Sitting of 10 May 1901

TOOK THE OATH.
One other Member took and subscribed the Oath.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—
  Bath Gas Light and Coke Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
  Local Government Provisional Order (Gas) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time upon Monday next.

LONG EATON GAS BILL.
  WELLS CORPORATION WATER BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  TEES VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL (BY ORDER).
  Read the third time, and passed.
BURGESS HILL WATER BILL.
  GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  HULL, BARNSLEY, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL. LLANDRINDOD WELLS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL. LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered; Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.

  RICHMOND GAS BILL.
  SHANNON WATER AND ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  STROUD GAS BILL.
  WEST SURREY WATER BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland under The Local Government (Ireland) (No. 2) Act, 1900, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Wyndham.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES)
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the urban districts of Cashel, Omagh, and Strabane, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Wyndham.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland under The Local Government (Ireland) (No. 2) Act, 1900," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 174.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the urban districts of Cashel, Omagh, and Strabane," presented,
  1300
  and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 175.]

  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  DORKING GAS BILL.
  TOTTENHAM AND HAMPSTEAD JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  BRITISH GAS LIGHT COMPANY BILL.
  KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL.
  SWANAGE GAS AND WATER BILL.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (DEARNE VALLEY JUNCTION RAILWAYS) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  FOLKESTONE CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  ARLESEY GAS BILL [Lords.]
  Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  CALEDONIAN ELECTRIC POWER (SUBSTITUTED) BILL.
  Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP G).
  Sir JAMES WOODHOUSE reported from the Committee on Group G of Private Bills, That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Thursday next, at Two of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY (SUBSTITUTED) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Water Supply of the Burgh of Grangemouth" Grangemouth Water Provisional Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Burgh of Hamilton." Hamilton Burgh Provisional Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Scottish Provident Institution." Scottish Provident Institution Provisional Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Shrewsbury Gas Light Company." Shrewsbury Gas Bill [Lords].
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further power on the New Swindon Gas Company; and for other purposes." New Swindon Gas Bill [Lords].
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time limited for the completion of the pier and works authorised by the Milford Docks Act, 1890, and for the compulsory purchase of certain lands; and for other purposes." Milford Docks Bill [Lords].

  GRANGEMOUTH WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, under Section 7, Sub-section (2), of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to be considered upon Monday next.
  HAMILTON BURGHS PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, under Section 7, Sub-section (2), of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to be considered upon Monday next.
  SCOTTISH PROVIDENT INSTITUTION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, under Section 7, Sub-section (2), of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to be considered upon Monday next.
  SHREWSBURY GAS BILL [Lords]
    NEW SWINDON GAS BILL [Lords].

      MILFORD DOCKS BILL [Lords].
      Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private
      Bills.

PETITIONS.
  BURIAL PLACES (EXEMPTION FROM RATES) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Perth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO CROPS, ETC., BILL.
  Petition from Perth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (YOUNG CHILDREN SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dundee, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  HABITUAL DRUNKARDS.
  Petiton from New Mills, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES (REPAYMENT OF LOANS) BILL.
  Petition from Totnes, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND RATING (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Wallsend, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Perth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petition from Congleton, for extension to women; to lie upon the Table.
  POLICE SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition, from Perth, against; to lie upon, the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Perth, in favour; to lie upon, the Table.
  REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL.
  Petition of Scottish Trade Protection Society, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petition from Galashiels, against establishment; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Wapping; Putford; Totton; Gatley; Wallasey; Higher Broughton; Swadlincote; Oton; Church Gresley; Cowes (two); Southampton (four); Melksham; York (two); Bolsover; Shuttlewood; Bideford; Thornhillhead; Bulkworthy; Twitchery; Parkeston; Harwich; Lanivet; Harborne; Urmston; Glastonbury; Lincoln (two); Elsecar; Weston-superMare; Sheffield; Prestwich; Longsight; Manchester; Shaftesbury; Kennington; St. Blazey; Wath-upon-Dearne; Hoyland Nether; Hoyland; Hoyland Common; Hutton End; Dacre; Keswick; Penrith (two); Stainton; Charles Bottom; Stanford Bishop; Nenthead; Tunbridge Wells; Colchester; Welshpool; Sutcombe; Exeter; Newcastle-on-Tyne; Pelynt; Cramlington; Ashington; Newark; Scarborough (five); Copthorne; Okehampton; Birdwell; Branksome; Brandon Mount Parkstone; Parramore; Meersbrook Park; Coal Aston; Branksome and Parkstone; Llangeln; Trevone; St. Issey; Portholland; Bugle; Queens; Lane; Newquay (two); Crantock; Cubert; Rejewah; Trelowth; Padstow; Kestle Mill; St. Columb (two); Colan; Mitchell; Withiel; St. Merry; Bennacott; St. Mary; Trecollas; Canworthywater; Eden; Poundstock; Tresmeer; Tresparrett; Treneglos; St. Gennys; Coldnorthedt; Summercourt; Wolverley; Tenbury; Lymington; Stockton; Cleethorpes; West Driffield and others; Scunthorpe; Swindon; and Melksham; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL AND SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Bishop's Tawton; and Barnstaple; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Brandon and Byshottles; Treeton; Treeparrett; Salford; Bideford; Pendlebury; Bleadney; Droylsden; Cowes; Lanivet; High Wycombe; Wapping; Barnton; Leigh; Strathaven; Platt Bridge; Ashington; Folkestone; Cowes; and Blairgowrie; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Langholm; Innerleithen; Coatbridge; and, Monimail; to lie upon the Table.
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, against; to lie upon the Table.
  TROUT FISHING ANNUAL CLOSE TIME (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Petition from Perth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS.
  Copy presented, of Eighteenth Report of the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks, with Appendices, for the year 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 163.]
  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of Return showing the number of recruits who joined the Cavalry (including Household Cavalry), Royal Artillery, Infantry (including Foot Guards), and Militia respectively in the first three months of each year from 1897 to 1901, inclusive [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 14th December, 1900; Mr. Kearley]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 164.]
  NAVY AND MARINES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 1st April; Sir John Colomb]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 165.]
  IMPERIAL DEFENCE ACT, 1888 (FINAL ACCOUNT).
  Account presented, of all moneys issued from the Consolidated Fund, of Sums borrowed, and of Transactions in relation to Sums so borrowed, up to 31st March 1901, in pursuance of the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 166.]
  CHINA (No. 5, 1901).
  Copy presented, of Further Correspondence respecting the disturbances in China [in continuation of China (No. 1, 1901)] [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES.)
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2594 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Temporary Laws.—Register of Temporary Laws for the Second Session, Twenty-seventh Parliament, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, pursuant to Report of the Select Committee on Expiring Laws in Session 1866; to be printed. [No. 167.]
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CONTRACTS).
  Return ordered, "of all Contracts made in the United Kingdom for manufactured articles by the several Government Departments between the 1st day of April, 1900, and the 31st day of March, 1901, either with contractors outside the United Kingdom or with Contractors or agents who obtain the articles from Abroad (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 325, of Session 1900)."—(Sir Howard Vincent.)

  GLASGOW (EXPENDITURE ON VACCINATION.
  Return ordered, "of the Expenditure by the Corporation of Glasgow in connection
  1306
  with Vaccination and Re-Vaccination in each year from the 1st day of June 1891 to the 31st day of May 1900."—(Mr. Thomas Bayley.)

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—NEW ZEALAND) CONTINGENT—MAORI WARRIORS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Premier of New Zealand has decided to include 100 Maori warriors in a new contingent which is to be sent by New Zealand to the seat of war in South Africa; and whether having regard to the character of the Maoris, the War Office will refuse to accept the services of the Maori contingent.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): I am not aware of any such decision.

  MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. PARTINGTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what percentage of the members of the Volunteer force who offered their services for the war in South Africa were medically examined and found on examination to be unfit for foreign service.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): No Returns; are available.

  TRANSVAAL REFUGEES IN LONDON.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on 21st August last, a number of Transvaal refugees, including many women, young children, and girls, on their way to Holland had to wait a few hours in Liverpool Street Station, and were the subject of a hostile demonstration from a mob from whose violence they were only secured by police protection; and whether he will consider what steps should be taken to protect Boer refugee

  1307
  women and children from violence and insult at the hands of English people.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): No, Sir; my information is that there was no such occurrence on the date mentioned. As regards all other occasions when refugees have been passing through London every possible precaution has been taken by the police to secure their proper treatment; and the arrangements made have, in my opinion, worked satisfactorily.

  ARMY ORGANISATION—THE PROPOSED SIX ARMY CORPS.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of Regular troops, exclusive of reserves, of one year's service and under one year's service, estimated to compose the three army corps intended for foreign service, and the three army corps for home defence respectively.
  MR. BRODRICK: The usual percentage of soldiers at home in their first year of service is about 27·5 on the total strength of soldiers at home. There seems no reason why this percentage should be materially altered.
  MR. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the actual number?
  MR. BRODRICK: I can only give the percentage. As the greater part of the Army is in South Africa it would be useless to give the figures.
  MR. LAMBERT: I used the words in the question "estimated to compose."
  MR. BRODRICK: And I have given the hon. Member the estimate.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether in introducing his resolution on Army organisation he intends to make clear the inner organisation of the six proposed army corps; how divisions and brigades will be arranged; the areas they will occupy; and how existing units of all arms will be grouped; and whether he can see his way to placing in the tea
  1308
  room a map of the United Kingdom coloured to show the six army corps areas and their sub-divisions into divisional and brigade districts.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid I cannot undertake to have these maps made out at present with the precise areas of divisions and brigades, the more so as a disclosure of the position of all proposed barracks will not facilitate the acquisition of sites. But the inner organisation of these army corps has received most careful consideration.
  COLONEL WELBY: Are we to understand that the organisation of the army corps will be explained on Monday?
  MR. BRODRICK: I do not propose to explain how the divisions and brigades will be grouped, as I should thereby lay myself open to a great deal of local pressure.

  FIELD ARTILLERY AT ALDERSHOT
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the new brigade division of field artillery at Aldershot have any guns; and, if not, when they are to be armed; whether the other field batteries have six guns each, but only four horsed; and can he state what is the actual and what the establishment strength in horses in the new field batteries, and whether they belong to the 1st Army Corps ready to embark on active service.
  MR. BRODRICK: There are three brigade divisions of artillery at Aldershot, which have been recently raised. In the 33rd each battery has six 15-pounder guns, four of which are horsed, and there are 194 horses out of the establishment of 198. In the 49th each battery has four howitzers out of six, four of which are horsed, and there are 187 horses out of 198. The 50th, which is also composed of howitzer batteries of six guns, four of which will be horsed, has only recently been raised, and there are 69 horses, which are being used for training the recruit drivers. The howitzer guns for this brigade division have not yet been received from the makers, but are well advanced. The above batteries are all on the lower establishment, and are

  1309
  not intended for immediate service abroad. Seeing that we have over 250,000 men in South Africa, no question of a 1st Army Corps for service abroad arises.

  HALF-PAY OFFICERS AND POLITICAL CONTESTS.
  MR. MALCOLM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the desirability of so amending the Army Regulations that in future half-pay officers eligible for employment shall be precluded from taking active part in political controversy, whether at bye-elections or at other times.
  MR. BRODRICK: It would not appear expedient to lay down hard and fast regulations on this matter, but I will give the question further consideration.

  DESTITUTE SOLDIER'S WIDOW—HIMALAYA ROBINSON.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare) E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the case of an old woman named Himalaya Robinson, alleged to have been in the Peninsula with her father, a soldier under Wellington, and who is now in a destitute condition; and whether something can be done to relieve her from privation in her very old age.
  LORD STANLEY: I am afraid I have no power to authorise any pension or grant in a case of this sort. I will refer the matter to the Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund.

  WICKLOW ARTILLERY MILITIA.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Wicklow Artillery Militia are to be sent to Cork for training; whether he is aware that the Lord Lieutenant has been petitioned to allow the Wicklow Militia to be trained in their own county, and whether the prayer of the petition will be granted.
  LORD STANLEY: The Wicklow Artillery Militia does not train this year.

  NAAS BARRACKS WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. LEAMY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War
  1310
  whether the water supply of the military barracks at Naas has been condemned by experts as bad and tainted with sewage; and, if this is the fact, can he explain why the military authorities decline to avail themselves of the water supply which has been procured for the town of Naas within the past two years by the Naas Urban District Council.
  LORD STANLEY: The last reports on the water state specifically that it is free from sewage contamination. The question of procuring a supply from Naas town is under consideration.

  INDIA—NATIVE PRINCES AND FOREIGN TOURS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been directed to an order issued by the Governor General of India forbidding Indian princes to travel abroad or visit Europe without the Viceroy's Imperial permission; is he aware that this order has caused discontent, and can he state on what grounds this order was made, and whether it was made with the knowledge and sanction of the Home Government.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): I am cognisant of the circular letter to which the hon. Member's question evidently refers, though I cannot accept his description of it as an accurate one. It was within the competence of the Government of India to issue it; no sanction from the Home Government was requisite, and I am not aware that it has caused discontent.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Under what provision has Lord Curzon any right to interfere with the private arrangements of these princes?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has quite mastered the situation. The authority and power of the Indian Government are behind the Indian princes. When the Indian princes leave their own territory they are, in consequence, protected from disturbance or disquietude inside their territory. Therefore it is not unreasonable that the Indian Government should

  1311
  ask that they should be consulted in regard to the frequency and duration of absence from India, during which the reigning princes abandon the reins of authority in their own country.

  TURKISH CRUELTIES IN MACEDONIA.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office is in possession of any information regarding recent alleged atrocities committed by Turkish officials upon unoffending Bulgarian peasants, and has the Government made any representation recently to the Sublime Porte in respect to its Treaty obligations in regard to its Christian subjects.
  *TBE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE, Rochester): Rumours have recently been prevalent of acts of cruelty perpetrated by Turkish gendarmes in dealing with Bulgarian revolutionists in Macedonia. His Majesty's acting Consul at Salonica has inquired into the matter, and from his report it would appear that the reports are exaggerated. His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has called the attention of the Turkish Government to the matter, and has urged that every effort should be made by the Turkish authorities to prevent the execution of the law being attended with acts of cruelty.

