoners was rapidly increasing. These consisted of people who were sent to prison for trivial offences. They were received into prison, kept there, and were generally sent out in a better state of health than when they went in, but from a criminal point of view they were no better and no worse. The habitual criminals, on the other hand, went out ready to commit crime in the shortest time possible. But those who were really not criminals went out with a stigma of the prison upon them. The committals were increasing to a terrible extent. In 1897 they amounted to 51,000; last year they were 60,000. They had been increasing much faster in Scotland than in England. In England they had been standing still for many years. In 1898, in England, the number of people per 100,000 imprisoned on indictment was 25·7, and on summary conviction 470. But in Scotland the number who were sent to prison after full committal, which roughly corresponded to indictment, was 37·6 per 100,000, and the number sent summarily to prison was 1,356—that was very nearly three times as many as in England. The number of committals in Scotland in the last forty years had trebled, but at the same time the daily population of the prisons had remained very much the same, because the sentences had come down so much in that time. He did not believe anyone realised for what trivial offences people were sent to prison in Scotland. The average duration of the sentences in Scotland was only fifteen days, whereas
    1122
    in England it was nearly twice as much Out of nearly 57,000 imprisoned in Scotland, 44,000 were imprisoned for not more than a fortnight, and only 4,400 for more than five weeks. The number of people sent to prison in Scotland on account of not paying fines was something like 40,000. Out of 94,147 who were fined in Scotland in 1898, 58,320 were fined in not more than ten shillings, and in half these cases the money was not forthcoming and the person was sent to prison instead; and only 2,112 were fined in more than forty shillings. The offences were mostly drunkenness, common assault, or offences against various police regulations. The figures were very striking. Out of 40,775 who were fined for breach of peace, 15,287 underwent sentence. Out of 22,629 who were fined for drunkenness, 14,215 underwent sentence. Out of 11,313 who were fined for miscellaneous police offences, 4,169 underwent sentence. Now, in England far fewer people, in proportion, who were fined went to prison in default—only amounting to one-sixth as against nearly one-half in Scotland. Several reasons might be alleged why that was so. Some people said it was the thrifty habits of the Scotch, who preferred to work it out in prison rather than pay. He did not believe that that was the case. He thought that in Scotland they used the criminal law and the system of imprisonment for much too trifling offences, and that the tendency was increasing to a very dangerous extent in the way of enforcing new statutory offences, and in a new strictness in enforcing old offences. He sat lately on a Committee where one of the Scottish authorities asked power in a Bill for a month's imprisonment for everyone who dropped a piece of paper on the street. Of course, the Committee did not pass that clause; but that was a typical case. This was a matter that should be watched by the House with the very greatest care. These multiplied short sentences were absolutely useless, and did no good whatever to the prisoners. That was accepted by all prison authorities. It had been stated emphatically by all the Committees which had sat on the subject, and by all other authorities, that it interfered very greatly with the discipline and the working of the prisons. Com-

    1123
    pare, for instance, Glasgow and Liverpool. There they had much the same class of population, but the number of persons who were taken into custody for drunkenness and breach of the peace in Glasgow was eight times more than those in Liverpool, although it could not be said that Liverpool was better or worse in that respect than Glasgow. Multiplied short sentences were useless, and were no good to the individual, and were not necessary to good order. The offenders learned to despise the prison and he or she returned again and again. Last year in Scotland 550 prisoners had been in prison more than fifty times, and four-fifths of them were women. That was not a satisfactory position and could not exercise any reformatory influence. It made the prison discipline very difficult. The only thing was, as one of the doctors said, to give them a smart saline purge and then let them out again. It was quite true that this was a matter of magisterial and judicial discretion with which the House should not interfere; but there was one thing which the Committee pressed strongly, and which Mr. Ruggles-Brise, in his most interesting paper read before the Penal Conference at Brussels, urged, and that was that all those who committed persons to prison should be familiar with what went on in the prisons, that they should visit the prisons and should form a judgment of what effect the sentences they were giving were likely to have. It was more and more necessary when they had got fresh ideas on classification introduced into practice. Magistrates who were in the habit of sending batches of people every Monday morning to prison would then be much more familiar with what went on in the prisons.
    There were a good many things which might be remedied in administration by those responsible for the government of the prisons. Improved classification would do a great deal. There was hope, also, in regard to juvenile and semi-juvenile offenders, and in the remission of sentences for good conduct. Then if inebriates were treated in a proper way, and for a long period of time in inebriate homes, the prisons would be relieved of one of the most hopeless classes of prisoners He
    1124
    also thought that they ought to increase the use of sureties. In regard to fines everything ought to be done in the way of accepting payments by instalments. Costs ought also to be reduced, because they often brought up a small fine to a very considerable sum. In Scotland they had a system of a man taking out his punishment half in time and half in a money payment, which was working very satisfactorily. He apologised for taking up so much of the time of the Committee, but he felt that he knew something about this subject, and that it was important that hon. Members should look into this matter each for himself and see what was going on. He did not think that much patching in detail was needed, but it was of the greatest importance that they should get into their minds that the prisons were comparatively little used for serious criminals, but as places for detention for people who had committed small offences, or who had been overtaken in a moment by an indiscretion—either by getting drunk, or in consequence of getting drunk, assaulting someone else, or using improper language which in their right senses they would not have used.
    DR. FARQUHARSONsaid his hon. friend had very effectively used his experience as a Prison Commissioner. From his own experience he could corroborate all that his hon. friend said about the treatment of prisoners. They were well found, well fed, and well looked, after. What had struck him, as it had struck his hon. friend, was the great number of people who were sent to prison in Scotland for small offences. In visiting Glasgow prison he found a boy who had been there for three weeks. He asked him, "What are you in for?" and the boy replied, "I am in because I kicked a football in the streets." Probably the ball hit someone. He was bound to say that the local regulations in Glasgow were about the most string gent and oppressive in the world. He had been instrumental, when sitting on a Committee which considered a Glasgow Corporation Bill, in striking out of it a large variety of offences which would have made life in Glasgow miserable, if not absolutely intolerable. Then there was a great inequality in the punishment for some offences. There were many

    1125
    good men, excellent in private life, who sat on the magisterial bench and who masqueraded as lawyers. The sentences which these bailies imposed were unequal, absurd, cruel, and harsh. He knew that poor women were bitter at the inequality of the treatment they received. Then, again, from their infrequent incarceration a certain class of people got hardened, and they much preferred to go to prison than to go to work. When they got out of prison on Monday they broke a window on the Tuesday in order to be sent to prison again, where they were much batter treated and were more comfortable than in the workhouse. Prison doctors ought to be engaged to make a serious study of their profession. There was much complication in the cases with which they were called upon to deal, which made it difficult to tell whether a man was shamming or not. There should not be a hard and fast cut and dried rule, and every prisoner should be a special study for the doctor. He thought the hon. Gentleman was well advised in making the claim that a doctor should be a member of the Prisons Commission, not; only called in to give evidence, but having an accredited position, which would enable his opinion to carry weight. There was a very mysterious condition of things which had been going on for some years one prison had been abandoned and another built; that was, he thought, a great waste of public money. He could not see the reason of abandoning the prison at Perth and building another at Balmeney, which was shockingly overcrowded. Anybody who knew anything about criminals would know how dangerous it was to put two or three prisoners in one cell. Yet this was done at Balminy, while the Perth prison stood empty. He hoped the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor General for Scotland would be able to give some explanation of the matter.
    *THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgeton)said he could neither complain of the manner in which this subject had been introduced nor the time which had been taken up in discussing it, because everyone would recognise the importance of the question. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs had dealt with two matters
    1126
    alone. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman had expressed his views as to the necessity of the governors of prisons being in the main drawn from the ranks of retired naval and army officers. That was a view with which the Government was entirely in sympathy, but it would be out of the question to say, so far as the governorship of prisons was concerned, that a hard and fast rule should be laid down which might result in the idea being generated in the minds of those serving in those institutions upon the ordinary staff that they were not entitled to look forward to the highest positions which their experience entitled them to occupy. So far as that question was concerned, the Government would not be backward in recognising the claims of retired officers, but each case would have to be treated upon its own merits. The Government did not at all accept the view of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs when he said that the opinions of visiting committees were ignored, or when he contemplated the possibility of the visiting committee disappearing. He need hardly say that in the view of the Government, and all those who had been concerned in the administration of prison affairs in Scotland since 1877, the visiting committee had carried out most important functions, and it would be most unfortunate if the idea got abroad that the views of such committees should be otherwise than entitled to the most serious and cordial consideration. It was regrettable that certain members of the visiting committee at Ayr should have entertained the idea that due regard was not paid to their recommendations. He thought it was a mistake on their part, and that on further consideration they themselves would admit this. The duties entrusted to them were most important duties, and the recommendations made by them so far as related to those duties were considered with all respect. It would, however, be incorrect to think that they had a roving commission; the visiting committee had certain important duties committed to them, but necessarily there must be a limit, and he did not think the visiting committee themselves would desire to extend the scope of their duties beyond the very wide limits already ascertained. The hon. Member for the Partick Division

    1127
    had spoken with special authority upon this matter, having regard to the experience he had gained, not only as a member of the Departmental Committee in the previous year, but in many other ways. He had spoken upon a good many matters of general importance. The Departmental Committee presided over by Lord Elgin did much excellent work, and the Government had been very quick to appreciate the value of the recommendations they had made. The Report of the Committee was only dated 26th May last year, and a great many of their recommendations had already been carried into practical effect. This seemed to show that the Government recognised that there was room for an inquiry, and they had determined, as far as possible, to carry out the recommendations made. He agreed with his hon. friend that the visit which the Chairman of the Prison Commissioners had made to America was likely to result in considerable advantage in the matter of prison administration in Scotland. There were a great many questions dealing with prison administration to which more attention had been given in America, and a better result had been obtained with regard to them than in this country, and he hoped that the Report on this question would be made public in the ordinary course, and that it would be of advantage to those interested in carrying out every improvement with regard to prison administration. The Prison Bill which was at present before Parliament was also so framed as to carry out further recommendations of the Departmental Committee. In particular, that Bill made provision for two of the most important matters referred to by his hon. friend—namely, the classification of prisoners and the remission of sentences for good conduct.
    MR. PARKER SMITHsaid the classification he alluded to was the classification by the court.
    *MR. SCOTT DICKSONsaid that that was a question which the Bill made provision for, in as far as it gave the court power, if they thought fit, to order a prisoner on conviction to be placed in a particular class, and in that way it approached the standard of regulations
    1128
    already existing in England. The question of the treatment of sick prisoners, and especially of the provision of adequate nursing for them, had been considered and dealt with since the Committee reported, and very considerable amelioration had been made in the condition of matters so far as that was concerned. He regretted that he was not able to deal with all the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, but not having anticipated them he had not looked up the detailed information to enable him to specifically reply as to all of them. With regard to the state of Duke Street prison, Glasgow, that had been under consideration by the Prison Commissioners since the Committee reported. For instance, the state of the hospital had been under consideration, with the result that alterations were to be made. With regard to the chapel, there was a good deal of difficulty in making improvements without further accommodation, so far as ground was concerned, than at present existed; but the views of the Commissioners would be carried out as opportunity offered, and funds were included in the Estimates for the coming year for that purpose. With regard to the remuneration of the medical officers, he thought the hon. Member would agree that so far as the most serious case was concerned it had been adequately dealt with. The question with regard to the appointment of a medical man as one of the Prison Commissioners was one of more difficulty. The Committee would remember that at the present moment not only were there medical officers for all the prisons, but there was a very competent medical adviser to the Commissioners. The question of requiring one of the Commissioners themselves to be a medical man raised much larger issues, and he was afraid that the Government were not entirely in accord with the views of the hon. Member for Partick or the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire. The recommendation of the Committee, however, would be considered. The question of the treatment of semi-juveniles, or lads between sixteen and twenty, was a difficult one, and he hoped that the experience which Colonel M'Hardy obtained on his visit to America would enable the Government to propose some practical scheme which would secure a better chance for the reclamation of these young lads than the present

    1129
    system afforded. In regard to the administration of the Inebriates Act neither the Prison Commissioners nor the Government could do much—the initiative lay to a large extent with those who had to deal with the prisoner on conviction. Not much had been done in Scotland with a view to providing inebriate reformatories. Glasgow had provided one, and the Government had thought it right, with a view to showing an example at any rate to local authorities, to do what they could in the matter as speedily and economically as possible, by making a portion of Perth Prison available for this purpose. As yet, however, they had not succeeded in finding an occupant for that part of the premises. As for the number of committals and sentences for small police offences, to which reference had been made, these were hardly matters with which the Government or the Prison Commissioners could deal, though the matter undoubtedly deserved consideration by those who had the duty of practically administering the law. The observations which had been made on both sides of the House would, he had no doubt, be received with due regard by those responsible for the administration of the law. With regard to the question of costs he would only say that that abuse was not so flagrant in Scotland as it appeared to be in England, because under the Scotch system there were no costs at all in the vast majority of summary public prosecutions, and that was a point in which the law of Scotland was in advance of that of England. The only other point to which he would allude was the suggestion of the hon. Member for Partick as to the desirability of magistrates who committed to prison visiting the prisons to see the sentences carried out. There was every desire that as many magistrates as possible should frequently take the opportunity of visiting the prisons. The Commissioners and the Government would be in entire sympathy with the visitors.
    DR. FARQUHARSONasked whether the hon. Gentleman could clear up the matter of the prison at Bulminy.
    *MR. SCOTT DICKSONsaid that that matter, as he understood, had been before the House on many occasions,
    1130
    and he would ask his right hon. friend the Lord Advocate to deal with that.
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The hon. Member may say this question has not been satisfactorily answered, but I have myself during the last ten years answered it five or six times. The Perth Prison was originally a convict prison, but in late years, with the more enlightened views which were entertained with regard to the manner of treating convicts, it became evident that this prison was unsuitable for that work, because in that prison it was impossible to give the convicts work. Therefore the whole convict establishment was removed to Peterhead. Then there remained the other Glasgow prison, which was used for prisoners serving short sentences. It is quite true that, the Perth Prison remained practically empty, because that prison is now used for female convicts, and owing to the decrease in female convicts it remained practically empty.
    MR. CALDWELLthought that everyone would be gratified at the manner in which the Solicitor General for Scotland had answered the questions put to him, which left nothing to be desired. He thought the discussion had been a very full one, and in his opinion the Government were entitled to the Vote.
    Resolutions to be reported.

    Class II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £7,954, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Office, and Expenses under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, including a Grant-in-aid of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Fund."
    *MR. WEIRmoved the reduction of the Vote by £100 in order to call attention to the failure of the Secretary for Scotland to look after the interests of the Highlands and Islands. He hoped the Lord Advocate would give them

    1131
    some information in regard to the Hydro-graphical Conference which was held last month at Christiania. He also desired to know whether the Secretary for Scotland had approached the Treasury for more money for cruisers to protect the interests of line fishermen round the coasts of Scotland. An efficient steam packet service for the Western Highlands was much needed. And during the five years which had elapsed since the Light Railways Act was passed not a single light railway had been constructed in the Highland crofting counties. It was the duty of the Secretary for Scotland to look into all these matters. Why did he not go to the Hebrides to see the actual state of things for himself? He had brought up the question of the congestion in the Island of Lewis time after time; memorials had been sent up, but no attention was paid to the condition of this island. In 1898 he brought forward the question of Croir Farm, and pointed out its suitability for the settlement of the people. More recently he called attention to the fact that the two large sheep farms in Kintail were about to be cleared for deer, but the right hon. Gentleman told him that the Secretary for Scotland had no knowledge of the matter. Surely it was his business to get some information from the district. Instead of this the Secretary for Scotland, it is said, applied to the Chairman of the Deer Forests Commission of 1893, who resides at Brighton.
    The hon. Member then proceeded to deal with the congestion in the island of Lewis, and read a memorial which had been forwarded by the parish council of Stornoway to the Secretary for Scotland, which declared that the sufferings of the crofters, squatters, and cottars due to this cause were indescribable, and urged that the Lewis fisherman ought to have at least three to four acres of land attached to his house. The council further urged that, seeing that out of a population of 30,000 nearly 5,000 men were connected in one way or another with the defence of the Empire, these grievances deserved to be inquired into. That was the opinion of the members of the Stornoway Parish Council, who knew all the facts, and who lived on the spot. Yet the Secretary for Scotland had apparently done nothing. He hoped
    1132
    the Secretary for Scotland would inquire into the matter himself, and not ignore appeals of this kind. Only yesterday he asked why it was that not a single yard of land had been acquired in Ross-shire or in the Island of Lewis by the Congested Districts Board. He was told in reply that some twenty-eight or twenty-nine lots had been offered in Stornoway parish at the rate of 25s. per quarter acre. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would go to that district; he would not only improve this knowledge of Highland questions, but also his health, and he would find in the Island of Lewis a purer air than in any other part of the kingdom. Why did not the Congested Districts Board acquire land for the people? The Secretary for Scotland was the Chairman of that Board, which was established under an Act of Parliament having for its object the settlement of the people on the land, and £35,000 a year was set aside for that purpose. On the 31st of May last the Board had a balance of £61,867. Why did they not spend the money? This year's grant would be £35,000, which would give close upon £100,000 available.
    These poor crofters, squatters, and cottars were not asking for doles. Money expended in settling the people on new holdings was not a gift, for it would be repaid by the people. It was very wrong that only £18,000 out of this £98,000 should be expended upon this object. In the Island of Lewis there had been no land acquired by the Congested Districts Board. He was a lover of peace and order, and he wanted things to go on peacefully and comfortably in the Highlands. He sometimes wondered if the Secretary for Scotland was anxious to have a repetition of what occurred in 1885 and 1886, when gunboats were sent down to the Highlands. Because the Board had not acquired land the law had been broken, and would be broken again. He was anxious to avoid conflicts between the people and the military. It was the Secretary's inattention to this matter that had incited these men to break the law. There were nearly 2,000,000 acres of land scheduled by the Deer Forests Commissioners as suitable for the people, and he wished to know if the Congested Districts Board had approached the pro-

    1133
    prietors in order to acquire any of that land. What was wanted was not a system of leases, but the settlement of the people on the land under the Crofters Act. They did not want leases at the expiration of which the poor people might be turned off land on which they had sweated and toiled to make fertile. That was not the object for which the Congested Districts Board was appointed. The hon. Member instanced a case in which an attempt was being made to shift the crofters from a particular township to a place some miles off, the object being, as he contended, to make that township into an extended deer forest. The main purpose of the Board was the emigration of the people from the congested areas, but, amongst other matters, it had also powers to provide stallions bulls, rams, and so on for the Highland districts. He was sorry to have to bring the bull into the arena of the House of Commons once more, but he felt bound to do so. The number of bulls required last year was sixty, but the Board were able to provide only forty-five. Surely the remaining fifteen bulls could have been secured in Ireland. The excuse of the Secretary for Scotland that the bulls could not be obtained was childish in the extreme. The Board conducted its operations in a most un-businesslike manner. In addition to providing bulls and rams, the Board was supposed to encourage the breeding of poultry, but in three years all that had been done in that direction was the provision of five cockerels and twenty-two hens. Another branch of the operations of the Board was in connection with bees, and the result in this direction amounted only to twenty-four swarms of bees and two extra hives. It was simply scandalous that although the Board spent each year nearly £900 in salaries, and £500 in travelling expenses, all that could be shown for it was about £18,000 spent for land, over and above the cost of forty-five bulls, five cockerels, twenty-two hens, and twenty-four swarms of bees. He hoped his Amendment would receive the support of a number of hon. Members on the other side of the House. The Board had powers also for the purpose of making roads, but instead of roads being made in districts where they would be useful to the people, they were too
    1134
    often made simply to suit the convenience of landlords and big farmers. A large number of passages might be quoted from the report to show the miserable inefficiency of the Congested Districts Board. The money set aside for the purposes of the Board, instead of now being expended for the benefit of the people, was hoarded up, and on the 31st March last there was a balance of over £61,000. As he stated when the Board was established, compulsory powers for the purpose of acquiring land were absolutely necessary, and until such powers ware bestowed the Board would continue to fail to secure land in certain districts. He appealed to the Lord Advocate to urge these matters upon the attention of the Secretary for Scotland, whom he was sorry not to see in the Peers' gallery. These matters were discussed only once in the year, and his Lordship might at least have attended in order to listen to the debate upon these important matters affecting the Highlands of Scotland. He moved to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £6,954 be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Weir.)
    MR. JOHN WILSON: desired to ask the Lord Advocate two questions, to which he hoped he would receive straightforward answers. The first was with regard to the appointment of a sheriff substitute for Lanark. The people of the ancient and royal burgh of Lanark, which he had the honour to represent, were very much dissatisfied because the burgh was not dignified by the permanent residence there of the sheriff of the county. According to the terms of his commission the sheriff was bound to reside in Lanark, but he was now allowed by the Secretary for Scotland to live in Glasgow. He believed it was said that a house could not be obtained in Lanark, but if the sheriff was directed to abide by the terms of his commission there was not the slightest doubt that a suitable house would be found. The second question he desired to raise was in connection with another ancient and royal burgh, which also he had the honour to represent, namely, that of Linlithgow. A procurator fiscal had been appointed at Linlithgow who, he was informed, was not a qualified law