  POSTAL TELEGRAPHS—FINANCE.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the loss on the telegraph service amounted during last year to £587,452, or, excluding £130,000 received as royalty from the National Telephone Company, the loss exceeded £700,000, although the total receipts were under four millions sterling (Parliamentary Paper, No. 34, 1901); and that since the telegraphs were taken over by the Government the total logs to the country has exceeded £8,300,000; whether, in view of these facts, he is prepared to lease the telegraphs to a private company, or take any other steps to meet the difficulty; and has he any official
  1312
  information showing the cause of the increasing loss, now approaching three-quarters of a million per annum, on the working of the telegraph system of the country.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): The figures mentioned by the hon. Member appear to be approximately correct. The sum of £587,452 is made up of two items, namely, £288,502, the excess of expenditure over receipts, and £298,860, the interest on the capital raised for the purposes of the Telegraph Acts. I think the reason for this loss is that the public and their representatives in this House have preferred to get a return on the capital in the form of facilities for telegraphic communication rather than in the form of revenue; and that the best way to check the increasing deficiency in the telegraph account would be to-discourage, at any rate to some extent, demands for expensive concessions which do not produce any corresponding increase of revenue.

  METALLIFEROUS MINES REGULATION ACT—SPECIAL RULES.
  MR. MOSS (Denbighshire, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the special rules proposed to be established under the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act,. 1872, in Dr. Foster's inspection district; and whether he is aware that in some cases special rules have been established without the miners having had an opportunity of considering the same, and whether, in future, before any special rules are established under the said Act he will give the miners an opportunity of considering the same and of sending objections to the same for the consideration of the Home Secretary before they are established and become law.
  I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the fact that some of the special rules proposed to be established under the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act, 1872, in Dr. Foster's inspection district, conflict with the general provisions of

  1313
  that Act, especially Rule 54, applicable to ore mines, which provides that where ladders are constructed for the ascent or descent of persons in the mines the distance between the platforms shall not exceed ten yards, whereas Section 23, Sub-section 15, of the Act provides that the distance between the platforms shall not exceed twenty yards; and whether he will take steps to make the rules conform with the terms of the Act.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I will, if I may, answer both questions at once. The rules referred to have been proposed by me to a number of mine owners, with the object of securing better and fuller provision for the safety of the miners. The inspector would, as is well known, be ready to receive any representations from the miners, and these would, of course, be considered by me with a view to seeing whether any modifications of the rules were in consequence necessary. As a matter of fact, these rules are very similar to others which have been in force for some time in other mines in the same districts, and as to which no representations or complaints have ever reached me. I do not consider that the particular rule to which the hon. Member refers conflicts with the general provisions of the Act. It adds an additional precaution for the safety of the miner, which is, to my mind, one of the chief objects of special rules. If these rules were to be merely copies of that Act I cannot see why they should be made at all.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: Will the miners have an opportunity of making representations?
  *MR. RITCHIE: The Act does not require that the miners shall be informed of the new rules, when they are promulgated by the Home Office, but I may say that the inspectors do take care so far as is possible to consult the miners with regard to matters of this kind, and I am always ready to listen to any representations which may have been made.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: Will it be open to the miners to communicate with the inspector?
  MR. RITCHIE: Certainly.
  MR. MOSS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a new inspector is about to be appointed for Dr. Foster's inspection district in the place of Dr. Foster, who is retiring; and, if so, whether, seeing that all the lead mines in this district have been allowed to be worked for a period of nearly twenty-nine years without special rules, he will consider the advisability of withholding his sanction from any special rules until both the new inspector and the miners interested may have had an opportunity of considering the same; and whether, having regard to the fact that the miners in many portions of Dr. Foster's district in Wales are monoglot Welshmen, he will, in appointing a successor to Dr. Foster, appoint a gentleman who is able to speak and write the Welsh language.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The arrangements necessary in consequence of the retirement of Dr. Foster are still under my consideration; but I may say that I have no intention of departing from the present practice, which secures that one or more of the inspectors attached to a Welsh district shall be able to speak and write the Welsh language. As I have already indicated, I see no reason for delaying the establishment of the special rules which I have proposed.
  MR. MOSS: When special rules are established may the miners make representations to the Home Secretary?
  *MR. RITCHIE: If any representations are made to me I am always prepared to consider them.

  CHEQUE BANK LIQUIDATION.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Cheque Bank went into voluntary liquidation in December last, but that no payment has yet been made to the holders of their cheques, though the amount in hand is sufficient to pay all in full; and that much is held by persons who can ill afford to be kept out of their money, and whether he can take any steps to expedite the distribution.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I understand that the voluntary liquidation of the Cheque Bank is being continued under the supervision of the Court, but as no compulsory order has been made, the Board of Trade have no control over the liquidators, and I am unable to take any steps to expedite the distribution of the funds.
  MR. BARTLEY: Are we to understand that a matter like this may go on for months without anything being done?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Board of Trade have no control. I am a sufferer myself.

  P. AND O. COMPANY—ACCOMMODATION FOR LASCARS.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state if the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company are now providing the Lascar seamen on the vessels of their fleet with 72 cubic feet of space as accommodation, as specified in Section 210 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; whether he can now state if the lawsuit which the Board of Trade have, during the past eighteen months, been endeavouring to arrange with this company, with a view to testing whether the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act applies to Lascars serving on board British ships, is likely to be heard, and whether he can explain the delay in its being brought before the courts.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Peninsular and Oriental Company do not in all cases provide their Lascar seamen with the space required by Section 210 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. When space is not so provided no deduction from tonnage with respect to the deficient space is allowed. The petition of right presented by the Peninsular and Oriental Company was duly fiated by the Attorney General towards the end of last year, and the answer on behalf of the Crown has been delivered. No undue delay has occurred in bringing the proceedings to this point, and it may be expected that the petition will be set down for hearing shortly.

  CYCLE ACCOMMODATION ON RAILWAYS.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will lay upon the Table the correspondence which has passed between the Board of Trade and the various railway companies with a view to securing adequate accommodation and haulage facilities for cycles in accordance with the representations of the various English, Welsh, Scotch, and Irish cycling unions.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I shall be happy to consider the propriety of presenting the correspondence as soon as it is complete. Many of the communications have been verbal, and not of a strictly official character. The Board are still in communication with the Railway Association, and are expecting a reply from that body.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: When may we expect to have the correspondence?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That depends on the other side. I am awaiting their reply.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will it be published within a month?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot say.

  COAL—COST OF PRODUCTION.
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he could give an estimate, approximate or problematical, of the average cost per ton of coal produced in 1897 for all expenses other than miners' wages.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am unable to give such an estimate.

  COAL—ROYALTIES AND WAY-LEAVES.
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he could give an estimate of the average charge per ton of coal produced in the United Kingdom in respect of royalties and way-leaves.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir; no recent estimate could be given.
  MR. M'KENNA: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the most recent estimate?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think the most recent estimate is to be found in the Report of the Mining Royalties Commission in 1889. In that year it was estimated that the coal royalties came to £4,000,000, and the way-leaves to about £200,000.

  COAL DUTY DEBATE.
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will lay upon the Table the promised statement of figures relating to the proposed coal duty at a date early enough to permit of the figures being made use of on the occasion of the discussion on the next stage of the Finance Bill.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I hope to be able to lay a statement of this nature upon the Table in good time for the discussion.

  ALIEN IMMIGRATION.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if the Registrar General has been able yet to furnish the numbers of aliens found in the country, and especially in London, at the recent census; and if, having regard to the danger of the continued immigration of four to five thousand persons a month of introducing the plague, he will consider the desirability of re-establishing the regulations adopted by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, at the time of the cholera outbreak in Hamburg.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): Particulars as to the number of aliens will be published in the detailed abstract of the census returns required by the Census Act, but I learn from the Registrar General that he is not at present in a position to furnish them. I presume that the regulations to which my hon. friend refers were those dealing with vessels which, though not infected with cholera, had on board passengers in a filthy or unwholesome condition, or
  1318
  had come from a place infected with cholera. If so, I may state that similar regulations were made by my predecessor in 1896, extending also to plague. The regulations are still in force, and apply wherever the medical officer of health certifies that the action contemplated by them is desirable with a view of checking the introduction or spread of the disease. I may, however, add that aliens who come to reside in London for the most part arrive from ports which are not infected with plague.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate redeeming the pledge given by the Government in regard to legislation?
  MR. WALTER LONG: In respect of what?
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: To check immigration.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have nothing to do with aliens, except so far as they touch the public health.

  FOREST GATE POOR LAW SCHOOLS.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can say how many children have suffered from scarlet fever during 1900 and 1901 at the Forest Gate Poor Law Schools.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I understand that there was no case of scarlet fever during 1900 at the Forest Gate School. There appear to have been thirteen cases this year down to the 4th instant.

  BOARDING OUT PAUPER CHILDREN.
  MR. MOSS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state how many pauper children (giving the number of boys and girls separately) chargeable to any union or parish in Wales were boarded-out in homes beyond the limits of such union or parish in the year 1900, and how many orphan or deserted children (giving the numbers of boys and girls separately) were relieved by the guardians of any

  1319
  union or parish in Wales by boarding such children in homes within the limits of the union or separate parish to which they are chargeable; and seeing that the Local Government Board have power to appoint lady inspectors to supervise and report upon the boarding out of pauper and orphan and deserted children, will he state how many such inspectors have been appointed in England and Wales respectively; and, if none have been appointed in Wales, whether, having regard to the fact that practically the whole of Wales is now within the district of one poor law inspector only (instead of two as formerly), he will consider the advisability of appointing one or more lady inspectors in Wales to superintend and report upon the boarding out by the guardians of pauper, orphan and deserted children.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Returns are made to the Local Government Board as to the state of pauperism on the 1st January and 1st July in each year. According to the Returns for 1st July and 1st January last there were no children chargeable to unions in Wales who were boarded out beyond the limits of the unions, but there were on the latter date 497 children boarded out in homes in Wales within the unions to which they were chargeable. The Returns do not show how many of these were boys and how many girls. There are two lady inspectors whose duty it is to inspect and report upon the work of committees established for boarding out children beyond the limits of the union to which they are chargeable. Wales is included in the district of one of these inspectors, and if a committee of this sort were established there it would be the duty of this lady to inspect and report on the work of the committee. At present, however, there are no such committees in Wales.

  SCOTTISH CROFTER HOLDINGS—LORD FINCASTLE'S ESTATE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, if he will state for what number of years leases have been granted to twenty-four settlers on the estate of Lord Fincastle at Boroe, Bernera, Harris; will he state
  1320
  whether there is any condition in the lease that at its termination these settlers will be put under the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886, and not be liable to eviction or increased rentals; and did the Congested Districts Board endeavour to arrange with Lord Fincastle for these twenty-four settlers to become tenants under the Crofters' Act instead of under lease; if so, will he say on what ground Lord Fincastle declined to act on the Board's suggestion.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The reply to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is thirty-one years. The reply to the second paragraph is in the negative, and the answer to the first portion of the third is that the Congested Districts Board did endeavour to arrange that the new holdings should be under the Crofters' Acts, but it is within the proprietor's rights to decline without assigning reasons, and in this case none have been assigned.

  ULLAPOOL SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that the Governors of the Trust for Education in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland withheld the grant for the year 1900 from the Ullapool School Board on account of alleged irregularities in the years 1898 and 1899; and in view of the fact that this action on the part of the governors of the trust will throw an additional burden on the school board rates for this district, will the Scotch Education Department take such steps as may be necessary to secure to the board the grant for 1900.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The irregularities referred to by the hon. Member, which are admitted by the school board, rendered the grant liable to permanent reduction or withdrawal. In deciding to withhold the grant for one year only, the Governors of the Trust for Education in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland have made a very moderate use of their powers under the scheme,

  1321
  and the Department see no reason to interfere with their decision.
  MR. WEIR: I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

  SCOTTISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, if he will state the average price per acre paid for the land acquired by the Congested Districts Board for each settlement of crofters in the crofting counties; and will he say whether any crofters or cottars have been migrated to districts outside the congested area; and, if any, will he give their number.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I regret I am unable to supply the average price per acre as asked in the hon. Member's question; the calculation would be not only useless but misleading. Some families have been moved from areas where congestion of population is great to other places, but if by the congested area the hon. Member intends to describe the area of operations of the Congested Districts Board, the answer is that as yet no such removals have taken place.

  CHICKEN REARING IN THE HIGHLANDS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the statement contained on page 17 of the Report of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland, will he say how many cockerels and pullets have been distributed, and will he say how much has been expended by the Board during the year ending 31st March last in the encouragement of poultry keeping in the congested area; and will arrangements be made for information on this point to be given in future Reports.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Up to 31st March I am informed by the Congested Districts Board only five cockerels and twenty-two hens were sent, as the matter is still in an experimental stage. It is not possible to separate the expenditure on the experiment from that on the other matters mentioned in the same paragraph.

  FOREIGN TRAWLERS IN THE MORAY FIRTH.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state how many foreign trawlers were observed by the Fishery Board cruisers in the Moray Firth during the year ending 31st December, 1900, and will he state the number of vessels of each nationality.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Fishery Board that during 1900 there were forty foreign trawlers reported by commanders of fishery cruisers as having been observed working in the Moray Firth. Of these five were Danish, eight Icelandic, four German, seven Norwegian, six Belgian, and ten Dutch.

  CROIR FARM, LEWIS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether the Congested Districts Board have received a memorial from the cottars and fishermen of Tobson, Bernera, Island of Lewis, urging that the Board should acquire Croir Farm for their occupation at fair rentals; and will a member of the Crofters' Commission be sent to the district to inquire into and report on the cause of the land agitation and unrest among the people of Bernera, Island of Lewis.
  *THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgeton): The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. Such steps will be taken as from time to time the Secretary for Scotland thinks expedient.

  CIVIL SERVICE SECOND DIVISION CLERKS—PROMOTIONS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the names of the various offices in which senior assistant clerks have been promoted to be second division clerks under Clause 15 of the Order in Council of November, 1898, and the number of such promotions in each office.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The total

  1323
  number of assistant clerks so promoted up to the 8th instant is seventy-two. The cases of five other candidates for promotion are still in the hands of the Civil Service Commissioners. It would not be possible to state the numbers promoted in the several offices within the usual limits of an answer, but I shall be happy to give the information privately to the hon. and gallant Member if he desires it.

  POST OFFICE SENIOR TELEGRAPHISTS AND OVERSEERS.
  MAJOR EVANS-GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, with reference to the increase of appointments of senior telegraphists and overseers which has been sanctioned in the metropolitan districts, whether it can be stated what duties have been allocated to the positions, and from what date the appointments will take effect.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension in this matter. The Postmaster General has not sanctioned an increase of appointments for overseers or senior telegraphists in the metropolitan districts.

  LADIES' GALLERY VENTILATION.
  COLONEL TUFNELL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if his attention has been called to the inadequate ventilation of the Ladies' Gallery; and whether it is possible to take any steps to improve it during the present session.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (for Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS): My right hon. friend's attention has been called to the matter referred to by my hon. and gallant friend, and it has been referred to the Committee now sitting on the House of Commons Accommodation.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES AT BIRR.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state in what respect the scheme for labourers' cottages in Birr No. 1 rural district was carelessly prepared.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The defects of the scheme were fully detailed in a letter addressed by the Local Government Board to the district council in August last. These were that there was not sufficient evidence of the statements in the representations; that due efforts were not made to utilise unoccupied dwellings, and that the interests of owners and occupiers were generally ignored.

  IMPRISONMENT OF MR. M'HUGH, M.P.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will cause the Committee of Visiting Justices of Kilmainham Gaol to be summoned, or take any other steps necessary, for the purpose of allowing Mr. M'Hugh, M.P., to edit and conduct his newspaper, the Sligo Champion, to the same extent that Mr. W. T. Stead was allowed to edit and conduct the Pall Mall Gazette when imprisoned in Holloway Gaol in 1885.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The privileges granted to Mr. M'Hugh in this respect are identical with those formerly enjoyed by Mr. Stead. A special meeting of the Visiting Committee acceded to Mr. M'Hugh's request, subject to the stipulation that he should avoid all reference to his imprisonment and to the circumstances which led up to it.

  POOR LAW SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board can state how many boards of guardians passed resolutions in favour of the Poor Law Superannuation Bill on the understanding that it would be no cost to the rates, and whether these unions will be informed by the Local Government Board that the Probate Duty Grant is a fixed grant, and that there are no separate payments from it for superannuation allowances.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Some sixty boards of guardians appear to have been influenced by the consideration mentioned in the first paragraph when passing

  1325
  resolutions in favour of the Bill. Pubricity has already been given to the facts leferred to in the second paragraph, and I do not think that further action is called for on the part of the Local Government Board.

  RIVER MOURNE WEIR.
  MR. M'FADDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a weir is constructed across the River Mourne, county Tyrone, near Sion Mills, for the purpose of supplying Sion Mills with water for their working; and that, although by Section 41 of 5 and 6 Vic, cap. 106, amended by Section 9 of 26 and 27 Vic, cap. 114, every weir constructed across a river must have a free pass in accordance with the regulations set forth in the last-mentioned Act, there is no such free pass in the weir at Sion Mills, the result of the want of such pass being that salmon are never able to reach the upper stretches of the River Mourne until a flood comes and carries them over the weir; and whether the attention of the Conservators of Fisheries for the locality will he directed to the want of the free pass, and steps taken by them to compel the owners of the weir to put it in a proper condition, so that the progress of salmon to the upper stretches of said river may not be impeded.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The matter will be referred to the local Board of Conservators, with instructions to see that all the provisions of the fishery laws applicable thereto are observed.

  NATIONAL, LIBRARY OF IRELAND.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the report for 1900 of the trustees of the National Library of Ireland has yet been received by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction; and whether the opinions of the trustees, as expressed in that report, will be laid before the House at the earliest possible opportunity.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The replies to both inquiries are in the affirmative.

  UNITED IRISH LEAGUE MEETINGS—POLICE INTERFERENCE.
  MAJOR JAMESON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a peaceable meeting of the United Irish League at Mullagh, county Clare, on Sunday, the 28th April last, was dispersed, and Mr. Matthew Kelly, county councillor of county Clare, was prevented addressing his constituents, and that this is the place where a police sergeant and constable were lately dismissed for manufacturing evidence against people; and will he take such steps as may be necessary to prevent police interference with legal meetings, as well as to prevent the liberties of the electors being placed in jeopardy by suborned evidence.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The meeting was not allowed to take place in close proximity to the residence of a certain individual in Mullagh; but it was held a mile outside the village, and was not interfered with there. The answer to the second query is in the negative. No steps are called for, since the police do not interfere with legal meetings.
  MAJOR JAMESON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire further into this subject?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think that necessary.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at a United Irish League meeting held in county Galway on Sunday last, a policeman struck Mr. Finnerty, D.C., on the face with his clenched hand, and another struck him a heavy blow with a baton on the head; and whether he will state what Mr. Finnerty did to justify the policemen's conduct, and whether he will inquire into this matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. Finnerty violently resisted the police in the execution of their duty, and in the course of the struggle received a slight blow on the head with a baton. So far as I have been able to ascertain, he was not struck in the face by anyone's fist. The meeting

  1327
  was advertised to be held at Kiltulla. The promoters were informed that no objection would be taken to a meeting there, but were warned that they must not attempt to adjourn it to Carnavelly, in close proximity to the residence of an individual who was entitled to protection from intimidation.

  BOYS' QUARREL AT CULDAFF.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to an attack made on a boy named James Warnock whilst on his way to divine worship at Gleneely Protestant Church (Culdaff, county Donegal); whether the Culdaff constabulary were informed of the occurrence, and did they investigate the facts in connection therewith; and did they discover who committed the alleged assault, and what steps, if any, have been taken by the constabulary to prosecute the offender.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The occurrence referred to arose out of a quarrel between two young boys. It was inquired into by the police, who do not propose to take proceedings as suggested.

  COUNTY ANTRIM LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state whether any sum has been paid to the credit of the County Antrim Lunatic Asylum by way of capitation grant in respect of the period 1st January, 1898, to 1st April, 1898; is he aware that a payment was made on the 22nd June, 1899, being a sum of £4,173 11s., and expressed to be for the service of the year ending 31st December, 1898, and the next payment for one year's service from 1st April, 1899, to 31st March, 1900, being a sum of £4,474 18s. 4d.; will he state whether this grant, in respect of the period from 1st January, 1899, to 1st April, 1899, is a charge on the Exchequer; or whether the Local Government (Ireland) Act, in trans ferring the charge to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account, did so retrospectively, to as to cover this period; which department is now liable for payment of same;
  1328
  and will he see that this sum, amounting to £1,078 17s., will be paid by the department liable.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have on various occasions, when my hon. friend no doubt was not present in the House, replied to similar questions, and stated the position which the Government takes on this subject. I shall be happy to give him in writing a fuller explanation than the limits of an answer allow.

  PROPOSED ALTERATION OF DUBLIN UNION AREAS.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen a copy of the resolution, adopted by the North Dublin Union, protesting against the transference of the Chapelizod, Conyngham Road, and Longmeadows townlands from the North Dublin Union to the South Dublin Union, thus lessening the valuation of the North Dublin Union; and, in view of the hardship entailed by such transference on the ratepayers of the north side of Dublin and the protests against such transference by, among other bodies, the Dublin Corporation, whether he will have the decision altered and leave these townlands with the North Dublin Union.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The transfer of the townlands became necessary in consequence of the provisions of Section 48 of the Dublin Corporation Act and of Section 24 (c) of the Local Government Act. There is no power to rescind the decision arrived at. A deputation from the North Dublin Union recently received a full explanation of this question from the Vice-President of the Local Government Board, and agreed that the change was inevitable.
  MR. NANNETTI: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the North Dublin Guardians passed a resolution last week protesting against the transference?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have informed the hon. Gentleman what decision has been come to. This is part of a much wider question.

  GLENTIES WORKHOUSE—APPOINTMENT OF MASTER.
  MR. BOYLE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, though Mr. Richard Kelly, inspector to the Local Government Board, was present on the occasion of the appointment of John Timoney as master to the Glenties Workhouse, county Donegal, he did not inform the guardians that they were acting illegally, and that he examined Timoney, as well as other candidates, as to his qualifications; that the guardians immediately their attention was drawn by the Local Government Board to the illegality of the appointment decided at once to re-advertise for a new appointment, and did so, merely requesting the Local Government Board to sanction the temporary employment of Timoney; and that it was for this temporary employment the decree was granted against the guardians; and whether, seeing that the guardians acted in good faith throughout, and that the inspector of the Local Government Board was present when the appointment was made, he will advise the Board to remit the surcharge of the payment made on a valid decree of a court of law.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The inspector had no knowledge of Mr. Timoney's disqualification when the election was made on the 5th August. On the 19th August, the Local Government Board explained that Mr. Timoney was not qualified and that a new appointment was necessary. But the guardians after this warning retained Mr. Timoney's services for six weeks, and they entered no defence to the action which he brought to recover his salary. I am, therefore, not prepared to reopen the case.

  DISORDERLY CONDUCT OF SAILORS AT CORK RAILWAY STATION.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the constabulary authorities has been called to the scenes of disorder which occurred at the Cork terminus of the Great Southern and Western Railway on Sunday last, owing to the misconduct of sailors and marines returning
  1330
  to Queenstown; and, in view of the possible repetition of similar scenes, whether the local police authorities will take the necessary steps to provide for the presence of a sufficient number of constables in uniform at the station named for the protection of peaceable travellers.
  MR WYNDHAM: I am informed that six constables were present on the occasion, and that with the exception of one assault committed by a marine no further disturbance took place. The man assaulted ran away, and gave no assistance to the police in identifying his assailant.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say why the new scheme of intermediate education has been so long delayed, and when it will be issued.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board of Intermediate Education is actively engaged in the preparation of the new rules and programme, which, I believe, will shortly be presented to Parliament.

  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION AT WESTPORT, CO. MAYO.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that, in the electoral division of Shramore, in the Westport union (county Mayo), there are nearly 100 children who are six miles away from the nearest school, he will see that a school is established within a convenient distance from those children.
  MR. WYNDHAM: If an application be made to the Commissioners for the establishment of a school in this locality it will be considered.

  BIRR AND PORTUMNA LINE.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will advance £24,000, the amount required by the Great Southern and Western

  1331
  Railway Company towards restoring and working the Birr and Portumna line.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The answer to this question is in the negative.

  JURY CHALLENGING IN IRELAND.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if he can state the procedure usually adopted by Crown Prosecutors in Ireland, or on their behalf, to ascertain the religion of jurors, and what steps have been taken with a view to learn whether Crown Prosecutors in Ireland keep any record of the religion of jurors.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): There is no procedure to ascertain the religion of jurors, nor is their religion ever inquired into. No such steps have been taken, and Crown Prosecutors are expressly directed not to take any action in reference to jurors on account of their religion.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not the fact that Crown Prosecutors are provided with marked lists?
  MR. ATKINSON: Not in reference to the religion of the jurors.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are not the lists marked "S" and "P"—"Steady" and "Protestant"?
  [No answer was returned.]

  CAVAN AND LEITRIM RAILWAY MAIL CONTRACT.
  MR.M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the Secretary of the General Post Office has received a letter from the Secretary of the Cavan and Leitrim Railway Company, dated the 4th instant, stating that, unless the subsidy for carrying the mails was increased, the railway company would discontinue the service; can he state what objection the Department has to pay parcels rates for the conveyance of its mails, as it offered to do in 1890, and do the Department intend to deprive the districts served by this company during
  1332
  the past nine years of any day mail in the future in order that it may save a sum of £40 or £50 a year.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A letter has been received from the Cavan and Leitrim Railway Company intimating that they will consider the question of discontinuing the mail service unless they receive such an increase in the payment as they consider reasonable. The Postmaster General is, however, advised that the company cannot refuse to convey the mails, as under the Cavan, Leitrim, and Roscommon Light Railway Order they are bound to perform all such reasonable services in regard to the conveyance of mails as the Postmaster General may require. As explained to the hon. Member a day or two ago, the work performed by the company in respect of the conveyance of mail bags is very much less than in respect of ordinary parcels for the public, and the Postmaster General therefore considers that he would not be justified in paying at parcel rates for the conveyance of mails.

  BALTINGLASS POST OFFICE.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a memorial has been received from the inhabitants of Baltinglass, county Wicklow, pointing out the need of making the sub-office a chief office for the district, and whether the prayer of the memorial will be favourably considered by the Postmaster General.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, the memorial has been received, and the subject is being inquired into.

  DERRY CENTRAL RAILWAY.
  MR. M'FADDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he has received a copy of a resolution passed at a meeting of the Magherafelt District Council regretting the loss which the proposed sale of the Derry Central Railway to the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Company will entail on its shareholders, and urging the Treasury to refuse its sanction to the scheme for the distribution of the balance of the purchase money after payment of the amount due to the Treasury, unless

  1333
  provision is made for its equal distribution amongst all classes of shareholders; and whether, considering the feeling amongst the local representative bodies against the proposed division of the balance of the purchase money, and that the said resolution was not legally passed, the Treasury will withhold their consent to the proposed sale, and their support of the Bill to be introduced for the sanctioning of this sale, until a legally and properly constituted meeting of the shareholders is called to decide upon the distribution of the balance of the purchase money.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I received a copy of the resolution referred to in the question, but it is not for the Treasury to determine how the sum set apart for shareholders in the Derry Central Company is to be distributed among the different interests concerned. This is a question for the Committee to which the Bill must be referred.

  IRISH UNIVERSITY EDUCATION.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is yet in a position to name the members of the Royal Commission on Irish University Education.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I am sorry to say I am not yet in a position to give the information the hon. Member desires.