    1135
    agent. In reply to a question in the House it had been stated that this gentleman had over thirty years experience as a deputy fiscal. That, however, must have been a mistake, because the Act under which deputy fiscals were appointed was not passed until 1877. He desired to know why, when so many properly qualified law agents applied for this position, this unqualified gentleman was brought from outside the burgh and pitchforked into the office? It should also be borne in mind that, not being a qualified law agent, this gentleman was liable to a penalty of £50 for any legal business he might transact.
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYunderstood that the hon. Member had to leave the House early, and therefore he would reply to his questions at once. With regard to the first, point, the hon. Member was speaking of the sheriff-substitute and not of the sheriff. When the Act of six or seven years ago was passed there was not a sheriff-substitute resident in Lanark; most of the Lanarkshire sheriff-substitutes resided in Glasgow. During the time of the late Government, in consequence of the great amount of work thrown upon the sheriff-substitutes by the Fatal Accidents Inquiries Act, it became absolutely necessary to appoint an additional sheriff-substitute. The Treasury consented to the appointment, and, as it had long been known that the people of Lanark were anxious to have somebody residing there, although the authorities were aware that most of the work would be in Glasgow, they consented to it being arranged that the gentleman appointed should live in Lanark. This stipulation was accordingly stated in the commission. The gentleman appointed, however, was not a new officer, but was transferred from another district. He was transferred "between terms," when it was impossible for him to get a house suitable for a sheriff-substitute to live in. He therefore asked permission from the Secretary for Scotland, who referred the matter to the sheriff, to live for the first year in Glasgow, where practically the whole of his work was, while he was looking out for a suitable house in Lanark.
    MR. JOHN WILSONdissented from
    1136
    the statement that all the work was in Glasgow
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYcontended that most of the work was in Glasgow, so much so, indeed, that the last occupant of the office applied again and again for transference to Glasgow altogether. There was no intention on the part of the Secretary for Scotland to alter the arrangement made when the appointment was first agreed to. With regard to the second matter referred to by the hon. Member, a procurator-fiscal had recently been appointed at Linlithgow, but the patronage of the appointment was not with the Government. Procurators-fiscal were appointed not upon his (the Lord Advocate's) recommendation to the Secretary for Scotland, but by the sheriff. The only grounds on which it was in order to refer to the matter at all on the Vote before the Committee was that the Secretary for Scotland had a veto in case of the appointment of an improper person. It need scarcely be said that the discretion of the sheriff was never interfered with unless it was feared that an entirely improper person was being appointed; in fact, he had never known a case in which that veto had been exercised. The sheriff appointed this gentleman, from among many candidates, because both he and the local sheriff-substitute had been entirely satisfied with the manner in which he had done the work of deputy-fiscal for the last six years in the same court. The hon. Member had rather given the Committee to understand that this gentleman had been brought from somewhere far away from Linlithgow, and that nobody knew anything about him, whereas the fact was that he had proven himself to be a useful public servant, and had served in that particular court for six years to the entire satisfaction of the sheriff himself. More than that, he had had thirty-three years experience as deputy-fiscal.
    MR. JOHN WILSONasked whether the Lord Advocate was not aware that the Act under which deputy-fiscals were appointed was passed in 1877, so that he could not have had thirty-three years experience.
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he was not aware of anything of the sort.

    1137
    The Act under which deputy-fiscals were appointed under present conditions was passed in 1877, but before that it was a matter entirely for the sheriffs, and the office of deputy-fiscal had been in existence for the last 200 or 300 years. This gentleman had testimonials from sheriffs under whom he had served in different parts of Scotland. It was true that he was not a qualified law agent in the sense of having passed the Law Agents' Examination, but he was practising long before the Act under which those examinations were held was passed; and, as a matter of fact, the law agents' qualification had never been required for a fiscal at all. There were several other deputy-fiscals who were not qualified law agents. The point was that the gentleman knew his business thoroughly, and had had a very long experience, and the idea that, with these testimonials, the Government could interfere with the action of the sheriff was altogether out of the question. With regard to the liability to penalty, the particular Act by which that liability was imposed had been repealed.
    MR. JOHN WILSONread from the Stamp Act of 1891 a list of acts for the committing of any of which an unqualified person was liable to a penalty of £50.
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYpointed out that a deputy fiscal did none of the things which the hon. Member had mentioned.
    MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that some of the fiscals in Scotland did.
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: If this deputy fiscal practises—
    MR. JOHN WILSONagain rose to speak.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! We really must have one speech at a time.
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that this deputy fiscal had what was called "restricted employment," and if he engaged in other practice he would be liable to the penalty; but the present Stamp Act, in the view of the law officers of the Crown, had absolutely no application to the office of fiscal. He had thought it well to go into this matter fully, as otherwise an injustice would have been done to a gentleman
    1138
    who had been a very estimable public servant, and one who ought not to be spoken of as having been pitchforked into his position.
    *MR. JOHN DEWAR: desired to call attention to the operations of the Congested Districts Board, especially in the western islands. The question was a very serious one, and the present state of affairs had given rise in his constituency to a great deal of discontent and unrest. He approached the subject in no unfriendly spirit, for he recognised that the Board had done a very great deal of good work. His complaint was that enough had not been done, that what had been done was not done in time, and in some cases it had not been done in the right way. If one read between the lines of the report it would be seen that the Board themselves believed that enough had not been done. The work of the Board consisted in trying to improve stock and agriculture; in carrying out of public works in the shape of piers, roads, and so on; and the settling of people on the land. The last-named duty was the most important of all, but the Board appeared to think it the least important. They had not realised the intensity of the desire of the inhabitants to occupy the land. With regard to the improvement of stock, he could not speak of the manner in which the duty was carried out, but he could assure the Committee from his own observation that there was very great need for it, and the work was one to which the energy and enterprise of the Board might very well be devoted. The work of the Board with regard to piers was a most important one, for the purpose of improving the conditions of life in the islands. It was very desirable that more rapid means of communication should be established, and he only wished the Board could give some assistance in making the postal communication in the islands more effective. With regard to the building of piers, he knew one pier which had been built through the assistance of the Board to which there was no access by either sea or land. There was no road to the pier, and the approach from the sea was so dangerous that it was very seldom that boats of any size could reach it. He appreciated very highly the

    1139
    work of the Board with regard to roads. They had made many excellent roads, and in Harris alone they had been the means of making a good many miles of footpaths, which were of great service in enabling school children to get to school, and otherwise in improving the means of communication. But of the methods of carrying out their operations he could not speak with so much approval. In this connection, he desired to read an extract from a letter he had received—
    "As an illustration of the manner in which this work is occasionally carried out, the Factor of an estate was asked to meet one of the Supervisors of the Board to arrange about a road which was to be made. The Factor arrived on the ground only to find that the Supervisor had been sent without any instructions whatever, although the road had been surveyed by three different engineers before that, and they had received two different estimates. It took two days to reach Lochmaddy to wire for instructions and to return, the instructions being to do the best they could, and those two days besides all the previous labour were wasted and thrown away."
    That was a practical criticism of the methods by which the works were carried out. While they must have the greatest respect for the Board in some ways, the inspectors they employed were not exactly the kind that were needed. The most important work of the Board, and the work which would yield the best return, was the settling of people on the land. The Board seemed altogether to fail to realise that the people were so anxious to get on to the land, to till and to occupy it; they did not appreciate the gravity of the situation. The Lord Advocate had more than once said that it could not be expected that those who broke the law would get anything. That was a very proper observation, but when the Committee knew the facts of the case they would probably wonder whether after all the crofters were the proper persons to be in the dock. In Barra it required eight years of constitutional agitation and a general rising to draw the attention of the Congested Districts Board to the condition of the people. At present there was a great opportunity to settle people on the land in those parts on reasonable terms. Sheep farms were not now profitable, and the landlords were very willing to treat. His fear was that if the people were not settled
    1140
    on these farms they would be devoted to deer, and he was anxious that they should be occupied by men and women rather than by deer. In England the difficulty was to get the people to stay on the land; in Scotland there was a great population which was anxious to settle on the land, and it was the duty of the Board to make it as easy as possible for them to do so. In order to show the benefit to the country of having men and women on the land, he would give a concrete case which had come under his own observation. The particular case to which he had referred was a farm in the Western Hebrides which had been let at a rental of £120 per annum. The farmer's profits might be put at another £120, and there were six labourers employed at £30 a year each. That made a total of £420 a year as the return to the country from that land used as a sheep farm. That farm was now in the occupation of twenty-four crofter families, each of whom paid a rent of £5, making £120 in all—an amount equal to the rent previously paid. But each of those crofters was earning from crops and stock at least £30 a year. This made £720 altogether, or a total return of £840 as against £420. Then, to look at what Mr. Kruger would call the moral and intellectual return, he would refer to the Borve settlement, on the estate pf Lord Fincastle. There were on that settlement several men serving His Majesty in the Army or Navy or Naval Reserve; five of them at the front, and there were two young men from the district studying for the learned professions. The Commissioners say:—
    "Mr. E. K. Carmichael, C. E., who acted for us in arranging the holdings, and who is familiar with crofting life in the Long Island, visited the Borve settlement in November last. He has submitted a report on the condition in which he had found the settlers; in the course of that report he says:—'I expected to see a considerable change, but I was not prepared for so great an improvement as had been wrought, not only in the place, but in the people. A great part of this improvement is undoubtedly due to the splendid road the Congested Districts Board are making. The crofters have, however, drained the land allotted to them, so that even in this wet season it seems quite a different place from the bog through which one waded last year. Two of the crofters had erected "white" houses, and a number of others have put up houses in which they live

    1141
    in the meantime, but which will be converted into byres and barns when they have had time to build more permanent dwellings.
    "'The people themselves are greatly improved. Always a fine, independent set of men, they have now gained more enthusiasm and more life, and a good deal of friendly rivalry has sprung up among them.'
    "Mr. Carmichael assures us that the people are doing their best, and that 'the changes in the last year forecast a great success for the Borve settlement, benefitting the proprietor no less than the tenant.'"
    In the cases he had mentioned the work had been well done, but he wanted more of such work done by the Congested Districts Board. What had been done in these cases had been done upon the initiation of the landlords; and why had the Congested Districts Board not done more with the balance of £60,000 which they had in hand? There was only one case for which the Board deserved credit, and that was the case of Barra, and the result in this case was largely due to the personal influence of Lord Balfour.
    The whole of the Island of Barra belongs to Lady Gordon Cathcart, and there is a large population on the island living under conditions which would not be tolerated if they were nearer public opinion. They have petitioned Lady Gordon Cathcart for years to give them land, not so much for cultivation, although they desire that also, as for the erection of decent and suitable houses. On the passing of the Allotment (1892) Act they presented a petition to receive the benefits of that Act, and on the creation, of the parish council they approached that body, who investigated their case and wrote Lady Gordon Cathcart's factor, in July, 1895, asking if Lady Gordon Cathcart would voluntarily give the necessary land The factor, in his reply of the 26th August, asked particulars, which were given in a letter of the 29th.Tanuary, 1896. This letter he believed was never answered. The parish council eventually applied to the county council to put the provisions of the Allotment Act in force. The application was received with disfavour, but ultimately a committee was appointed to investigate the circumstances on the spot. This committee was supposed to be prejudiced against the application, but after their examination they reported unanimously in favour of it on 29th September, 1897.
    1142
    Instead of acting on the report of their own committee, the county council, at a meeting on the 21st October, 1897, carried a motion referring the parish council to the Congested Districts Board, although, in view of Lady Cathcart's refusal to sell the land, the county council only had power to acquire it compulsorily. The Congested Districts Board, he believed, replied to that effect. The county council, on the 5th May, 1898, sent to the parish council a series of questions, some of which the parish council could not answer, and replies to the others might have been given by their own committee who made the investigations. No action having been taken, by the county council, the parish council laid the whole matter before the Congested Districts Board. The next appearance of the county council is, claiming £37 15s. from the parish council to pay the expenses of their deputations to investigate the matter. In view of the hopelessness of getting the request for land for erection of decent houses, the cottars and crofters made their demonstration last autumn. At this crisis Lord Balfour brought his own personal influence to bear on Lady Gordon Cathcart, and induced her to sell 3,000 acres to the Congested Districts Board. This is said to be not nearly enough. The constitutional agitation had been going on from 1892 at least. In another letter he had received from Barra, the writer stated—
    "I fear that the cottars of the east side have been treated to rather less than half a loaf, as all the decent arable land on the east side has been retained by the Macgillivrays, and a croft of purely hill-grazing will never answer for their needs in the matter of potato ground and grain crop. Of course it will relieve congestion to some extent, even on the east side, and the west side people will come off all right, but really they would have needed about another thousand acres of land, mostly arable, to give them a proper chance."
    Why did the Board in this case wait for an outbreak—for they had all the powers which they now possessed in 1892, and this agitation had been going on for eight years, and yet the Congested Districts Board did nothing to get the land until the people defied the law?
    The disturbance in Barra led to further disturbances, and he would give briefly the history of the North Uist case. The estate belonging to Mr.

    1143
    Campbell Orde has been in the market some time. The neighbouring crofters said it was extremely suitable for a crofters' settlement, and it was occupied sixty years ago as a crofters' settlement. On the matter being brought before the Congested Districts Board they got a report which said that it was not suitable for a crofters' settlement. Nothing will make the crofters who know the locality believe this, and they took possession of the farm. The Congested Districts Board have sent one of the Crofters' Commissioners to give another report, and they thus had another case of respectable, peaceful citizens being compelled to break the law to obtain justice. The Congested Districts Board had done excellent work in carrying out crofter settlements on the estates of Sir Arthur Orde, Viscount Fincastle, and also, he believed, on the estate of the Duke of Sutherland: but in every case those settlements were due to the initiation of the landlord, and not to the Congested Districts Board. So far as he knew, the only case in which the Congested Districts Board deserved credit for having tackled this question was the Barra case, and that was due, he believed, almost entirely to Lord Balfour's personal exertions and influence.
    In the Scouser case the Crofter Commission was so restricted that, although they were convinced that sheep should be substituted for cattle, they had no power to enforce their decision. The landlord offered another site, but the crofters declined to go there, although they offered to go to Scorriebrick, which was another part of the same estate, and was part of the land scheduled as suitable for crofter holdings by the Deer Forest Commission. He wished to impress strongly upon the Committee the importance of this work, and he thought it was their duty to urge the Congested Districts Board to do a great deal more in this direction. The Board was composed of excellent men. Lord Balfour was chairman, but he was the busiest man in Scotland, and could not be expected to give personal attention to all these matters. Sir Colin Scott Moncreiff lived in London, three of the members lived in Edinburgh, one in Mull, one he thought in Sutherlandshire, and another in Brighton; and the circumstances were
    1144
    such that it would be difficult for the Board to have many conferences. The secretary only gave part of his time to the work, being employed in the Exchequer Office in Edinburgh. It seemed to the hon. Member that it would be a very much better arrangement to have a man who would give his whole time to the work, and who would go about finding out where the shoe pinched, in order to draw the attention of the Board to the matter.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid the Report was not altogether satisfactory. It was a disappointing Report, and all the more disappointing because the Board was composed on the whole of very good men. Certainly Sir Kenneth Mackenzie, who had just been lost by the Board, was an able, kindly, and energetic man. He believed that member's place would be well filled by MacLeod of MacLeod. With such a Board, one would have expected more in the way of results. He thought the Board had frittered away its resources. It had taken up a great number of different matters, some of which had been gone into at considerable length by the hon. Member for Ross-shire. But the chief object of the Board was to settle the people on the land. He was not one of those who thought there was an unlimited amount of land available for that purpose. Although he might be singular in the opinion, he thought that a large population might be maintained on the land over a great part of the Highlands more readily by timber-growing than by crofting. In Lewis and other parts of the Hebrides, to which reference had been made, a large population could be maintained in comfort where there was ready access to the fishing grounds and landing places. He could state from his own knowledge that there were many parts in the outer Hebrides which could be used by crofter fishermen, and which had been put into large farms. Apparently difficulty was found in obtaining these sites. What had been done was very largely due to the efforts of two or three landlords who desired to help the Congested Districts Board. Work had been done in Sutherland and Strathnaver, and also by MacLeod of MacLeod; but where they wanted to extend the system of crofter holdings it had been

    1145
    found that the land was not dealt with in the same spirit as on the Sutherland and MacLeod estates. The members of the Board were of opinion that the powers granted by the Act were in some respects inadequate; they were inadequate in respect to the larger farms. The work of the Board had largely failed because they had not compulsory powers to deal with the more pressing cases. In the absence of powers to deal with such cases, the Board had been left to spend its money in a vast number of different ways, useful no doubt, but which were not the purposes for which the Board was instituted. They found the Board erecting lighthouses, making roads, dealing with questions of the improvement of stock, erecting meal mills, and dealing with a great number of useful subjects, but still outside the primary work for which the Board was instituted. He did not entertain any exaggerated opinion as to the amount of land that was really available for the purpose of extending the crofting area, but he held that there was on the west coast a considerable amount. It was unfortunate that the outbreaks referred to should take place because compulsory powers had not been given to the Board. He thought that to some extent they should be able to check the decline of the population. It was not very marked on the west coast as yet, but it might come at any time. He believed they were all concerned in the maintenance of as large a rural population as they could in the Highlands, and it was a pity if this should be neglected through not being able to deal with land where the Board had not been able to get facilities from the proprietors.
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I must say that if all matters which are dealt with by criticism were discussed in the temperate and generous spirit shown by the hon. Member for Inverness the duty of replying would be a very much easier one than it sometimes is. I want to say a few words upon the general question. In the first place it is rather surprising, I think, to hear that the primary object of the work of the Congested Districts Board was to settle the people on the land. I do not, of course, wish to dispute about phrases. It is one of the great objects of the Board in so far as the Board see their way to do so, but the primary object was to deal
    1146
    with the congested districts in whatever way they could best help them. I humbly think that the matter of settling people on the land is rather unduly magnified by hon. Members opposite; not magnified as to the desirability of doing it if it can be done, but magnified in judging the Board, who, after all, must be judged according to their resources and opportunities. I would remind hon. Members that it is perfectly obvious that if the idea was to remove congestion wherever there is congestion by means of enlarging the holdings of the people, it would require money, but of course the amount of money at the command of the Board would be absolutely and entirely inadequate, I could not help thinking that there was a strong condemnation of such a policy in the remarks of the hon. Member for Ross-shire. Taking Lewis as an example, he complained of what had been done for that island. He said it was absolutely necessary that the fishermen should have holdings of four acres. The hon. Member made himself the mouthpiece of the district council at Stornoway. He knows perfectly well that the population of Lewis is such that we could not do it. Of course it would be perfectly impossible to remove congestion in that way. I cannot think, so far as the experience of the Board is concerned, that the want of compulsory powers has anything to do with the question. I will tell hon. Members one or two points that have to do with it. Remember the class of people we have to ideal with. They want small holdings and they object very strongly, as a rule, to removing very far from the neighbour hood in which they are. We have to consider this fact. You cannot expect, as a rule, that any landlord would be willing to what I may call pick out the eyes of his estate in order to give portions suitable for small holdings and keep the other portions, which are either unsuitable for that purpose or are already under crofter tenure and therefore not suitable for sale. On the other hand, if you wish to buy whole estates it is very seldom that you can get one entirely composed of land suitable for those small occupancies. If you take all these things together, it is not every place that is at all suitable for the furtherance of the object you have in view. I claim for the Congested Districts Board that they