  SUPPRESSION OF THE IRISH PEOPLE NEWSPAPER.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether yesterday's issue of the Irish People newspaper was seized last night in Dublin; on what ground that seizure was made; by what law the procedure was ordered; and whether the officers who effected the seizure were provided with warrants.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to the first question is in the affirmative. The
    1334
    reply to the second is: To prevent the continuance of the commission of a crime by the further dissemination of a seditious libel, and to seize the instrument by which the crime was being committed. The reply to the third is: Under the Common Law, which authorises the prevention of crime and the preservation of the evidence. The answer to the last question is in the negative.
    MR. DILLON: In consequence of that reply I desire to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the action of the Executive Government in seizing the Irish People newspaper in Dublin last night."
    The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen—
    MR. DILLON: I think, although some hon. Members answered "No" when you, Sir, asked the House, it will be the almost unanimous opinion of the House that it would be impossible to imagine an occasion on which this right to move the adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance was more legitimately availed of than on this present occasion. What is the transaction of which we complain? That one of the most important and influential newspapers in Ireland, the recognised organ of a great National organisation, which is represented in this House by many Members, was yesterday seized in the streets of Dublin and in the office of publication by the officers of the law, without warrants, and we have not been informed by the Chief Secretary of the course of action which the Government proposes to take. I think that if the Executive Government, acting under what is known as the Common Law, seizes the issue of a newspaper for the dissemination of an alleged seditious libel, it commits one of the gravest acts which the Executive Government can be guilty of in this country. I wish to make this comment on the reply which I have just received. The right hon. Gentleman,

    1335
    in giving the reasons for this seizure, stated that one reason was "to obtain evidence." I challenge that as an un-candid answer—
    MR. WYNDHAM: The word I used was to "preserve" evidence.
    MR. DILLON: I do not think there is any difference, because the object of obtaining evidence could have been obtained by the expenditure of a penny. I deliberately say that, from the recent action of the Executive Government in Ireland, we are bound to treat this as part of the deliberate policy of striking and destroying other newspapers. What had we the other day in Dublin? A great National daily journal was hauled before the High Court in Dublin at the instance of the Attorney General. Why? Simply because it was a powerful and influential opponent of the present Government, and for no other reason; and the paper was allowed out of court because the scandal was so monstrous that even a certain distinguished judge shrank back. Now this is the next step, and a great National weekly journal is struck at by a high-handed and grossly illegal action of the Government. The Government have seized an important newspaper without warrant or authority. I wish to put a few questions to the Chief Secretary in connection with this matter, and I hope he will answer them when he replies. As to which of the articles in the paper was the seizure determined upon, and who adjudicated upon them and decided that the paper should be seized? Were they submitted to the Government, or were they adjudicated to be seditious by some obscure official sitting in a back parlour of Dublin Castle? We are entitled to know the steps and all the details of the process by which this extraordinarily high-handed act of public policy and, as I maintain, grossly illegal act, was committed against the liberty of the press in Ireland. The second question I would like to ask is, whether it is proposed to follow up this act by a prosecution? We are in the dark as to the cause why the newspaper was seized. The Chief Secretary was obscure in his reply. He said it was seized for the purpose of putting a stop to the machinery for the
    1336
    dissemination of seditious libel. He gave no information as to whom the seditious libel was applied to. Seditious libel is an expression that plays a great part in the history of this country. There is hardly the bearer of a single name connected with the long struggle for the freedom of the press in England that was not made the mark for prosecution and persecution in this country for sedition. It is a word of evil omen. Now, Sir, I have looked over this newspaper, and I have seen pretty strong writing in it. The first three columns are devoted to a very scathing and a very severe attack on the Chief Secretary. Is that the seditious libel for which the paper is seized? The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I suppose that means that the paper was not seized for an attack upon him, but it is an unfortunate coincidence that this issue of the paper is the first since the advent of the right hon. Gentleman to Ireland in which he is attacked. The only other thing I can find in the paper is a very strong and a very violent attack upon His Majesty. Is that the libel complained of?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, that is the libel.
    MR. DILLON: Well, if that is the libel complained of, I will address my observations chiefly to that question. As regards the language in which that attack is couched, I think that that is entirely beside the question, and I decline to discuss it. The Attorney General for Ireland laughs, but I decline to be drawn into a discussion on the language, and for this reason—in my opinion; if that language had been ten times as strong and as violent as it is, it would not in the least degree alter the strength of my case. My case is that neither the police in Dublin Castle, nor the Lord Lieutenant, nor the Chief Secretary, nor this House is the proper tribunal to judge whether a newspaper article is legal or not. I am not going to base my case upon the good taste or strong language, or, if you will, upon the violence and coarseness of the observations made in this article. My case is tins—that if you consent to leave to an official of the Government the

    1337
    right to say what ought to be written or what ought not to be written in a newspaper, the liberty of the press has completely disappeared. I repeat, if the language complained of was ten times more violent than it is it would not in the least degree alter the strength of the case I desire to make. All that we claim is that, dealing with criticisms of the Sovereign, the same spirit and principles should be applied to Ireland as in England. I am speaking now of the administration of the law, and I say from my own experience, and every hon. Member who has studied the question must know, that throughout the reign of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria certain newspapers in this country used bad language, more violent than anything in this article, and, Sir, they applied these articles to Her late Majesty and to her family at a time when the most violent and revolutionary press in Ireland was singularly free from criticism of such a character. I affirm without fear of contradiction that there can be found innumerable extracts from newspapers in this country applying epithets and comments to Her late Majesty much more violent than anything that can be found in the present article.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No.
    MR. DILLON: I say, "Yes," and I say, when Her late Majesty was on the Throne—we in Ireland always have a respect for women—the most violent and revolutionary newspapers in Ireland were singularly free from criticism of such an offensive character as that to which I have alluded. But, Sir, upon this character of the language nothing could be more easy than for me to come down to this House and to read out a long string of quotations and comments published upon the Royal Family of England existing for many generations, but which during Her late Majesty's reign were never interfered with, although of course they must have excited great passion and prejudice in the minds of hon. Members having a strong reverence for the Throne. No matter how violent the paper may be, no matter how much individuals, or even the great majority of this House, may condemn the language used by a newspaper, it is entitled to the
    1338
    protection of the law, and cannot be suppressed by the will of a Minister, no matter how large the majority he has at his back. I have no intention of quoting from great English writers, as I might, to illustrate how violent has often been the language used by Englishmen of leading in reference to the sovereigns, language which was not noticed by the Governments of the time, who felt that the institutions of this country were based upon the people's will. I will not do that. I will merely refer to one classical case. That of the Irish Avatar, written by Lord Byron in relation to the visit of George IV. to Ireland. Let me quote—
    "Is it madness or meanness which clings to him now?
    Were he God, as he is but the commonest clay, With scarce fewer wrinkles than sins on his brow,
    Such servile devotion might shame him away.
    Spread, spread, for Vitellius the royal repast
    Till gluttonous despot be stuffed to the gorge,
    And the roar of his drunkards proclaim him at last—
    The fourth of the fools and oppressors called George.
    Let the tables be loaded with feasts till they groan,
    Till they groan like thy people through ages of woe;
    Let the wine flow around the old Bacchanal's Throne,
    Like their blood which has flowed, and which has yet to flow.
    That was the language of an English peer; yet I have never heard that Lord Byron was proceeded against for seditious libel, or that the Irish Avatar was seized when it was struck from the press. I might quote hundreds of these extracts on the same lines. These are as violent as the imagination could conceive, but they were not made the cause in those days of any attack upon the liberty of the Press. No doubt we will hear some extracts nearly as strong as that which I have just read, but it is in no sense my business, nor any part of my task, to discuss the propriety of the language used in any particular case. A blow has been struck at the liberties of the press; and speaking, as I do, on behalf of the liberties of the press throughout the whole country, I deny the right of the Chief Secretary, learned authority as he may be on Shakespeare's sonnets, or the

    1339
    Attorney General, or the Under Secretary, or Lord Cadogan, to sit in judgment on the good taste or the more or less force of the language employed in an Irish newspaper. This newspaper is one of wide circulation and importance. It undoubtedly speaks for a very large section of the Irish people. Therefore the attempt to suppress it is a gross outrage upon the liberty of the press in Ireland. If it stood alone, I should regard this action as most sinister. There are two methods of criticising the Executive Government in Ireland outside this House. One is by the right of public meeting, and the other by the means of the public press. Public meetings have been held—
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must keep himself to the definite question before the House.
    MR. DILLON: It was only by way of making an a fortiori case as to the importance to us of resisting this attempt to muzzle the press in Ireland. I will not, however, allude to it any further. How can there be an honest and independent press if its freedom is not respected? And you must regard the action of the Government as a whole. You must take into account the action with regard to the Freeman's Journal, and to the efforts to influence the independence generally of the press in Ireland. How can an important newspaper be conducted—how can you expect people to put their money into these concerns—if they are liable to such scandalous interference? How can you suppose the editors of such journals to do their duty, and express clearly and fully the views and wishes of the people, if they are told that every article they write must, as in Russia, be considered in a back room of Dublin Castle, and, if found not agreeable to the authorities in all respects, be suppressed by police sent into the city for that purpose, acting without warning, and without the sanction of a warrant. What would be said if in this country The Times were seized? I hear some hon. Members laugh. Of course it is to them an impossible supposition. They would think veritably that the end of the world was at hand if that happened. Yet its seizure would hardly be such a blow as
    1340
    this. The Times newspaper is a great and wealthy corporation with an enormous capital, and could stand a seizure much better than a poor Irish newspaper with limited means. It is not a likely thing that The Times would be seized, but I have often thought ft deserved that treatment. I use the illustration to bring home to hon. Members the gravity and importance of this transaction. I ask the House to treat this in a serious spirit, and to require from the Government some justification for the most high-handed and arbitrary action of which it has been guilty. I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I rise for the purpose of seconding the motion for the adjournment of the House, which has been moved by my hon. friend the Member for East Mayo. The first thing which strikes me is the extraordinary coincidence that this newspaper should be suppressed shortly after a strong attack was made by it upon the conduct of the Chief Secretary at Arklow. It cannot be denied that it is a new departure. I am glad of this seizure in so far that it compels the Chief Secretary to throw off the mask. So long as the right hon. Gentleman is in receipt of complimentary allusions to his own abilities, and to his great ancestor Lord Edward Fitzgerald, he faces Irish Members with soft speeches and courtly manners, but as soon as Irishmen consider it their duty to deüver an attack on his conduct as Chief Secretary his manner changes, and he arbitrarily suppresses the newspaper which gave the fullest account of that attack, and is determined to have recourse to the despotic and outrageous methods used by every Chief Secretary for the last twenty years. The upshot of the new policy of killing Home Rule by kindness, as adopted by one with the blood of an Irish patriot in his veins, is that in this year 1901 we are called upon to discuss the very practices which were indulged in twenty years ago, when Mr. Forster was Chief Secretary for Ireland. In those days Irish newspapers were suppressed and issues seized, and we were told by Mr. Forster that the seizures were necessary in order to put down crime and to carry on the Government of Ireland

    1341
    in a proper way. We said then that those methods would not be effectual either in restoring peace to Ireland or in making the task of government easier, and we say the same to Mr. Forster's successor, who, though perhaps kinder in manner, is, I believe, quite as determined as any of his predecessors in his resolve to ignore the feelings and to trample upon the aspirations of the Irish people. We welcome this new departure of his, because it will once for all get rid of the cant of complimenting the right hon. Gentleman, not because he does Ireland any good, but because he happens to have the honour of being the descendant of a man such as he himself will never be.
    We are told that this newspaper was suppressed to put down crime. I say that that is not the case. This paper was suppressed to put down criticism upon the Government. We are told indirectly that the issue was seized because it contained a paragraph in reference to the King. I have not seen the issue, but this much I know, that, although it may have contained one paragraph about the King, it contained four columns of denunciation of George Wyndham, Chief Secretary for Ireland, and it was on that account the paper was suppressed. Time after time in English papers—papers published in this City of London—there are attacks made upon the King, the late Queen, and the Royal Family, couched in language quite as strong as, or even stronger than, that which may have been contained in the Irish People; but we never hear of the police visiting the offices of those papers and seizing the issues. Why is that? Because as a rule they confine themselves to attacking the Royal Family, and do not at the same time attack the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Irish Government. The Irish People has been suppressed not because of any reference to the King or the Royal Family, but simply because, in what it considered to be the exercise of its duty, it contained a very strong, a very proper, and a badly wanted attack upon the conduct of the Chief Secretary. It was the first weekly issue containing a full report of a speech at Arklow delivered on the previous Sunday, and it is only from the weekly papers that the country people get the
    1342
    news. I deliberately say that that special issue was destroyed because the Chief Secretary and his friends in Dublin Castle dreaded the effect which might be created in the west of Ireland and elsewhere by the circulation of the first real attack upon the right hon. Gentleman. What is the real meaning of this act? It is that this newspaper is filling in Ireland to-day the place filled twenty years ago by United Ireland. In the days of the Land League, United Ireland was attacked in every conceivable form by the Government of the day, but it survived those attacks. Unfortunately, through disunion and dissension in Ireland, the national movement lapsed into a state of apathy. We do not hear then of the suppression of newspapers to any great extent, but directly a new national movement springs up, with an organisation equalling, if not rivalling, the power of the Land League, and the people become powerful because they are united, on the flimsy pretext of an obscure paragraph about the King the whole machinery of twenty years ago is put into force, and the weekly organ of this national movement is suppressed in order to prevent the farmers in the west of Ireland reading these denunciations of the Chief Secretary.
    All I have to say is that, while it is no part of our business as Nationalist Members to indulge in pesonal criticism of His Majesty or of any of the Royal Family—that has never been a characteristic of the Irish party in this House—at the same time we are not going to allow our liberty and the freedom of our press to be put down upon any such flimsy pretext. The Government would have better considered the feelings of the King if, instead of bringing this obscure paragraph before the House and the whole country, they had treated it in the same way as they treat similar writings in the English newspapers. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, in their desire to defend their conduct in Ireland, should have fallen so low as to attack the Irish national party and to suppress one of their principal organs, not honestly because we are opposed to the Government, but under the plea of regard for the feelings of the King. Let me tell the right hon. descendant of Lord Edward

    1343
    Fitzgerald that we are prepared to face him and his Government as we have faced his predecessors for the last twenty years. We are prepared to stand by everything we say either in Ireland or in this House, and to organise our people to the best of our ability, advising them that as little is to be expected from the present Chief Secretary as has been the case with his predecessors. But we ask one small thing in return by way of special favour. As we are prepared to stand up and face him, to adhere to our political opinions, and to oppose him in this House and in the country in a straightforward way, we ask him, as an honourable opponent, to stand up and face us in an equally straightforward manner. When he wants to interfere with Irish opinion, and when he tries to prevent our views from reaching the masses of our fellow-countrymen through the medium of the press, I ask him as a favour to be man enough to stand up and say, "We will suppress your newspaper because it is opposing the Government, and because it is propagating a great national movement which we do not approve of." Let him say that honestly, and not attack us and suppress our newspaper behind the back and under the shadow of the name of His Majesty the King. The late Mr. Forster in this House opposed us bitterly. He imprisoned us, suppressed our newspapers, and tore to shreds the last atom of liberty in Ireland. He earned for himself the title of the most unpopular Chief Secretary which Ireland ever had. But unpopular as he was, and bitterly as he fought us, Irish Members gave him credit for being an honest and straightforward opponent, and when he wanted to suppress a newspaper he did so honestly, and not through the Queen's name. The policy which the Chief Secretary has inaugurated in Ireland is that of stifling Irish public opinion, and that will fail with him as it has failed in the past. In the fight which is going to take place between the Irish National party and the Government it will be no fault of ours if, in the course of the conduct of this contest, the name and the position of the King and the Royal Family is brought in. That will be no fault of Ireland or of Irishmen, but it will be the fault of the Chief Secretary for Ireland and his advisers, who, instead
    1344
    of suppressing a newspaper honestly because it opposes them and backs up a great national movement, have done so under the shallow pretext that they wish to defend the honour of the King.
    Motion made, and Question proposed "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Dillon.)
    MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the first hah of the speech of the mover of the motion, and through the whole of the speech of the seconder, I felt that I was not entitled to take exception to their action in moving the adjournment of the House. The mover of the adjournment began by using language which led me to assume during the greater part of his speech that he had no knowledge of the contents; of this newspaper. He said that in the reply which I gave to his question I had left him somewhat in the dark as to the nature of the libel. I chose my language circumspectly in giving that reply. I answered the question fully, but I was unwilling at any rate to associate myself in any way with the promulgation of the libel which is the subject-matter really of this motion. The seconder told us furthermore that, although he had read a great many English newspapers, he positively had not seen a copy of this newspaper.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that the reason why I have not seen it is because it was only published yesterday. I read it regularly every week, and will continue to do so.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I read it regularly every week. But the point I was making was that it is surprising that the hon. Member should have been able to draw an exact comparison between the violence of language in English newspapers and the language of the Irish newspaper, although he had not read the latter. He assured the House that he was familiar with English newspapers which made gross and violent attacks on the person of the Sovereign, and he declared that the. Irish newspaper, which he had not read, went no further.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: It could not possibly.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Hon. Members on this side of the House, who challenged the hon. Member opposite when he declared that English newspapers were guilty of such attacks upon the person of the Sovereign, were told by him that they probably did not read such newspapers. In any case, when he said that my hon. friends do not read such newspapers, he pointed out that if any English newspapers of the character referred to by the hon. Gentleman exist at all, they are mere gutter rags, which have but a limited circulation amongst persons who have a predilection for garbage. Then he developed his argument by declaring that the Irish newspaper in question held in Ireland a position conformable to The Times newspaper in this country. So that in one part of his argument he compares the Irish newspaper to a gutter rag and in another says it is a great organ of public opinion. If we could assume that a great and powerful organ of public opinion in this country could be guilty of a seditious libel, of a scandalous, scurrilous, gross, and false attack upon the person of a Sovereign who is revered by his subjects throughout a wide Empire, that would be a fair analogy of the case which creates the situation before us this evening.
    I think I ought to answer the specific questions put to me. The hon. Member who moved the adjournment asked me what was the process by which this article was adjudicated upon; was it here or at Dublin Castle? It was here. He asked who was responsible. I am responsible to this House for the conduct of Irish affairs. It has always been held that the Chief Secretary is responsible to this House. I have no wish to avoid that responsibility. But, as a matter of fact, I will go further and say that it is actually my own personal responsibility. This article was telegraphed over and came to my hands yesterday evening about six o'clock. I wish the House to know all the facts. On that, in consultation with my colleagues, but on my own motion and wish, I telegraphed that in my opinion a paper containing such an article ought to be seized and every effort made to stop as many copies as possible from coming into the hands of the subjects of His Majesty. Then the hon. Member asked, will there be a prosecution? Upon that I make no
    1346
    reply. Hon. Members will allow that that is a very reasonable attitude to take up. Then I come to a part of both those speeches which hon. Members will allow me to dismiss with brevity. They have stated that this newspaper was suppressed because it contained three columns of personal abuse directed against myself. I do not think I need tell the House, but as a matter of fact only the article in question was telegraphed over here, and therefore the paper was suppressed at my instance before I had the privilege of reading the report of the hon. Member for Waterford's speech. I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman's speeches, and if I had read those three columns of abuse of myself I should have been subjected to the sore temptation not to do my duty, but I hope I should have resisted the temptation. The attacks against myself are harmless, whilst the libel contained in this article is of a very serious character. [Nationalist cries of "Read it."] I am asked to read the article. The hon. Member who moved the adjournment did not venture to read it. He said that he declined to be drawn into a discussion of the language. Why? For this reason, that the strength of the language would not help his case. The strength of the language would help my case, would carry my case, but I decline to soil my lips with such language. I decline to offend the ears of hon. Members and to wound their feelings and the feelings of millions of people throughout the world by making myself the channel for further publicity of such outrageous, scandalous, gross, loathsone, and false attacks. When I am asked whether we intend to prosecute this paper, I am quite ready to declare to the hon. Member who moved the adjournment that I agree with a great deal of his political philosophy with respect to the press. If any organ of the press contained a seditious libel directed even against the person of the Sovereign, I am not prepared to say that I would in every case advise a prosecution. I think that something of common sense comes in. You have to consider whether a prosecution will not do more harm than good.
    MR. DILLON: Millions of people will read this article who would never have heard of it otherwise.
    MR. WYNDHAM: As a matter of law it is not only the right of the Government to suppress by any means in its power a seditions libel directed against the person of the Sovereign, but I imagine it is also the duty of every private individual. Any loyal subject of the Crown is bound to intervene, without any commission of any sort or kind, if a seditious libel is directed against the person of the Sovereign. But that was not the reason which guided me in coming to a conclusion on this difficult position. I remember that last year a paper was seized in Ireland because it contained insulting remarks, not of the character which this paper contained, but insulting remarks against our late revered Majesty of blessed memory. I remember also that this country was deeply moved and stirred more than once last year by articles that appeared in foreign newspapers. I remember that in almost every newspaper in this country, belonging to every shade of political conviction, leading articles were written, in temperate and reasonable terms, inviting the Governments of foreign Powers, as a neighbourly act, humane act, as common courtesy, as an act in accordance with the comity of nations, to take some steps to abate a nuisance which was wounding the feelings of so many people in this country. In what position should I have been if, with a similar nuisance, only in a more coarse and offensive form, at our very doors, in what position should I have been if I had hesitated—because I admit that the whole philosophy of press prosecutions is a difficult one—to take immediate and stringent steps to abate that nuisance and to save my fellow-countrymen from having their feelings wounded again in a more outrageous manner by language more foul than the language employed even in some foreign newspapers last year?
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman has informed the House that he declined to read the words complained of because he did not wish to make himself the channel for the propagation of this matter, which he considered objectionable; but the right hon. Gentleman, by the suppression of this paper, has fastened the attention of the whole world upon it. Does the
    1348
    right hon. Gentleman imagine that he has seized the entire issue of this paper? Does he not know that the paper went through the post last night to America and other foreign nations? Does he not know that there are in this House even several copies of the paper? And is he not aware that what he has done in seizing the paper must have the effect of fastening the attention of the whole world upon the paragraph which, according to his expressed wish, he would have been glad to cover up and hide away for ever? The position of the right hon. Gentleman from that point of view is inconsistent, and, in my opinion, is most mischievous.
    The right hon. Gentleman was asked who adjudicated upon this. Now, the complaint I have to make is a very plain and a very simple one. If a newspaper is guilty of publishing a seditious libel, it makes itself amenable to the law, and it deserves to be punished by the law; but it is only the recognised legal tribunals of the country that can decide what is or is not seditious libel, and I claim that, no matter how grave or how coarse the language may be in any paragraph published in any newspaper, no Executive Government has by law the right to judge that question and to decide what is and what is not seditious libel. If seditious libel has been in this case committed, and if it was thought desirable by the Executive Government to fasten the attention of the world upon it, then they would have been perfectly within their right in instituting a prosecution and deciding the question of law whether it was a seditious libel or not by the recognised legal tribunals of the country; but I protest that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor his colleagues, nor the whole of the Government of this country, have by law the right to judge and decide for themselves whether this is or is not seditious libel. And if it is not seditious libel, then the action of the Government is absolutely illegal, and cannot be supported. That is the ground I take. I would not complain of a prosecution for seditious libel, but I do complain and characterise as arbitrary and illegal the action of any individual in deciding for himself that this is a seditious libel, and acting upon it and seizing this newspaper.

    1349
    The right hon. Gentleman has, of course, disclaimed the imputation that he suppressed this paper because of the attacks made upon himself. I absolutely accept that statement. I am perfectly certain that he did not do it for the sake of saving his own feelings, and he has told us that he reads the paper. But I assert that he has taken this action as part of a settled policy to interfere with freedom of speech on the platform and in the press, and I repeat the charge which has already been made that this action has been taken because this newspaper is the organ of a political organisation which is in antagonism to the right hon. Gentleman and his Government, whose power is rapidly growing in Ireland, and whose power perhaps he is beginning to realise and fear. It is because the Irish People is the organ of the United Irish League movement in Ireland that it has been seized. If that were not so I venture to assert that these obscure paragraphs would have been allowed to rest in their obscurity, and would not have been picked out to serve as an excuse for this illegal action of the Crown. I repeat the assertion that has been made that it is possible to find from time to time in great organs of opinion in this country such as—I am reluctant to mention, and it would be wrong to mention the names of papers, but I have in my mind certain weekly newspapers, published in this country, with large circulations, and it is true to assert that in some of these newspapers from time to time attacks upon Royalty, personal, and indeed gross, attacks upon Royal personages, do appear, any one of which might be held technically to form the subject of prosecution for seditious libel, but neither are prosecutions brought, nor in any single case that I know of have the Government ever decided this question of law for themselves, and seized the issue of the newspaper.
    All I have got to say is that I realise to the full the whole meaning of this action of the Government. I think my colleagues realise it, and I am certain that the Irish people will realise it. I am certain that the Irish people will realise that this is simply a move in the game which the Government are carrying on, and that they will regard it as an indication of an advance in their policy and a
    1350
    determination to grapple, if they can, with the new movement, the United Irish League movement, which has sprung up in Ireland. But I tell the Government—and in making this declaration I will content myself and resume my seat—I tell the Government that the organisation and the paper they are attacking are too strong for them, that they have at their back the great mass of the Irish people, in Ireland and out of Ireland, and that whether we have to face in the future persecution and prosecution, fines, and penalties, and imprisonment, as we have done in the past, this movement will go on, and will soon, rather sooner than perhaps he expects, make short work of the Chief Secretary and his new policy.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and other hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, have endeavoured to persuade the House that the cause they are advocating is, in the first place, the cause of the freedom of the press; and, in the second place, the cause of an Irish agitation carried on by legitimate constitutional methods. It is nothing of the kind. The hon. Gentleman tells us that he abandons the childish accusation that my right hon. friend was influenced in the course he took by the fact that he himself has been subjected to personal attack in the newspaper. The charge was ab initio an absurd one. My right hon. friend knows well the lot of every Chief Secretary.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: The fate of them.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He has had the fullest opportunity of observing the Irish methods of attack which are thought to be legitimate on the Chief Secretary. He knows that those attacks; are made quite impartially on every Chief Secretary, whatever his politics, and although the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Morley) during his Government from 1893 to 1895 was subjected to fewer of those attacks, there-were still a sufficient number, couched in the accustomed phraseology, to prevent even him being an exception to the universal experience. I venture to say that

    1351
    not only is every Chief Secretary attacked in this manner, but no Chief Secretary has ever in the least minded the attack. Whatever other inconveniences and discomforts may attach to the post, no Chief Secretary has ever accounted the abuse of the Nationalist press among their number. I have asked myself what value there is in the argument that this is an attack on the liberty of the press, and an attack on an Irish newspaper which is legitimately carrying on the work of a political party in Ireland. Is the publication of an obscene libel a necessary weapon in the armoury of Irish agitation? Is it a part of their equipment which they cannot do without? Is it an essential method for carrying on their case? [Interruption from the Nationalist Members.]
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: You know very well it is not.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Very well, if that be the case, and I am quite ready to admit it is, why is it that a newspaper which hon. Gentlemen claim to be a leading newspaper of Ireland submits to use this foul and poisoned weapon? There are no epithets that can be employed too strong to describe this article, and there is no hon. Gentleman on that side of the House who has read this article but would say that no epithet which my unhappily limited vocabulary could employ exaggerated its abominable character. It is a foul and it is a seditious and obscene libel. I listened with attention to the hon. Gentleman, but are we to be told that a newspaper is to be allowed to publish a foul, an obscene, and a seditious article because in other parts of the newspaper a Minister is attacked? It is very proper to attack a Minister, but that does not cover every sin; it is not sufficient by itself entirely to absolve the editor of the newspaper from any guilt of a crime, or to prevent the newspaper, when published, from producing serious evil consequences. Not only was this libel foul, obscene, and seditious, but, from the very nature of the case, it was directed at a quarter which is especially helpless in dealing with these matters. The Sovereign of this land, from the very height of the position in which
    1352
    he is placed, is less capable than the rest of us of dealing with these matters; and I can hardly believe that any man in this House seriously condemns the course which has been taken, or in his heart thinks that any Government could sit quietly by and see this gross offence against public decency and public morals, as well as against law and loyalty, committed. The hon. Gentleman says to us, "Granted that a great offence has been committed, are you the judges? Is it for you in Dublin Castle to judge whether a libel is obscene and seditious?" Sir, it is the duty of every subject of the Crown to stop a crime if he can; and it is incorrect to say that in doing so we have acted in such a manner that the law is incapable of protecting the people against whom we have directed our proceedings.
    AN HON. MEMBER ON THE IRISH BENCHES: You did not stop proceedings in the Pigott case!
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend has done what he conceives to be a public duty—he has done it in what he conceives to be the interests of the law. You have your remedy if you think he was wrong. This is not an arbitrary act performed by a tyrannical Government against whom no individual has any remedy. The courts are open to you.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What about packing the jury?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman may think that the machinery of the law is inadequate. That is not my point. My point is that this is not an action above the law.
    AN HON. MEMBER ON THE IRISH BENCHES: It is in Ireland.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The whole machinery of the law, be it good or be it bad, can be set in motion by those who think themselves aggrieved. Our old friend "jury-packing" has been thrown in by way of interjection and argument. If the persons aggrieved in this case think they have ground of