    1147
    really have done their best, and I am bound to say that I think they have had a good deal of testimony to that effect from the hon. Member for Inverness. It was rather significant certainly when he was speaking on the general question, and wished to point out to the House how much it would benefit the country if we were to put people instead of sheep on the land, that he should take a case for illustration which had been actually carried out by the Congested Districts Board. I am not quite sure that I see eye to eye with him in his arithmetical problem, but it is enough for me that when he urged what was best for the interest of the country he should take one of the actual results that had come from my noble friend's hand in the Congested District Board. I think hon. Members will be surprised to hear that, as a matter of fact, I have before me, more or less, particulars of thirty-six different estates or parts of estates as to which there have been negotiations. Of course I am not going through these, for obvious reasons.
    I would like to say a word or two on the questions of resettlement and migration which the hon. Member brought specially before the notice of the Committee. The hon. Member for Ross-shire complains that nothing has been done at Croir. I think he is aware that although the Board were anxious to obtain the settlement of crofters there, a lease of the farm had been given by the proprietor.
    MR. WEIRsaid the people applied for the land long before the lease was granted.
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Not so far as the Congested Districts Board were concerned.
    MR. WEIR: Your information is not correct.
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The hon. Member and I must for once disagree.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: The point is that land is not to be got in Lewis.
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Of course holdings at Stornoway were refused. These were fens, and not farms. I pass on to say something of matters at Barra. The hon. Member for Inverness
    1148
    has referred to what has been done, and he asked a question, which I can answer, as to why the whole of the farm has not been bought. It could not be bought because, as a matter of fact, the farm is at this moment running under long lease. The tenants were so anxious to get possession of the farm that they offered to buy the whole estate, so that really it was a very good compromise for the Congested Districts Board to be able to buy a considerable amount of the land. They did this after an arrangement had been mutually come to between the landlord and the tenants, because that meant that they got the tenants to give up the leasehold rights over the farm. The inducement given to the tenants was that they were enabled to become proprietors of another portion of land on a neighbouring farm.
    I wish hon. Members would look at the Report, because it is exceedingly instructive to know what are the difficulties which are met with in dealing with the people themelves. The hon. Member for Inverness gave a perfectly fair account of the proceedings at Sconser, but he did not read out the whole condemnation of the place from the medical point of view. He knows, and any member of the Committee who reads the Report will see, that practically the outbreak of typhus was due to the insanitary conditions of the place. The township is entirely overshadowed by a hill over 2,000 feet high. The offer made was, as the hon. Member for Inverness admitted, a most generous one, and yet as a matter of fact none of these people would move to another place. It seems to me that their action may be regarded as similar to that of a man who, if he received what you would call a generous offer of a house in Whitechapel, would reply, "I will take a house in Belgrave Square."
    MR. CALDWELL: The Lord Advocate is omitting to make any reference to the fact that the crofters gave special reasons why they preferred another place.
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I know those reasons perfectly, and if the hon. Member will read, page 8 he will find the reasons on the other side. The reasons of the crofters were very inadequate, I have not the slightest hesi-

    1149
    tation in saying. There, again, is an illustration of the difficulty you very often have in dealing with people of this class. They are not as a rule very anxious to migrate, but if you look for more land in their own immediate neighbourhood it is not always possible to find it. What I am anxious to show is that the Congested Districts Board are continuously keeping their eyes open to acquire any property of a suitable kind. It is not every property that is suitable, and although it is perfectly easy to indulge in general condemnation at the expense of the Congested Districts Board, as the hon. Member for Ross-shire has done, he must consider their opportunities, and that they have done their best according to their circumstances.
    I think a great deal of the most valuable work of the Board is in other directions than migration. They have been doing a great deal in connection with the development of agriculture and stock. If hon. Members are interested in this they will find that the Report tells them in detail, and they will see that the Congested Districts Board has done a great deal of good in this direction. The hon. Member will pardon me for reminding him of one fact. He was concerned about the number of cockerels, but he entirely forgets that a sitting of eggs, which under ordinary circumstances eventually means stock, is as important as the distribution of live poultry. I want to say a word about roads. The hon. Member for Ross-shire made the very general accusation that these roads were not made in the interest of the country at all, but in the interest of the landlords and big farmers.
    MR. WEIR: I said that in too many cases while the roads were seemingly for the benefit of the people they were for the benefit of the landlords and big farmers.
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: These roads are not undertaken except upon the recommendation of the district council. Although the hon. Member has referred to a road in the island of Barra, I must say that that particular road was recommended by the district council of Barra. It is quite obvious that there is not the slightest use of making a road in a district if, immediately after that, the road is not to be kept up in the district, and the only authority that
    1150
    can keep up the road is the district council.
    I have gone through somewhat rapidly and under pressure of the circumstances of the hour the various points raised by hon. Members. I believe the true justification of the action of the Congested Districts Board will be found by a perusal of the Report, and I would be perfectly willing to rest the judgment of those who read it against the vague declamation of the hon. Member for Ross-shire. The composition of the Board has been admitted to be individually excellent. Something has been said about there not being a secretary giving his whole time to the work. Well, the Secretary for Scotland was of opinion at the outset, and experience has not made him alter the conviction, that it would be much better not to have the whole time of a man, but, if necessary, to send a man to report on various parts. If you had the whole time of a man there would, in one sense, not be enough for him to do, and in others there would be too much. He would occupy a great deal of his time not in proper secretarial work, but by turning himself into an inspector. He thought it better to have a proper secretary always at headquarters, and to get the necessary supplementary information by particular inspections in other hands. Experience has shown that he has not come to a wrong conclusion. On the question of land, I think the hon. Member has been misled as to the meaning of the Allotments Act. It has only been in existence for three years, and I quite agree with the hon. Member for Inverness on this matter.
    It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS AMENDMENT (EXPENSES).
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any Expense incurred

1151
by the Secretary of State in any inquiry under the provisions of any Act of the present session to amend the Factory and Workshop Acts."—(Mr. Secretary Ritchie.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Patrick O'Brien.)
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I hope the hon. Member will not object. The Bill merely authorises the payment of necessary expenses connected with holding an inquiry under the new procedure set up by the Bill.
MR. CALDWELL: On former occasions we passed this sort of thing without a resolution of the House.
Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1900 (RULES).
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the rules recently issued by the Board of Education in Ireland. I trust I will be able to show to the satisfaction of the House that these rules are entirely unfair to the welfare of the people of Ireland, and entirely contradictory to the recommendations issued by the recent Commission which held an inquiry into the working of the Education Act in Ireland. Before I go into these rules and explain to the House the particulars I wish to remedy, perhaps it would be useful to point out the way in which the Board, which has given us these rules, is appointed, and to show the qualifications which they have for the work entrusted to them, and the consequences also which result to our country from the inadequate and insufficient way the work is done. In Ireland most of our Departments are managed by a body of men nominated by the Lord Lieutenant. We have two education boards—an Elementary Board and an Intermediate Board. The Elementary Board consists of twenty men, and it is a strange fact that only one of these represents the great majority of the people of Ireland. Surely it is not too much to
1152
claim for our country that the education system—primary and intermediate—should be placed on a proper footing, so that the people of Ireland whose children are interested in the welfare of the whole country, should have something to say in regard to the framing of the education laws. Unfortunately that is not the case. The Catholics, who form three-fourths of the population of the country, have only one representative on the National Education Board. But worse than that, in every selection that has been made men professing Nationalist principles, no matter how eminent they may be as educationists, are passed over? Is that the way to make the people of Ireland confident in the education system. No, it is not. It is strange that we in Ireland are treated in all matters affecting our welfare—material, educational, and national—in a manner directly opposed to the veriest elements of constitutional government. The treatment given to the Irish language in the rules now before the House is no exception to this autocratic, hostile, and insulting system of misgovernment. Surely the time has come when the education of our country—from the primary school to the university—should no longer be prostituted to party bigotry or race hatreds, but should be conducted in such a manner as will ensure its commanding the approval and support of our people by men who are in thorough sympathy with the people's pressing wants, and have given practical proof of their desire to remedy them.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, Ireland, with her people by nature intelligent and desirous of education, is, as a consequence of Castle Boards, in a condition of poverty which is a disgrace to any Government, is absolutely without the means of giving her children that technical training which would make their lot in the world afterwards better and more secure, is, in fact, a quarter of a century behind in the present struggle for existence. All this is directly and solely attributable to the disgraceful way in which the various education systems in Ireland are used, not for the improvement of the people according to their own ideas, or along lines initiated by themselves, but to crush the individuality of the race, to quell the sentiment of

1153
patriotism, to blot out all knowledge of and love for the past of their country, to bring about an ignorant, submissive, and spiritless uniformity so congenial to incompetent and unscrupulous rulers. Such has been the policy of the National Education Board. How far it has been successful in its main object can be judged by the presence on those benches of men openly and avowedly disloyal. How far it has been successful in crushing out education, in making Ireland unfit for Irishmen, the Chief Secretary himself has admitted. This Board and the Intermediate Board are nominated by the Lord Lieutenant. Most of the members of both Boards are men having no knowledge whatever of the working of elementary education; they have neither time nor inclination to devote to the subject; all, with one or two exceptions, are bitterly anti-Irish. The feelings and wishes of the people of Ireland are openly flouted in those appointments in a manner which would not be tolerated in any other country. Fancy any system of government in a civilised and free country appointing boards to manage questions of such vital importance to the nation's future welfare, and refusing to appoint more than one man in a body of twenty of the same political views as the great majority of the Irish people! It is intolerable and disgraceful that the future of our children should be in the hands for ever of incompetent, irresponsible, negligent, hostile Castle Boards. It is intolerable and inconsistent with good government that the future of Irish education should be in the hands of a bigoted minority, for it is an undoubted fact, which must be seriously grappled with, that the great majority of the Irish people have no voice whatever—except through the single exception of the most Rev. Dr. Walsh—in framing, administering, or improving the present educational systems of their country. I challenge any man to find in the most enslaved or worst-governed country in the world a parallel to the wholesale flouting of the people's wishes which is shown in Ireland; and I challenge the Government to defend it on any grounds except as a hopeless pandering to the narrow bigotry of an insignificant minority.
Let me illustrate what I have said by the rules recently issued by the Intermediate
1154
Education Board. A few years ago a Commission was held to inquire into the working of intermediate education in Ireland. During the course of the inquiry evidence was taken as to the advisability of giving the Irish language a better position than it previously occupied. The leading scholars of the Continental and even English universities spoke in the highest terms of the value and antiquity of the literary treasures stored in the Irish language; they all affirmed that for the mental training resulting from the study of two languages Irish was at least equal to French and German, while to the Irish child, whose national language it is, to whose mind it naturally appeals with far greater force than either French or German, to whom it is the embodiment of pride of race, of distinct nationality—they asserted it was from the educational standpoint of far greater importance than any other language. Alone amongst the universities of the world Trinity College stood in hostile opposition to the language of the country, whose educational destinies are for the moment in its hands. Since its professors were ignorant of the language, which European scholars had studied for years, they must needs insult both the language and the people who spoke it. To them, who were ignorant of it, it was "silly, indecent, etc.," to European scholars who had studied it in their universities and by the shores of Arran, it was "beyond any modern language as an educational medium." Yet, in face of the convincing and conclusive case made out in favour of the Irish language at the Commission, we find that again the bigotry and intolerance of the ignorant professors of Trinity prevails, and the unanimous demands of the Irish people, backed as it is by the unprejudiced expert opinion of the greatest living European scholars, is insultingly spurned by the Trinity professors who rule the Intermediate Board. In the old programme, Irish was handicapped by being allotted a smaller number of marks than any other subject. In the new programme the system of favouring special subjects by means of marks is abandoned, and an apparent equality established between all subjects. By an insidious move the Board, while pretending to favour Irish by doing away with marks, and by making it an honour subject, have really