    1353
    action against the Government, it will not be in the power of the Government to set aside the jury; so that if jury-packing takes place, it will not be due to any action of the Government. They have their remedy and they have their law. And is it not dragging in the mud the great and sacred cause of the liberty of the press to say that it is bound up with the unchecked publication of these nauseous statements—not directed to any responsible Minister, not written in favour of any cause, small or great, but levelled simply at the head of the State in his private character, and going beyond every decency of expression, using language so gross that there is not a single Gentleman on that side of the House who would, either in public or in private, venture to defend it? Sir, the liberty of the press is not added to by pleading such as this; and I am convinced that this House, the more it knows of this case, the full strength of which we are obviously incapable of laying before it on an occasion like this—the more it understands the strength of this case, the more it will feel that my right hon. friend would have been guilty of a gross dereliction of his duty if he had for a moment shrunk from taking on his own shoulders the responsibility which he has gladly accepted.
    MR. ASQUITH: This is a matter which is undoubtedly of a very painful character, and is very grave in its constitutional aspect. For the purposes of this debate the House has not had an opportunity, probably never will have an opportunity, and I trust from what we have heard never will have an opportunity, of reading this paper itself; and the House is bound to take the description which is given of the paper and its contents by the responsible Ministers of the Crown. They have described it as an unusually gross form of seditious and obscene libel, directed, not against the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, or the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or the officers engaged in the administration of the law in Ireland, as has often been the case in days gone by, but directed against the personal character of the Sovereign himself. A publication of that kind—and we must assume for the purposes
    1354
    of to-day, without in any way prejudging the question, that it has those characteristics—was brought to the notice of the Government as one which was about to be, or was being, circulated and disseminated broadcast in Ireland; and thereupon the Chief Secretary and the officers of the Government seized the paper and stopped its circulation. Now, Sir, what I want to point out to the House is this—either that was or it was not a legally justifiable act. We are not in a position to say whether it was or was not, because until the character of this newspaper has been judicially ascertained we have no material before us on which we can pronounce any such opinion. But it is perfectly certain that no officer of the Government stands in this respect in any different position, is clothed with any greater authority, is entitled to any more ample legal powers, than the humblest man who walks the street. And although I agree that it may be, as it is, the primary duty of the Government, who are charged with the maintenance of law and order and with the prevention of crime, to take action in a case where that action would not be equally imperative and urgent upon an individual, yet, unless an individual would be justified in doing what the Chief Secretary and his officers have done in this case, the Government themselves were not justified. What is the conclusion from that? The question is whether the persons who are responsible for the publication of this newspaper have sufficient confidence in their case to take it into a court of law. Neither the Chief Secretary, nor any of his agents, nor the officials, nor the police can claim in that court of law any privilege of any sort or kind. That being the case, I have not the slightest hesitation in advising the House of Commons that they would be going far beyond their duty and their constitutional right if they were to sanction in any way the notion that it is the duty of this House to make a protest against an act which can be, and ought to be, legally inquired into before another jurisdiction. Having received, as we have, a solemn assurance from the Ministers of the Crown that this was the character of the publication, I shall certainly support the Government.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, in the course of his speech, stated that if anything illegal had been done by the Chief Secretary for Ireland the remedy was in the courts of law. But I wish to remind the House how that remedy worked out in the year 1870, when Lord Hartington was Chief Secretary for Ireland. An amnesty meeting was held in the Phoenix Park in August, 1870, and, without any notice whatever, a number of men, women, and children were batoned by the police under the orders of the Chief Secretary; and those people whose heads had been broken brought an action against the authorities, and a large sum of money was subscribed, and the then leader of the Irish party, the late Mr. Isaac Butt, took the matter up, and after trial after trial, and appeal after appeal, the result was that they got not the slightest satisfaction. If the people of Dublin were to act on the suggestion of the First Lord of the Treasury and take action against the Chief Secretary the result would be the same, and they would get no satisfaction whatever. It occurred to me during the debate, "Is it possible that England can produce no Chief Secretary for Ireland who has some originality?" Whenever English Ministers have suppressed newspapers, the only result has been to give a big advertisement to these newspapers, and to extend their circulation, and to make the Irish people more determined than ever to resist these encroachments on their liberty. The right hon. Gentleman appears to have adopted the German model of lèse majesté. In 1848, when Lord Clarendon was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, John Mitchell called him, in his newspaper, "The butcher-general of Ireland," and no notice was taken of it, and yet Lord Clarendon was the vicesovereign, and there was as much lèse majesté in that as if it had referred to the Sovereign himself. When the Chief Secretary says that he seized this paper in order to get evidence, he must be aware of the fact that a policeman in plain clothes is sent down to the newspaper office every Thursday afternoon to buy a copy of the paper, which is taken up to Dublin Castle and there initialed and filed. That is all the evi-
    1356
    dence of this seditious libel necessary, and there was not the slightest reason to seize all the other copies of the paper issued which the detectives could lay hands upon.
    MR. DILLON: I wish in a few words to reply on the debate.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has no right of reply on a motion for the adjournment.
    MR. DILLON: I hope I may be permitted by the House to say two sentences. [Cries of "Order."] Hon. Members do not appreciate my desire to bring the debate to a conclusion. I only desire to say two sentences. The first is that when we are told—if that be the position of the Government—that we have our remedy at law, my reply is that that is no remedy and no answer. It was the answer given to us at the period of The Times libels and the Pigott forgeries, and, as is perfectly well known, it had no result. One word in reply to the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury. He asked us, in a manner which conveyed to us the impression that he meant it as a charge, whether we in Ireland thought we felt bound to carry on our struggle by resorts to seditious and obscene libels. No man knows better than he that there is not an atom of foundation for that charge, and that the politics of Ireland, through all the years of passion which have characterised them, have been singularly free from that character of warfare. I hope the House will now divide.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I wish to dissociate myself entirely from the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, that when Ministers of the Crown declare that a certain paper, of the contents of which they alone have knowledge, contains an obscene libel, then the House is bound to accept that decision and support it in the division lobby. If that principle had been adopted by our forefathers, the liberty of the press would never have been established. If they had accepted the view that the opinion of Ministers of the Crown, based on secret information

    1357
    known to them and to them alone, was to be acted on in this House, the liberty of the press would never have been established. In the early part of the last century the historical trial of William Hone established the liberty of the press. Although I am opposed to strongly seditious and obscene libels, yet I think that Gentlemen sitting on the front bench ought not to be the judges as to what is a libel, but that the House at large should judge. The head of the State has no more ground than any other person in this country to fear the publication of any libel, and it is perfectly certain that punishment would follow the publication of a libel if it really were a wicked libel. Every person in the country ought to be willing to rely on the tribunals of the country, and therefore, on that ground, I will support the motion. The view that the right hon. Gentleman acted in his private capacity is not correct. He acted as the representative of the Government, and to say that he is in the same position as a private individual is inaccurate.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I simply rise to ask the Attorney General for Ireland to be good enough to tell us what the law is. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen must thoroughly understand that this is at least a free assembly, and although we are in a minority we have a right to express our own opinions. I wish to get certain information from the Attorney General for Ireland before deciding how I am going to vote. I want to know under what law the proceedings in this matter have been taken. I deprecate what I hear this article is, and I think I am ready to accept the statement of the Chief Secretary that the article is a most improper one, and ought never to have been published; but still, when an improper article of this sort is published there is a distinction between the action of the Executive and the action of the judiciary. I can perfectly understand that newspapers should be prosecuted, but when the Chief Secretary tells us that he acted on the principle that any individual, who considers that an attack is made on the Sovereign in a newspaper, has a right himself to take action and seize the newspaper, and that that is the law of the land, I take the liberty of
    1358
    entirely disagreeing with him. I do not yet know whether it is intended to prosecute the newspaper. [Several HON. MEMBERS: No, no.] Why not? As I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, he said that the matter could be referred to the law courts.
    MR. ASQUITH: I said it ought to be.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: But when there is a violation—accepting the fact that there is a violation—of the law of the land by a Minister in the House, the first appeal is to the House, and until the Minister or his legal advisers can show that his action was legal and justifiable according to law, then I say we ought to express our disapproval of the action of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I had the honour of being prosecuted for what was termed in my warrant of arrest "seditious conspiracy," and therefore I ought to know a little about seditious libel, when seditious libel is joined to seditious conspiracy. I had the honour of being acquitted on that occasion, because a distinguished judge, now unfortunately dead, decided, with all the facts before-him, that the ipse dixit of Sir Charles. Warren was not the last and final statement that ought to be made, untested, in any court of law before a jury of my fellow-countrymen, and that the word of an official was not to be the arbitrament as to whether seditious conspiracy should be urged against me or not. A jury of my fellow-countrymen acquitted me—
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must speak to the definite matter before the House.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: My definite matter is only by way of illustration. It is evident that circumscription and suppression are to be the order of the day.
    *MR. SPEAKER: That is an improper observation to address to the Chair, and I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I want to complete my argument.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must withdraw that observation.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: As applied to the Chair, certainly, Sir. I was only going to say for the purposes of illustration, and then leave it, that it should not rest with any Executive officer in either England or Ireland to say what is seditious conspiracy or what is a seditious and obscene libel. I believe that this particular libel, which I have read, is not seditious, and not so much obscene as criminal, and the proper authority to determine what a criminal libel is is a judge and jury in Ireland, under the forms that the law of this country prescribes.
    How did this libel originate? For many centuries, certainly for many generations, the Roman Catholic section of our fellow-countrymen have rested under certain references that are as insulting as they are ungrammatical in the Royal Oath. An address was presented by the Roman Catholic section of our fellow-countrymen to the King, asking, through Cardinal Vaughan and the Duke of Norfolk, that these insulting and ungrammatical words should be excised from the Royal Oath, and on these objectionable words the writer of this particular article made certain comments. I need not read them. They will all be read to-morrow, and hon. Gentlemen opposite will probably buy for the first time the newspaper, with a burning desire to see what these particular words are. What I want to point out is not whether the words are libellous, not whether they are a seditious, or criminal, or obscene libel, but I want to draw the attention of the House to the statement of the Chief Secretary that these words are gross and foul. After all, that is a matter of opinion. I think The Times, sixty-three years ago, published an article with regard to a King now departed which was probably more gross and foul than the language I have read in this particular paper. The Chief Secretary said that the libel was so gross and foul that he would not defile his lips with it, and he refused to be the medium of communicating it to this House. The House is therefore asked by its refusal to vote for the motion to sanction the suppression of a libel
    1360
    which is not within its cognisance, and which it does not know to be either seditious or criminal. If I were the Chief Secretary, I would have read the libel, but without having heard it the House of Commons has no right to pass an opinion on it. Hon. Members should not be misguided in one respect, or to misjudge the libel in another respect. The information is not produced, and the facts necessary to enable us to judge whether the adjournment should be carried or not are withheld from the House of Commons. The Chief Secretary, to justify his position, should have read the libel to which he takes exception. The libel is undoubtedly personal to the King. I have always a rule in regard to monarchs, whether they be kings or queens. They cannot come down into the arena; they are outside the ring; and they are debarred from using the ordinary weapons of controversial attack and defence. Therefore I am not personally disposed to associate myself with a personal attack on a man who, by virtue of his position, cannot retort, or reply, or defend himself. During the life of her late Majesty the Queen I can remember libels published in English papers with large circulations quite as gross, quite as offensive, and perhaps not quite so grammatical as the libel I hold in my hand. Then take the American papers. I only refer to this because the right hon. Gentleman referred to the libel on the Queen made by one of the gutter rags of Paris, with which newspapers in this country too frequently, in my opinion, associated the whole of France. Her Majesty was too great in her mind and too exalted in her station to take any notice of attacks made upon her. Those things are done in France, and have been done every day in the American papers for years in quite as gross a form. With regard to the colonial papers, no one who has read the celebrated case for which one of the Members of the New South Wales Parliament was put upon his trial could be without evidence to refute the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that a libel more gross, more seditious, and more criminal than this has never been published. This is a vulgar and an offensive attack on the King. One of the spiciest items says the King is bald-headed,

    1361
    and another says he has associated with actors and actresses. That is not libellous. I contend that they are rather trivial and personally insulting remarks, and, what is more, I believe that if this libel had been brought to the knowledge of the King he would have smiled and taken no notice of it, but would have put it into the waste-paper basket, and would not have given this newspaper a gratuitous and worldwide advertisement. How thin-skinned some of the Irish Executive are getting! I do not believe the King, if he knew, would sanction this act which is done in his name. He is far too sensible to allow such a thing. When we remember how some of the gutter press of England have been insulting the Boer generals and the Boer people, I want to know why, in the name of the honour of the English people, the Executive have not interfered with greater cause than this vulgar and personal attack upon the King seems to have justified. Why trouble about this? The First Lord of the Treasury has been called almost as many bad names in the newspapers as I have, but he knows he is secure in the hearts of his colleagues. He has never gone into the courts to justify himself. And it seems to me that if the King's own view was taken he would resent the behaviour of his advisers, who have inflicted upon him an insult he would not have sustained but for the acts of some of his newly-appointed Ministers. I dissociate myself entirely from this libel, and I believe the King is of my opinion; but what I want to point out is this, that the suppression by the Irish Executive of this issue of this newspaper for an attack upon the King curiously synchronises with an attack which appears in this paper on a Member of the Executive who happens to be the Chief Secretary himself. This act, which is taken upon the ground that the article prejudices the King, is only part and parcel of a general system on the part of the Government, and is the natural consequence of the Nationalist, Liberal, and Labour Members of this House allowing the suppression of the South African News.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Gentleman cannot enter into a general indictment of the Government.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I bow to your ruling, Sir. But this, in my opinion, is part and parcel of a system that has grown up, and which numbers of people who are growing up think this aristocratic Government is responsible for, and who think the day is not far distant when the King should take the side that a constitutional monarch should take and ought to take.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not in order in discussing the personal action or opinions of the King.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: In this matter, Sir, he wants someone to defend him, and it is to save a constitutional monarch, who need not fear insult, from his friends that I have stood up against the Executive of Ireland suppressing this newspaper. In conclusion, I may say I heard with some regret the attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife upon this question. I think he has allowed the aristocratic interpretation of the law to influence his usually clear legal mind to an extent to which I cannot follow him. The doctrine he has laid down to-day is a serious one; it is a dangerous one, and put to the test may become a revolutionary one. It is this: that not a jury of our fellow-countrymen are to determine what a libel is; not a court of law; not Parliament itself is to determine what is a libel. The initial step is to be taken by a peace officer—an illegal, improper, and unconstitutional authority.
    MR. ASQUITH: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon; I am as much opposed to that doctrine as the hon. Gentleman himself. What I said was that officers of the Executive took the course they did take at their own risk, that their conduct was liable to be questioned in a court of law, and that of their conduct that tribunal, not the House of Commons, should judge.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: What I would suggest is that a safer and a better course when a libel of this kind took place would be for the Executive, not to suppress the edition first, but to take action in a court of law, and having obtained

    1363
    a verdict from a jury and the fiat of the judge, suppress, not one issue of the paper, but the paper itself. I stand up now to assist Irishmen, because the time has come when we should not allow Irishmen alone to defend the citadel and ramparts of freedom. Too long has it devolved upon these men to uphold and defend the freedom and privileges we have enjoyed for centuries. I shall vote
    for this adjournment, because I believe the King is far above being hurt by any power of libel, and that by the action of the Executive of Ireland our liberty of comment and discussion is endangered.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 64; Noes, 252. [Division List No. 180.]

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

    Hammond, John

    O'Doherty, William

    Ambrose, Robert

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

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

    Blake, Edward

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    O'Dowd, John

    Boland, John

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Boyle, James

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Malley, William

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Labouchere, Henry

    O'Mara, James

    Burns, John

    Leamy, Edmund

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Cameron, Robert

    Lloyd-George, David

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Lundon, W.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Carvill, Patrick George H.

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Clean, Eugene

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Roche, John

    Cullinan, J.

    M'Fadden, Edward

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Daly, James

    Mooney, John J.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Delany, William

    Murphy, J.

    Tully, Jasper

    Dillon, John

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Weir, James Galloway

    Doogan, P. C.

    Newnes, Sir George

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Duffy, William J.

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Captain Donelan and Mr.

    Flynn, James Christopher

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

    Patrick O'Brien.

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

    NOES.

    NOES.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Denny, Colonel

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Asher, Alexander

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Caldwell, James

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Gl'sg'w

    Dunn, Sir William

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Austin, Sir John

    Carlile, William Walter

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Elibank, Master of

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Baird, John George Alex.

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh)

    Emmott, Alfred

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cecil, Evelyn, (Aston Manor)

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

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

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Balfour, Maj. K. R. (Christch.)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Chapman, Edward

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

    Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

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

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Coddington, Sir William

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

    Colville, John

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Flower, Ernest

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

    Bill, Charles

    Craig, Robert Hunter

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Black, Alexander William

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Garfit, William

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

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

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Crombie, John William

    Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'mlts)

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Cross, Herb. S. (Bolton)

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Cust, Henry John C.

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Brigg, John

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Grant, Corrie

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

    Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

    Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Hain, Edward

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Middx

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Smith, H. C (Northumb. Tynesd

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Rbt. Wm.

    Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Spear, John Ward

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

    Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

    Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich

    Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale-

    Moss, Samuel

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormsk'rk

    Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Helder, Augustus

    Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'T.

    Higginbottom, S. W.

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Stroyan, John

    Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Tennant, Harold John

    Holland, William Henry

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

    Norman, Henry

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Horner, Frederick William

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Tomkinson, James

    Howard, John (Kent, Faversh

    Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Partington, Oswald

    Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

    Ure, Alexander

    Joicey, Sir James

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Kimber, Henry

    Percy, Earl

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sh'f'ld

    Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Kitson, Sir James

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Wallace, Robert

    Lawson, John Grant

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Warde, Col. C. E.

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Warner, Thomas (Courtenay T.

    Lee, Capt. A. H. (Hants, Farehm

    Priestley, Arthur

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Purvis, Robert

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Pym, C. Guy

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

    Randles, John S.

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham)

    Rea, Russell

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    Long, Rt. Hon Walter (Bristol, S

    Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Whitmore, Chas. Algernon

    Lowther, Rt. Hn. Jas. (Kent)

    Rentoul, James Farquharson

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Renwick, George

    Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(B'rm

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Ridley, Hn. Matthew W (St'r'ge

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Ridley, Samuel F (Bethnal Gr'n)

    Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

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

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

    M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Sir William Walrond and

    Malcolm, Ian

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    EDUCATION (YOUNG CHILDREN SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Law, etc.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 168.]
    Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 168.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Wednesday, 12th June, and to be printed. [Bill 176.]

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to amend the Acts relating to Public Libraries, Museums, and Gymnasiums, and to regulate the Liability of Managers of Libraries to Proceedings for Libel." [Public Libraries Bill [Lords.]
  NEW BILL.

    TOWN HOLDINGS.
    Bill to give compensation to occupying tenants of Town Holdings for beneficial

    1367
    improvements, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Channing, Sir Walter Foster, Captain Norton, Mr. Emmott, and Mr. Kearley.

    TOWN HOLDINGS BILL.
    "To give compensation to occupying tenants of Town Holdings for beneficial improvements," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 177.]

  SUPPLY (6TH ALLOTTED DAY).
  Considered in Committee:—
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the chair.]

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1901–2.

  CLASS IV.
  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."
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The figures which have been laid before the House in the usual manner are, I think all agree, perfectly satisfactory so far as they are concerned. The Estimate during the year has increased by the sum of £30,660. Of this sum £13,144 is in respect of the annual grants to day schools. That is due, mainly, to a large increase in the numbers in average attendance, and partly to an increase in the grant from 22s. 6¼d. to 22s. 9d. per scholar. The Committee will remember that we are just now coming into the first results of the Revised Code of three years ago. The estimate for the evening school grant shows a decrease of £950, in consequence of the falling off in the average attendance of evening scholars in 1900 as compared with 1899. The attendance in the evening schools
  1368
  has decreased by about 5,000, and now stands at 43,962. It is well to observe that this decrease in the evening schools attendance may be partially accounted for by the fact that the children stay longer in the day schools than formerly, and if that is a right deduction it is one that takes the sting out of the observation. On looking at the day school returns, it is found that the attendance has increased by 8,000. The number now in average attendance stands at 629,038. This figure includes nearly 3,000 in average attendance at higher grade schools other than those which are dealt with in Chapter 9 of the Code. I think the Committee will agree that it is an interesting feature that more than one third of these scholars are between fifteen and eighteen years of age. There are also in attendance at the ordinary day schools between 5,000 and 6,000 scholars over fifteen years of age. The average school rate in Scotland is 9.66d., an increase as compared with the previous year, it then being 9.25d. The total amount raised by the education rate was £923,358, of which £425,906 was spent on the maintenance of schools, which, with £28,215 voluntarily subscribed, represents the local contribution for the purposes of education. The contribution from Imperial funds by annual grants to day and evening schools amounted to £749,689, to which must be added a further sum of £369,771 for grants in relief of fees, making in all a total of £1,119,460 from Imperial funds, as contrasted with £951,573 from local sources. Grants have also been made for blind and deaf-mute children to the extent of £3,074; special grants to School Boards, £45,158; to voluntary schools, £12,244; Highland schools, £1,400; grants to training colleges, £45,210; science and art, £71,109; and agricultural education, £1,964. This represents a total expenditure during the year of £2,251,192. Besides this, large sums have been spent on education from the Local Taxation Account, under the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890, the Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892, and the Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1898, amounting in the aggregate to about £144,000. The details of that are—to local authorities

  1369
  spending on technical education out of the residue grant, £54,136; secondary education committees, about £60,000; grants to higher class schools, higher inspection, and agricultural education under the Minute of 27th April, 1899, £29,450; making the total I have already given roughly as £144,000. That makes in all a grand total spent on education during the year of £2,395,192. Those are the year's results so far as they can be put before the Committee by means of figures.
  But perhaps at the present time it would not be inappropriate if I said a few words upon the general question with regard to the present position of our educational arrangements. The time seems a convenient one for a survey of what has been accomplished during the last few years, more especially as we are in the position of announcing this year what we hope the Committee will recognise as a considerable step in advance for the future. In taking that review, which I may remind the Committee is really a review of the arrangements which have been come to since my noble friend has been at the head of the Education Department so far as Scotland is concerned, perhaps I may briefly call to mind the present position of the question. Of course, when you consider the question of Imperial grants you have to consider that which is a necessary corollary of that question, viz., the question of central control. You have also to consider that weapon or instrument by which alone central control is to be made effective—I mean the instrument of inspection.
  It is about forty years ago that the Revised Code was introduced into England, but for the first ten years Scotland held aloof from it, and so far as Scotch education is concerned the Revised Code suspended its operations, and payments were not made in accordance with it. The Revised Code first became Scotch as well as English in the year subsequent to the passing of the Education Act of 1872; it was introduced in 1873 so far as Scotland is concerned. That Code, no doubt, was an advance on what had gone before, but, at the same time, it had certain features which the progress of educational opinion has long ago recognised as being dis-
  1370
  advantageous. Under the Revised Code you had to go entirely by results. You had a perfectly cast-iron standard, and you had in consequence very little, or, I might say, no room for local initiation. The first attempt at reform or change in this matter was made in the year 1886, when payment by individual results—as shown by the examination of each individual—was dispensed with in the lower standards. Further changes were made afterwards, but, until the recent changes, certain features of the original Code remained. The feeling of the Department when the policy which I am now explaining was initiated was that it was very much better, instead of going by the results of the examination of the individual pupils, to try and encourage the general efficiency of the schools, and it was thought that that general efficiency might be encouraged by providing that in the curriculum of each school certain essential elements should always be present, but that, given those essential elements, a great deal should be left to the individuality of each school, and to the development of that which each school could show was most suited to its own needs and circumstances. A further view taken was that it was better not to go so much by the individual pupil, but rather to try to have a fairly high educational standard, and then to concentrate effort upon making as many pupils as possible reach that standard. As a corollary of that you had, of course, to alter very much the work of the inspectors. The final change, as the Committee know, was made by the Revised Code two years ago; and I think that upon the last occasion when I had the honour of addressing the Committee upon this subject I brought before them the increased burden and responsibility which was cast upon the inspectors, and that view, I believe, generally commended itself to hon. Members who took part in the debate afterwards. As an incentive to reach as high a standard as possible, we introduced also the merit certificate, which has really proved an immense success. The number who have attained the merit certificate is very large, amounting to 21,706 during the year 1900. It is exceedingly gratifying to see that by the various changes we have made we are apparently attaining

  1371
  one of the recognised objects of the changes—namely, that of keeping the older pupils at school. The figures of this year show the very gratifying result that the older pupils have increased by no less than 16,000, and, of course, we recognise that we have not yet; reached the limit.
  I have dealt hitherto in what I have said only with purely elementary education. In Scotland we have always to keep in view the fact that under the old system the Scotch schools did a great deal more than that. In the first place, the old burgh schools, which certainly went beyond elementary education, were taken over by the school boards under the Act of 1872, and further arrangements were made as to the possibility of spending the ratepayers' money upon them in the Act of 1878. Besides the old burgh schools, the old parish schools also did a great deal in trying to give a higher education to many pupils within their doors whose circumstances were such that they could never hope to go elsewhere and obtain a proper secondary education. Consequently, the aim of the Department has always been not to give up these old traditions, but to foster and encourage them. The way in which that was first attempted was by trying to help the schools by giving grants for specific subjects more or less savouring of secondary education. That system was not found, on the whole, to be perfectly satisfactory. There are two sides to everything, and it was found that these specific subjects became such an obvious medium for grant-earning that schools were tempted to add subject to subject in order to earn grants rather than to devote their attention to securing general efficiency in education as a whole. That defect we sought to cure, and hope we have cured, by the alterations made in the Code two years ago. As the Committee are aware, instead of these grants for specific subjects, the higher departments in the schools are given peculiar encouragement by the possibility of earning very large grants, these grants being given on the principle of general efficiency, and not in regard to particular subjects. In arranging for these higher departments the Education Department tried to impress upon each school that it should arrogate to itself a particular
  1372
  character—that it should have a curriculum of a certain definite character. The curriculum might be of a scientific nature, under which experiments could be made and the powers of observation in the children trained; it might be of such a nature as would meet literary and linguistic requirements; or it might have a more strictly commercial character. As long as one of those definite characteristics was chosen, the Code was so arranged that the schools could get these higher grants upon, as the Department believed, a liberal scale. The Committee will easily understand that the Department was bound in such a question concerning the Treasury not to turn the whole system of grants upside down—that is to say, they were bound in justice to the Treasury to see that, upon the whole, there should not be such an increase in expenditure as was not warranted by increased efficiency, and in that I think they have been perfectly successful. At the same time, we think we have made a better bargain; in other words, we get better value for our money than we used to do. The general opinion in Scotland is that so far as the working of the Revised Code has gone it has been a great success.
  I come now to a still further change, There was always something more to be done, not exactly connected with either primary or secondary education, and that was done by what are known as evening continuation classes. These classes had a twofold object. In so far as they were of an elementary character they were meant for those who, either during their progress through the elementary school had not learnt all that they might, or, having learnt it, had been removed from educational influences, and forgotten a great deal, and needed to learn it again. In their more advanced forms the classes were meant for those who, anxious to go on with their education, and to acquire a knowledge of subjects which might be termed secondary education, were not in a position to go to a regular secondary school. The evening continuation classes had been instituted for some time, and were, I think, a great success. Within the last two years something else has happened. The science and art classes used to be under the direction of the