1155
attempted to crush Irish out altogether from the programme. Take, for instance, the programme for the preparatory grade. The essential subjects are English composition; one of either French, Latin, or German; arithmetic, drawing, or English, and any other subject. The only chance for Irish is as a nondescript subject.
In the preparatory grade we find that the compulsory subjects are English composition; either French, Latin, or German; arithmetic, drawing or English, and any other subject. In examining this matter it is well to remember that a Student on entering upon this programme sees before him a course of four years; he also sees the possibility of gaining a scholarship of £20, £30, or £50 a year; and he learns from this programme that in order to obtain an exhibition in the ordinary literary course he must take up French or German. If he takes up the literary course he will be compelled not to take up Irish at the commencement. If he takes the classical course he must take up at the beginning Latin and Greek, and will therefore be prevented from taking up Irish, because there are four compulsory subjects and one optional, and the one optional includes in both the classical and the literary course either modern French or German. In the science course for exhibitions he has in the same way to take up subjects which will preclude the possibility of his taking up the Irish language. Therefore, at the very outset of his course as an intermediate student, if he ambitions to be a prize winner or an exhibitioner—and surely every young Irish child will so ambition—he is compelled to lay aside the language which the Commission of a few years ago unanimously recommended should be placed on better terms in the new programme. This better treatment has been unanimously demanded by the Irish people, by their representatives in Parliament, by the Catholic hierarchy in Ireland assembled at its synods, by the county and district councils, by a band of young Irishmen all over the country, and by the Gaelic League, numbering over 200 branches. Still, in the face of this Unanimous demand, in the face of the conclusive case made out for it, we find in the programme just issued, from which we expected better treatment,
1156
that the language is in an even worse and inferior position than before. It is to remedy this state of things that I have taken the liberty of addressing the House to-night. On a previous occasion I quoted extracts from various Continental scholars showing the beauty of the language, the literary treasures embodied in it, and its value to Irishmen if we wish to train and develop their natural abilities. Yet the Board which this House, through its representative the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, has nominated to attend to the educational requirements of our people, disregards the public opinion of Ireland and the unanimous demand made on behalf of this language to the Commission, and places Irish in a worse position than it even occupied before.
I come now to the second part of my Amendment. At page 24 the programme says—
"To be eligible for prizes and examinations in Group I., students must reach the Honour standard in Greek and Latin."
Therefore, according to that, Greek and Latin in the Irish school programme are made practically compulsory for those who wish to take up the classical course. But while French and German are practically made compulsory the language, which is a modern language, demanded by the Irish child, and which is demanded by the Irish people, is relegated to a position of obscurity, and shut out altogether. This is a disgrace. It is intolerable, and it is a thing which Irishmen are not prepared to submit to.
I trust that this appeal of the representatives of the Irish people will receive the favourable consideration of hon. Gentlemen opposite. But supposing it does not receive favourable consideration, and supposing the reactionary attitude taken up by the Intermediate Education Board is backed up by this House, we are determined, after having taken so much trouble to revive the language we love, which is the I language of our ancestors, not to fall back in the struggle. We mean to make Irish a living language and an educational medium, and surely hon. Members opposite do not wish that opportunities for improving the people and raising them socially and intellectually should be kept away from them. The Board has taken a reactionary step, and I trust

1157
they will not be supported. Men are appointed to administer education in Ireland, not because they are experts, not because they are prepared to pay attention to the drawing up of schemes suitable for the people, and not because they are in sympathy with the people, but because it is known and an admitted fact that they are the humble servants of the permanent officials. They are appointed to those positions because it is known that instead of devoting their time and attention and their energy and enthusiasm to this vital question they will sit down and do nothing, and leave matters entirely in the hands of the permanent official. England would not tolerate such a system for a moment, for she would not permit her educational system to be administered by a body of old, discarded, fossilised, and useless judges and lawyers. Irish is put in competition with a host of subjects, many of them far easier for the pupil, many absolutely essential in after grades if he wishes to try for prizes. While Greek and Latin are made practically compulsory in the classical group, and French and German in the modern group, Irish—the language of our people, which can be thoroughly learned and used in after life by all the students, to the majority of whom French and German will afterwards become dead or useless languages—is not thought worthy of being mentioned by name. It is relegated to a position of obscurity; it cannot be touched until the pupil has taken up three other languages, and under such circumstances it is impossible to expect either masters or pupils to take it up. This inferior position given to our national language by a Board wholly irresponsible, hopelessly anti-Irish, is a thing which Irishmen will not now tolerate. The time has passed when Irishmen silently submit to such wanton outrages on their national sentiments and desires; and if the Government intend to back up the Board in their utterly indefensible position, and refuse to accede to the very moderate demand made in the Amendment, then the time will have arrived for all Irishmen who respect their country and their race, who are not prepared to submit to be shuffled about, kicked, and insulted by every enemy of their race, to take a resolute stand and direct
1158
their energies not to getting concessions or alms from those who will never listen to justice or reason, but will submit to organised national opposition—the time will come, in fact has already come, when Irishmen should hurl these Boards from the power they have so long abused, and take into their own hands the educational destinies of their people. I beg to move the resolution standing in my name.
MR. DILLON: I rise to second the motion which has just been moved. Most Members of this House are aware of the radical and revolutionary change which has been inaugurated in the whole intermediate educational system of Ireland, and I desire to say at the very outset that those of us on these benches, who repres nt the majority of the people, recognise in that change, so far as its general provisions are concerned, a great reform, which we welcome as one of the greatest steps that has been taken in recent days—I might say for generations—towards establishing a tolerable system of education for the Irish people. We feel deeply grateful to those men who were instrumental in starting this change. The controversy, as the Chief Secretary and those who had examined the Amendment of his hon. friend were already aware, turned that night solely on the question of the position given to the Irish language in the new programme, although there were other points open to criticism. I wish to say that in my judgment it would be impossible to exaggerate the importance of this question. The feeling in Ireland among those for whom the Members on these benches spoke is intensely strong, and the disappointment at the provisions in the new rules issued by the Education Board is bitter in proportion to the expectations which have been aroused in the minds of the people. Now, I wish it to be clearly understood that our demand is not that the study of the Irish language should be made compulsory in any school or on any scholar, but that it should, in the programme of intermediate educational system in Ireland, be placed on a level of equality with any other language. That prima facie should appeal to the common sense of the House of Commons. It is a very serious matter, because the

1159
people of Ireland will not be content with any rules or programme which place the Irish language in a position inferior to that of any other language.
We wish no superior inducements or superior authority for the Irish language. That is a very moderate claim, and the feeling of the mass of the people of Ireland is so intensely strong upon it that if that demand is refused there will be a very fierce agitation. In the new Code, so far from an improvement being made on the old system, which has been made the subject of complaint in the House of Commons, followed by still more violent complaints in Ireland, the Irish language has been placed in a much worse position. I see the Chief Secretary shake his head, but that is the universal opinion in Ireland. The process has been done in a very cute and cunning way. It is true that according to the old Code the same number of marks is given to the Irish language as to French and German, and that under the new Code the same number of marks is given to all subjects. The programme is so constructed as to shoulder out Irish from the preparatory course, and to pursue it throughout with a mark of inferiority. An extraordinary preference is throughout given to German and Greek over Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, and Irish. Why should that be so? I yield to nobody in my admiration of the German and Greek languages, but it is a monstrous thing that a Board appointed to educate the Irish people should give such a substantial preference to those languages. In the preparatory and most of the other grades, you can pass with a minimum of forty marks in most subjects, but for German and Greek you require only thirty. Our first claim is that Irish should be accorded the most favoured language treatment. I should prefer that all languages should be placed on the same level, and the school authorities thus given a fair choice of the subjects they would take up. But if a preference is to be given to any language or languages, such as is here given to German and Greek, there will be an irresistible claim from Ireland that the Irish language should have equally favourable treatment.
As to our second claim, I turn to the
1160
programme of the preparatory grade which is vitally important, because it stands to reason that any subject or subjects taken up by the student in the preparatory grade will be carried by him through the whole of the course. In the preparatory grade a student must pass in five subjects—English composition; Latin, French, or German; arithmetic, experimental science, drawing or English, and one other subject. The only way in which Irish can be brought in is under that last head, and there it stands in competition with Greek, German, Italian, Spanish, algebra, and drawing. Is that just to the Irish language? In the first place, it is not mentioned at all, and four other subjects have been made obligatory before it can be selected. Therefore, I say, that inasmuch as Greek is a preferred subject with a bonus of ten marks in its favour throughout the course, and inasmuch as Greek is in the classical side of all the higher classes an essential subject for exhibitions, that programme is framed with the deliberate object, and certainly the undoubted effect, of squeezing Irish out altogether in the preparatory grade, and if it is squeezed out there there is no chance whatever for it in the other grades. We see in this the result of a crusade which has been undertaken deliberately by a large section—by a majority, as I am informed—of the members of the Intermediate Board, who represent the openly avowed spirit of Trinity College, Dublin. This is an extremely serious matter. The hon. Member opposite spoke contemptuously at the idea of giving the same number of marks for Irish as for German and French. If our Amendment is accepted in these rules it will still be open to any student in Ireland to ignore the Irish language without incurring the smallest disability. We do not propose to impose the smallest disability by our Amendment upon any student in Ireland; all we ask is that the student may not be put under a disability by taking it up. I was talking to a great educational expert in Ireland the other day, and he said that in his judgment and from his own experience he would almost say that any subject which children took up with an interest had an educational value, in proportion

1161
to the interest it excited in the minds of the children. If you notice that, for whatever reason, a body of children take up something that will arouse their interest and stimulate their minds I think it ought to be put forward as a permanent item in any educational course. I could quote educational authorities from a great many foreign countries who have expressed themselves strongly in favour of the teaching of Irish. Considering the fact that the young children are studying this language with enthusiasm and mastering it, this ought to be sufficient to convince the Government that the Irish language is one of great educational value to the people of Ireland. What is the meaning of all this animosity? Why, if the children desire to learn the ancient language of their country, should they be prevented from doing so? These rules are part of an avowed policy in Ireland to wipe out the Irish language from the school, and I attribute this policy largely to Trinity College. I have here the evidence of Professor Atkinson, who said before the Commission that he objected to Irish because it was not of sufficient value to justify them in retaining it. Professor Atkinson also held a further objection that Irish literature was so dirty and indecent that it was dangerous to allow an Irish child to understand its own language. I contend, on the same line of argument, that the study of Greek is also dangerous for the same reason. The object of the new rules is to exclude Irish, and these provisions are the skilfully drawn arrangements and plans of Trinity College for wiping out Irish altogether. This is the policy propounded by Professor Atkinson.
We have now a perfectly clear issue before us. On the one side you have this wretched system of irresponsible nominated boards. We have been told that Archbishop Walsh is on the Board, but he may be in a minority. The situation is that you have on one side a board nominated by the Lord Lieutenant and in no sense representative, and on the other side you have the unanimous demand of four-fifths of the Irish people, who represent the vast majority of the children for whose benefit this system of education is intended. What will be the consequences? What will be the
1162
result if this demand is refused? Do not let hon. Members opposite lay the flattering unction to their souls that this debate will be the last. If this demand is refused the Chief Secretary will be face to face with a fierce agitation which will increase in vehemence until the demand is granted. I remember raising this question five years ago, and the President of the Board of Trade, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, made a not altogether unsympathetic speech on that occasion, but he treated the matter as one in which nobody took very great interest. I think that since then he has seen cause to change his mind. I warn the Chief Secretary that if this moderate demand we are now making is refused there will be immediately an agitation against the existence of the Board—an agitation of a formidable character—and for the handing over of the intermediate education of Ireland to a board representing the people. I certainly should not be sorry to be the mouthpiece of the demand which we will be compelled to put forward to sweep away the Board altogether as an obstruction to education in Ireland and a difficulty in the path of the Irish people. If the Chief Secretary desires to give this new reform a fair chance—and I confess I desire to give it a chance—I would urge upon him to use his influence, which we know in this matter can be used with effect, to induce those gentlemen to moderate their ardour against the Irish language, to give the Irish people local option in this matter, to grant the moderate demand now made, and to place the Irish language in; such a position that pupils in Ireland will not be damnified or endangered or pulled back in the educational race by the fact that they have chosen Irish in the preparatory grade of the intermediate examinations.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House disapproves of the Rules of Examination of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland, 1902, unless they be amended in the following particulars:—

1. In preparatory grade, substitute 'Irish, Latin, French, German,' for present group 'Latin, French, German.'

2. In all grades in Modern Course, substitute 'Irish, French, or German,' for 'French or German.'

1163

3. In all grades in Grammar School Course, substitute 'Irish, Greek, French, or German,' for 'Greek, French, or German.'

4. In Rule 34, line 9 of Rule, insert after 'Standard,' 'in two of the three following: Irish, French, or German.'

5. That the percentage required for pass in Irish he 30 per cent. as is the case in Greek and German; 25 per cent. for a pass in the honour course, the standard now required for Greek and German."—( Mr. Thomas O'Donnell.)

*THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The hon. Member for East Mayo concluded his speech with two propositions. The first was that unless the House assented now and forthwith to impose these five Amendments upon the Intermediate Education Board there will be an agitation throughout Ireland for the abolition of the Board, and that he will be prepared to head the agitation. The other proposition with which he concluded his speech was that at the same time he desires to give a fair trial to the new reform which this Board has initiated.
MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentle man has misunderstood me. What I said was that I believed the Members on these benches (the Irish Members) would be compelled, whether they liked it or not, to head the agitation.
*MR. WYNDHAM: I shall not debate that point now, but I would ask whether that is a reasonable way in which to treat a scheme prepared by a board of experts, and from which many people, including the hon. Member, expect a great deal of good. I think the hon. Member and some of those who agree with him are under a slight misapprehension. The hon. Member read the evidence given by Dr. Atkinson, and if I followed his argument accurately, he held that the majority of the Board saw eye to eye with that gentleman and showed no consideration whatever for the minority of the Board. I do not think it would be proper or fitting to go behind the united action of the Board, and I do not think that the picture which the hon. Member has drawn of what had been going on was a true picture. So long
1164
as there are on that Board high-minded gentlemen who are experts in educational matters, and so long as they act together, the House is bound to defer to their opinions. The hon. Member dwelt on the educational value of the Irish language. I had the opportunity not so long ago of also dwelling on the educational value of the Irish language, and I adhere to every word I then said, but the hon. Gentleman will recall that I did on that occasion draw a distinction between the teaching of an Irish speaking child through the medium of the Irish language, and the question before us—namely, the degree and place that should be given to Irish as a subject of secondary education. The hon. Member said that the rules had been contrived in order to squeeze out the Irish language, although he admitted it was given as many marks as any other subject. The general principle on which the Board had acted, it seems to me, is that every child is to take up two large subjects with a choice of another; and in that choice Irish is included. If the child goes in for a literary career or a grammar school course, it will take up Latin and Greek or Latin and French, or Latin or Greek and German, which have a cosmopolitan educational value. But when that is done it is at liberty, nay, it is encouraged to take up the study of the Irish language. The hon. Member said that he had arrived at the conclusion that under these circumstances the child would not take up Irish, but I believe that it would, and the whole of my argument showed that it is not advisable to come to so rapid a conclusion on the merits of this question, especially when we have just received a report from such eminent authorities, and to tell these gentlemen face to face that they are wrong and that we are right. We cannot treat in this way the body of men to whom this matter has been delegated, and who act entirely from public spirit, without remuneration. The hon. Member who introduced the discussion pointed out that there is one Board which deals with elementary education, and another which deals with secondary education. As I pointed out a little while ago, neither the Government nor the House has any direct control

1165
over even the Board which deals with elementary education, and I understood one hon. Member to express a preference for that Board over the Intermediate. Speaking of elementary education we are, perhaps, more entitled to express our views there, particularly on the question of children who speak Irish and do not speak English. Administration comes in. We can say that we cannot educate these children unless the teacher understands Irish. On that point the hon. Member for Waterford asked me whether there would be a teacher of Irish appointed at the training college, and I am glad to be able to inform him that the National Board has decided to make such an appointment. But I do distinguish that question somewhat sharply from the question we are now discussing. On the question of secondary education the delegation must be fuller if any good is to be secured. You cannot put up such men as compose this Board—many of them enjoying the confidence of hon. Members who have spoken to-night—such men as Archbishop Walsh, Dr. Molloy, Professor Starkie, and Father Findlay—I say you cannot delegate such a subject as this to such men as these, and then claim the right to criticise their every action at every turn.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: We did not delegate the subject to them.
*MR. WYNDHAM: If that is the position of the hon. Member, of course his motion goes a good deal further than appears on the face of it, because it then becomes a motion for the constitution of some other authority. I cannot embark on that subject to-night, but I do not believe that even the hon. Member has ready any alternative for these twelve gentlemen, who really discharge their duties, as is admitted by the hon. Member for East Mayo, upon every point other than this in a way which receives the approbation of hon. Gentlemen opposite. That. I say, is admitted even by those who have criticised the action of the Board most severely, and the following statement was recently published by the Gaelic League—a statement by Dr. Douglas Hyde, who, I think, has sup-
1166
plied a good deal of the ammunition for this debate—
"We believe it to be a serious, well conceived, and courageous effort in the right direction."
If you can get that from any body of men in this imperfect world, I think you have a great deal to be thankful for. I do submit that it is a mistake, while this scheme is almost damp from the press, to put down five Amendments, and to state that if those Amendments are not accepted you want neither the Board nor their scheme. It must be remembered that the Viceregal Commission was appointed in 1898, and sat until August, 1899: upon that Commission were educationists whose authority hon. Members opposite will acknowledge; their Report was submitted to the Intermediate Board, who, after working for another year and a half, came forward in June of this year with these new rules and this examination programme.
I could argue this question on its merits if it were not so intricate, and I could take up some points made by the hon. Member who moved this Instruction, and by the hon. Member for East Mayo. I prefer, however, to read to the House what the Intermediate Education Board said upon this Instruction. When it was put upon the Order Paper I thought it only right to communicate with the Board, and to ask for any observations which they might desire to make upon it. These are the observations of the Board—
"The Board have been most desirous, in the preparation of the programme for 1902, to encourage the study of the Irish language, as far as can be done consistently with the general interests of education in the country. They have accordingly placed this subject in a more favourable position than it has previously occupied, especially in these two respects:—(1) The study of the Irish language counts as much towards exhibitions and prizes as the study of any other language; and (2) the teaching of the Irish language counts as much towards school grants as the teaching of any other language.
"The Board will be prepared, after some experience of the practical working of the changes now introduced, to consider what further steps may be taken to encourage the study of the Irish language. But having given full consideration to all the evidence laid before the recent Commission, and having taken into account the imperfect resources at present available for the teaching of Irish, they do not think it desirable, in the general interests of education, to do more in this

1167
direction, at present than they have done in the programme now before the House of Commons."
With reference to the fifth point in the Instruction, and the alleged undue preference given to German and Greek, I find that the hon. Member referred to the fact that whereas a certain percentage is required for all other subjects, for German and Greek a lower percentage is allowed in order to secure a pass. The Intermediate Education Board upon that point go on to say—
"The lower percentage required for passing in Greek and German was fixed on account of the small number of students presenting themselves for examination in these subjects, suggesting to the Board that these important languages were neglected. The arrangement made is only provisional, and should it have the desired effect of stimulating the study of these languages it need not continue in operation.
"In the case of Irish It was not considered necessary to give this special encouragement owing to the enthusiasm with which the subject has been taken up of late."
These observations are subscribed to by all the Members of the Board. I have no doubt that there are some members of the Board who do not agree with these new rules, but what I submit is that they should be left to the persons of the Board to determine, and we should not attempt to snatch the task out of their hands. I do not desire to argue the merits of this question at all. My point is that it would be a mistake for Parliament to interfere at the outset with the details, however important, of such a scheme. The scheme is, on the face of it, in some respects transitional, and, as the Board themselves recognise, to a certain extent capable of improvement. All I urge is that unless we are prepared to abolish this Board, and I am not prepared to do that, and I gather that the hon. Member for East Mayo is not prepared to do it—
MR. DILLON: I said I was sincerely anxious to give the new system a fair trial.
*MR. WYNDHAM: I suggest that an opportunity should be given by awaiting Amendments at the hands of the experts, and in the light of experience, and not by seeking to induce them, at the hands of Parliament, to alter the conclusion arrived at after long labour and infinite pains.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid the Chief Secretary had told I them that it was not fair to criticise the new scheme at present, but he would point out that if no objection was taken to the rules within forty days after they were laid on the Table of the House they would become law as a matter of course. His hon. friend the Member for West Kerry, in dealing with the rules now, I was only acting in accordance with the I Act of Parliament, following the injunction of this House, and adopting a perfectly regular and constitutional course. The Chief Secretary asked them to give reasonable treatment to the Board. He was sure they were prepared to do so, but, on the other hand, they had a perfect right to ask that the Board of Education should give reasonable attention to the people of Ireland in this matter. While the Irish Members were satisfied, speaking generally, with the new rules, there remained the question of the teaching of Irish, on which they considered they had cause to complain. In view of the strong feeling for the revival of the Irish language and the progress of the movement in the last four or five years, they certainly thought that the Board of Education had behaved very badly in not giving some-interpretation to that feeling in the new code. He had read the rules carefully, and he and many others took the view that under them the Irish language was placed in competition with other subjects. What they claimed was that the study of Irish should be placed in competition with another language, and not with such a subject as geometry or drawing. Notwithstanding what the Chief Secretary had said, it seemed to him that the position given to the Irish language in the rules did not induce to its study. He understood that the rules were subject to revision, and he hoped that revision would come at no distant date. His interest in this question arose from the fact that people who were not Irish were as anxious as the Irish people themselves to have the opportunity of learning the Irish language. He and his friends believed that the preservation of the Irish language was intimately bound up with the preservation of the Irish nation, and for that reason he asked for a revision of the rules. Some hon. Members opposite had interjected, in the

1169

course of the debate, their objections to the preservation of the Irish language. He did not want to be hard on them, but the reason for that unseemly behaviour was that they knew nothing whatever of Ireland or Irish literature. If they had had an Irish Administration responsible to the wishes of the people of Ireland they would have, long ago, proved to the world that the literature of ancient Ireland was perhaps the finest in existence.
MR. LEAMY: I confess I am much astonished that the Chief Secretary deprecates criticism of the Board of Education in Ireland and charges Irish Members with acting unfairly towards the Board, and with being desirous to prevent new reforms in education being carried out. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that if this Amendment is carried we shall get rid of the Board. We do not want to get rid of the Board, but we do want them to fall in with public feeling in Ireland on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of five Amendments, but there is only one question before the House, and that is whether an Irish boy should be entitled, if he chooses, to take up the study of Irish instead of French, German, or Greek. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the cosmopolitan value of Greek or German. Does he believe that any boy who takes honours in Greek or German ever knows much about either language five years after he has left school? We thoroughly approve of the reform which has been effected; we are desirous of giving it all the assistance we can; we simply ask that an Irish lad should be able to take up the study of the Irish language if he likes. I cannot understand why it is that the Board will not consent to this, knowing, as it must, the extraordinary movement which has grown up for the restoration of the Irish language. What is the revolution which it is feared this Amendment, if carried, would effect? You already have French, German, and Latin in the rules; we ask for the addition of the word "Irish." We do not ask that every boy should be compelled to learn Irish; we simply desire that it should be made optional. As to the literature of the language, we have as fine and as chivalrous characters in the heroes of Irish story as are to be found
1170
anywhere. The chief inspirations of all the great epic-makers and bards have been found in warriors and lovers, and, whatever may be said about Irishmen, they can never be accused of being laggards or cowards; whether on the battlefield or in the boudoir Irishmen have always been able to render a good account of themselves. But after all is said and done, what we are asking for is simply the right to teach our own language in our own schools. The majority of the Irish people are in favour of the demand we are making to-day. Remember, you cannot kill the Irish language now. I have heard it stated that there are at present 500 students in Maynooth College studying Irish; Irish priests are returning to the preaching of sermons in Irish; newspapers have taken up the subject; children are engaged with it. We are simply amazed at the movement, which is the most astonishing that has taken place in Ireland for centuries. Why can you not assent to this request? Is there any single demand which the Irish people can make which will be assented to by the English Government without the country being brought to the verge of civil war? Would the Empire be endangered by the granting of this appeal? Why, in the name of God, is it not agreed to, so that we may have peace and quietude upon at any rate one single matter I We are told that if this Amendment is pressed the Board might throw up the whole business. Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that we could not get on in Ireland without this high-spirited Board? The right hon. Gentleman also told us that the Board are unanimous, or, at all events, that they are working in agreement. Will he tell us that there is not a single member of that Board in favour of our demand? Will he say that either of the four gentlemen whose names he mentioned is against our demand? I admit that there is some hope in the reply received from the Board, and I think the right hon. Gentleman acted very wisely in asking for their opinion upon this point. At the same time, I can assure him that we will never be content until our demand is conceded, and, therefore, the sooner it is granted the better.
MR. LUNDONsaid that by the new rules this beautiful

1171
Irish language, which compared favourably with Greek, was being thrown into the background. He wished to point out to the Chief Secretary that he had been a teacher of the Irish language for forty years, and he had done his best to propagate the language of his forefathers. The Irish literature was one of the finest in the world. They did not possess a more perfect record in Latin than they did
in the Irish language, and they possessed first-class Irish dictionaries and Irish grammars of the finest stamp. He concluded by reciting "Who fears to speak of '98?" in the Irish language.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 56 Noes, 107. (Division List No. 269.)

AYES.

Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Ambrose, Robert

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Dowd, John

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Boland, John

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Malley, William

Caldwell, James

Leamy, Edmund

O'Mara, James

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Levy, Maurice

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Cogan, Denis J.

Lundon, W.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Condon, Thomas Joseph

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Reddy, M.

Crean, Eugene

M'Dermott, Patrick

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cullinan, J.

M'Govern, T.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Delany, William

Mooney, John J.

Rigg, Richard

Dillon, John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Doogan, P. C.

Nolan, Col John P. (Galway, N.)

Sullivan, Donal

Duffy, William J.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Weir, James Galloway

Elibank, Master of

O'Brien, Kendal (Tip'er'ry, Mid

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Ffrench, Peter

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Gilhooly, James

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

Hammond, John

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

NOES.

Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Morgan, Hon. Fred. (Monmths.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Finch, George H.

Morrell, George Herbert

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fisher, William Hayes

Mount, William Arthur

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn)

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

Gretton, John

Purvis, Robert

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Randles, John S.

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x

Reid, James (Greenock)

Balfour, Maj K R (Christchurch

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Rbt. Wm.

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

Bignold, Arthur

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Bigwood, James

Higginbottom, S. W.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Blundell, Col. Henry

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightsd.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Bond, Edward

Hoult, Joseph

Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

Brassey, Albert

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Spear, John Ward

Bull, William James

Keswick, William

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Knowles, Lees

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Lawson, John Grant

Thornton, Percy M.

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Tollemache, Henry James

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.

Valentia, Viscount

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Warde, Col. C. E.

Cranborne, Viscount

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Crossley, Sir Savile

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Dalkeith, Earl of

Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G E Ellison

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Davenport, William Bromley-

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Wills, Sir Frederick

Dickson, Charles Scott

Malcolm, Ian

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Manners, Lord Cecil

Wylie, A.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriessh.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Sir William Walrond and

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Mr. Anstruther.

Adjourned at Two of the clock till Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—

Notting Hill Electric Lighting.

The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  CORK, BLACKROCK, AND PASSAGE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  BELFAST HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
  The King's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.

  HULL, BARNSLEY, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
  TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL.
  TENDRING HUNDRED WATER BILL.
  RICHMOND GAS BILL.
  LEEDS CHURCHES BILL [H. L.].
  DONCASTER TITHE TRUST BILL [H. L.].
  Reported with Amendments.

  NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  The King's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.

  IRISH PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH BILL.
  BRITISH GAS LIGHT COMPANY BILL.
  WEST SURREY WATER BILL.
  STROUD GAS BILL.
  Reported without Amendment.

  DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
  The King's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.

  SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
  LONDON AND INDIA DOCKS (NEW WORKS) BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  DORKING GAS BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.

  HARROGATE WATER BILL.
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Morley.)
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, before this Bill is read a third time, I desire to call attention to the fact that the Committee by whom the Bill was considered refused a locus standi to the Rivers Board of the West Riding of Yorkshire, which represents all the county councils and the councils of the county boroughs in the West Riding. Your Lordships' Standing Order No. 105D provides that when any Bill relating to the water supply of any town or district is before Parliament, the council of any administrative county, relating in their petition that the administrative county or any part thereof may be injuriously affected, has a locus standi upon the Bill; and it appears to me that it is only in accordance with common sense that the Rivers Board should have a locus standi on this Bill. It may be said that the councils of the West Riding should have petitioned against the Bill, and in that way obtained, by the Standing Order, a locus standi; but they were induced not to do so from the fact that a Committee of your Lordships' House allowed a locus standi under similar conditions in the case of a Halifax Bill in 1898. The matter is one of considerable importance. I received a letter yesterday from my noble friend Lord Elgin (Chairman of the Salmon Fisheries Commission), in which he points out the great importance of allowing this Board a locus standi in respect of water Bills affecting districts in their jurisdiction; and it seems to me only reasonable that a body like this, representing as it does the public interests, and not the interests of any private individuals, should be given a locus standi. I should like to ask my noble friend the Chairman of Committees whether he has considered the subject, what his opinion, if he is at liberty to express it, is on the matter, and whether he contemplates any alteration of the

  1023
  Standing Order so as to allow of a locus standi being given in such cases in the future.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My noble friend mentioned this matter to me some time ago, as also did Lord Crewe, who informed me that he proposed to call attention to the question on the Leeds Bill, which comes before the House on Monday. I was not aware that the noble Earl was going to raise the question on the Harrogate Bill, and I propose, with his Lordship's permission, to defer any remarks I may have to make till Monday. I do not know at present what the exact circumstances were under which the Chairman of the Committee refused to the West Riding Rivers Board the locus standi which the noble Earl thinks they ought to have had. I scarcely like, therefore, to give a distinct answer to my noble friend to-day, but I hope to be prepared to speak more definitely on the subject on Monday next. I quite agree with my noble friend that the West Riding Rivers Board is a very important body; but probably it was left out because it stands in an almost unique position, there being, I think, only one other such board in the United Kingdom.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  STRATTON AND BUDE IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
  EASTON AND CHURCH HOPE RAILWAY BILL [H. L.].
  HARROGATE WATER BILL [H. L.].
  DOVER HARBOUR BILL [H. L.].
  RIPON CORPORATION BILL [H. L.].
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  DUBLIN ST. JAMES GATE BREWERY TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  LONDON RIVERSIDE FISH MARKET BILL.
  The Order made on Tuesday last appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill, discharged.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Tees Valley Water Board Bill and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the London Riverside Fish Market Bill; read, and agreed to; all petitions referred to the Committee with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bills reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bills reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.

  COMMONS REGULATION AND IN-CLOSURE (SKIPWITH) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (ORPINGTON) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (INTELLIGENCE DIVISION).
  Annual Report of proceedings under the "Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1899," the "Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 to 1894," the "Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1893," and the "Board of Agriculture Act, 1889," for the year 1900. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  COUNTY COUNCILS (BYE-LAWS) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  CIVIL LIST BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Five of the clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven of the clock.