  1373
  Science and Art Department, at South Kensington. To a great extent the science and art classes deal with the same want as that with which evening continuation classes dealt, with the result that it was a piece of educational extravagance to have a divided management. Not only did you get different views under such divided management, but very often actually over-lapping agencies. Accordingly, when the Science and Art Department was transferred from South Kensington to the Scotch Office, it seemed an appropriate time to make this amalgamation, which seemed right in principle, and to take the opportunity, having larger funds at disposal, to put the whole matter upon a more satisfactory footing. That attempt is made in the Code which has just been laid on the table—namely, the Code for continuation classes. That Code now really takes the place of the old evening continuation classes Code, and of the Directory of the South Kensington Museum, in as far as it applies to Scotland. In fusing these two sources we hope to retain the advantages of both; but here, as in all Scotch education, we have thought it right that a certain call should be made on local effort. We have nothing to do in this matter with the 17s. 6d. limit, because that limit is a calculation necessarily based upon average attendance, and average attendance has not a proper place in the case of isolated classes, as these continuation classes must necessarily be. Accordingly, the scale that is laid down is that there shall be one-fourth contribution from local sources for every three-fourths taken from the Imperial Revenue. We certainly commend this continuation Code to the favourable consideration of the Committee. I have explained the views upon which it is based, and we believe that experience will show that our favourable anticipations will not fail realisation. Of course, what we have already done does not end the efforts which we recognise still to be necessary in the cause of education. We have recognised to the full that the time has come for a readjustment of the resources and a rearrangement of the direction of secondary education, and we attempted to deal with that problem last year. Owing to circumstances which we could not altogether control, there was not time to pass the
  1374
  Bill, but the Committee may rest assured that that Bill, or something like it, will be reintroduced at no very distant date, though I cannot hold out any hope for the present session. But, on the whole matter, I trust the Committee will consider that, in the efforts we have made to alter the system and to ensure general efficiency as against individual success, we have given a good account of our stewardship. We believe that interest in educational work is as keen as ever, and we may point to the fact that the increase in the Imperial grant shows that there has been progress in Scottish education, and that fair treatment has been received from the Empire. We hope that, with increased trust in local initiative, and greater elasticity in every branch of educational administration;, we may go on in the work of improving the whole system of our education, which I believe is dear to both sides of the House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think we all must be satisfied that the Government have been able so to arrange the Scotch Votes this year that an opportunity has been given for the discussion of this important matter. Last year Scotch Members had no opportunity at all of expressing their views upon this subject, and even now the one complaint I should venture to make is that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able sooner to put us in possession of the Report which we received this morning, and which is necessary for the proper understanding of this subject. I wish to give expression to a very natural feeling, which is especially evoked by the presence of the Vice-President of the Council. A very wise man has said that one of the greatest pleasures in life is the contemplation of the misfortunes of others; and that pleasure is often enhanced by the admiration of our own more fortunate position. Here we have before us an object-lesson showing the difference between Scotland and England. The right hon. Gentleman charged with the interests of English education has been labouring under great difficulties for many years to achieve two things, namely, the unification of authorities, and to do away with the mischievous distinction

  1375
  which has been drawn between primary and secondary education. The right hon. Gentleman comes in among us to-night, and discovers that Scotland has for many years possessed or is this year completely achieving both of those objects. In most points, I think, the statement the Lord Advocate has placed before us is most satisfactory—such, for instance, as the increase of 16,000 older scholars. The alterations which have been made in the regulations will have the effect of maintaining that old Scotch traditional system, which I have always thought to be the really essential characteristic of Scotch education, namely, that boys and girls in a public school are able to attain a very much higher degree of learning than is usually associated with the words "elementary education." We have always had the ladder of education in Scotland, thanks to the wisdom of our forefathers. It was considerably endangered forty or fifty years ago by the introduction of the system of payment by results. We have managed to shake that fetter off, and I hope that now, under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman and those who act with him, we are fairly embarked upon a career of improvement which will redound in every respect greatly to the advantage of our country.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he did not need to go over the details in regard to the question of Scotch education, although he held altogether a different opinion with regard to the policy of the individual examination of the pupils. In the year 1872 the policy of the educational authorities was to ensure that the poorest child in the State should receive a satisfactory education. The pupils were tested by individual examinations. The policy was to make sure that the lowest class were educated. They had made education compulsory, and the parent would require some security that his child would be educated if he was compelled by law to send his child to school. The State was asked to pay a certain contribution for the education of each child, and the policy of the Act of 1872 was that they were to have some security that the very poorest children in the community should be educated. What
  1376
  was the security that the parent had in 1872 by the system of individual examination? It was this. There were standards for each year, and individual examination took place in each standard. In this way it was ascertained whether the child was making progress, and payment was not given for any child unless the latter were shown to be properly educated, and had passed the required standard. Then the parent knew what progress his child was making. That system continued through the various standards, and the result was that, as far as the lowest ranks of society were concerned, every individual child in the lower ranks was receiving a proper education, and it was not left to the end of his curriculum to ascertain what progress a child was making. What was the result of the change which was now being made? They were taking away individual examination, and the parent would not know until his boy was thirteen or fourteen years of age whether he had been properly educated. They were changing the order of things. The policy of 1872 was to begin with the lower classes of society. Now they were directing their attention not so much to the lower strata, provided the upper strata were pushed on. This was a complete reversal of the policy of 1872, and he ventured to predict for it absolute failure.
  Another point which he desired to draw the Lord Advocate's attention; to was the proposal to increase the salary of the Secretary of the Education Department from £1,200 to £1,500. He believed the meaning of this was that the Secretary of the Education Department was likely to retire soon, and then he would get a higher pension. He did not see why there was any ground for increase in this salary. It was all very well to say that the number of children had increased, but if they compared the work in England with Scotland they would find that in England the work was seven times as great as in Scotland, and the salary paid in England was; £2,000. An increase of £300 a year in this salary, together with the appointment of an assistant secretary, was a great increase. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that this House went in for extravagance, but this time

  1377
  the Government were extravagant. The Lord Advocate would remember that under the Act of 1890 the payments to the Scotch Education Department instead of the fee grant were made upon the footing of eleven-eightieths of the amount given to England. They strongly objected to this principle, but the Government insisted that it was their proper share. This happened to be less than 10s. per head given to England by some £4,000 or £5,000. They had to take eleven-eightieths, but when their numbers in Scotland increased very largely, and it was seen that they would receive £4,000 or £5,000 more, the Department changed the rate from eleven-eightieths to 10s. per child in Scotland, which was the same rate as in England, with the result that Scotland lost by the change between £4,000 and £5,000 a year. The principle was that whenever eleven-eightieths produced a total sum lower than the 10s. per head, Scotland was given the former, and when 10s. per head produced a lower total than eleven-eightieths then the 10s. was adopted as the basis for Scotland. Supplementary Estimates for England had been brought in for some years, and Scotland was deprived of its share of eleven-eightieths. He had brought this matter under the notice of the Scotch Education Department, and he found that Ireland was in precisely the same position. He put the Irish Members up to this and they got their fair share. The Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to make up any deficiency in the fee grant to 12s., but what did they do with the £21,000 for that purpose? They put it into this account, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer got every penny of it back. The money was either surrendered to the Exchequer or the Chancellor of the Exchequer was relieved from the payment of those fee grants. In 1897 there was a contention that Scotland ought to get in respect of voluntary schools payments which would have amounted to £110,000; but an arrangement was put into operation by which it only got £66,000. Of this £66,000 they had not received £26,000, the sum which was to have been devoted to keeping up the capitation grant to 12s. The Lord Advocate had said that unless they got this £26,000 from the Chancellor of the Exchequer they could not make up the
  1378
  grant. What were the facts? In Committee on the Education (Scotland) Grants on the 21st of June, 1897, the Lord Advocate said—
  "You are only giving us £40,000. To that must be added £26,000 which was given—outside the Bill, no doubt, but it was given all the same—to keep up the grant to 12s. The hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Caldwell) did not seem to know that the money out of which that 2s. was paid was now exhausted, and accordingly if the Chancellor of the Exchequer did nothing for them they would not be able in future to pay the Scotch schools more than the 10s. per child which they now got directly, as in England.
  "The additional 2s. had been paid in the-past out of savings on the probable grant. But these savings were now eaten up, so that unless they got this £26,000 in the future from the Chancellor of the Exchequer they could not make up the grant."
  The fact was that ever since that time they had paid the 12s. entirely out of Scotch money, and there was not a penny on the Estimates for any deficiency to be made up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  There was one honest man in this House, though a very hard man, and he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was no use asking the Scotch Office anything, but he would quote to the House the answer given to him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a question put on 17th of July, 1900:—
  "This matter has not been dealt with on the basis of equivalent grants since a fee grant of 10s. per child throughout the United Kingdom was substituted for the equivalent grant system in 1897. Up to that time the Scotch Education Department had paid a fee grant, not of 10s., but of 12s. per child, partly out of an Exchequer grant and partly out of the residue of the Local Taxation Fund. It was thought that this fund could no longer make up the amount necessary to provide the additional 2s., and as part of the additional aid given to education in Scotland in 1897 we undertook that if it failed any deficiency should be made up to the Exchequer to an extent which was estimated by the Scotch Office at £26,000 as a maximum, but by the Opposition at no more than £18,000. Since that time, however, the continued productiveness of the share of the Death Duties which goes to the Scotch Local Taxation Fund has enabled that fund to bear the cost of the additional 2s. fee grant to-Scotland, and so the anticipated contribution from the Exchequer has not been required. I certainly cannot accept the view that we agreed to pay this £26,000, whether it was required or not; but the fact that it has not been required might, I think, be taken into account to some extent in considering the proposals for further expenditure on Scottish education that may be brought before me."

  1379
  What more could they expect him to say? How was it that that miscalculation was made? He was not going into the details, but he would explain to the Lord Advocate that he had been entirely misinformed. By the Act of 1890 free education in Scotland got the balance of the probate duty, customs, and excise duties, and that was continued up to the present moment to make up the equivalent necessary to keep up the Scotch fee grant to 12s. From the year 1890 up to the present time no more money had been needed to keep the fee grant up to that amount. That was the miscalculation which the Scotch Office fell into. Scotland got some other money from England at that time. The amount was to be 10s. per child, and it was allocated to other purposes by the Bill. The Act of 1892 repealed the balance which was being paid to the free education fund, but it was re-enacted, and the fee grant was left precisely as it stood before. As a matter of fact it was by means of the balance of the probate duty and the customs and excise duty, due to Scotland after certain fixed payments were made, that the capitation grant had been kept up. The result was that they had been paying the money necessary to make up the grant to 12s. a year entirely out of Scottish money. The Lord Advocate seemed to have been badgered a good deal at the time about this matter, for in July, 1897, he said—
  "In 1892, when in the intervening time free education had been granted to England at the rate of 10s. per head, Parliament thought fit to make an exchange between the two moneys, that was to say, it took away the old sum, which, being put into the local taxation account, was given out to pay the capitation grant of 12s. for educational purposes, and replaced it by a direct education grant, which was now calculated in precisely the same way as the English grant, namely, at 10s. per head."
  Then he goes on to say—
  "As a matter of fact, the proceeds of the original grant had been so exuberant that they had sufficient savings to make up the twelve shillings since 1892, although they were only getting ten shillings for the direct Parliament grant; but during those years they had spent their savings, and accordingly, by this year, if they had gone on without a further promise from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they would only have been able to pay exactly ten shillings per head. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, as they had been conducting their system in Scotland on the scale
  1380
  of twelve shillings, he would make up this two shillings out of the Imperial Treasury."
  Now, all that was absolute nonsense. They never got a penny more, and what they wanted was a Scotch Education Department which could understand the meaning of those Acts of Parliament. They had been promised £66,000 for education every year, but for four years they had got only £40,000, so that they had not received upwards of £100,000 which should have been spent for purposes of education in Scotland. So far as the change from eleven-eightieths to 10s. per head was concerned, the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that it was not fair to take the lowest total when it was against Scotland, and he said that if he was going to change the principle he would change it from the beginning.
  The Scotch Education Department would do nothing. The result was that they had to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he said, "Go to the Scotch Office," and so nothing was done. As he had pointed out, £100,000 had been lost to Scotland in the way described. He moved the reduction of the salary of the Secretary of the Department by £300.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £300."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  *MR. MAXWELLsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had referred to the position in Scotland as compared with England. He thought they might congratulate themselves on that. He was very glad to hear from the Lord Advocate that he intended to re-introduce on the earliest possible occasion an Education Bill on the lines of that of last session. There was very great need at the present time for the unification of education authorities in Scotland. Nothing showed more the interest of the Scotch people in education than the line they had taken with regard to secondary education. It appeared to him also that it was necessary to put secondary education on a proper footing. With regard to the new code, he did not share the fears of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark that it would be a dismal failure. He believed that all who took a practical interest in education in Scotland looked with favour

  1381
  on that new departure. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark seemed to think that the old system of payment by results was necessary to force the teacher to pay attention to the younger children. It appeared to him that in making a statement of that kind the hon. Member had a very poor opinion of the Scotch teacher. He did not think the Scotch teacher required any stimulus of that kind. If the merit certificate was to be regarded as the goal at which every Scotch child should aim, it was the teacher's interest to instruct the child so as to be able to take the certificate at as early an age as possible. In the Returns laid before Parliament it was very desirable that they should have figures with regard to the merit certificate and the labour certificate. The Lord Advocate had stated that 12,000 merit certificates were taken last year. Returns showing the number of pupils who had taken these certificates would indicate whether the new system was a success. Referring to the position of children in remote parts of the country, the hon. Member said they were at one time educated at a school in a central village, their board from Monday to Friday being paid by the school board. The accountant had, however, disallowed that charge on the ground that it was one the school board was not entitled to incur. The consequence was that school boards of large scattered parishes had been put to very serious difficulty. The only means they had to get over the difficulty was to employ a teacher to live in a remote district where there were perhaps half a dozen children. They thereby incurred very great expense, and towards meeting this expense the grants under Article 19 D (a) of the Code did not go very far. He urged upon the Lord Advocate the desirability of making some increase in these grants, for he believed, on the whole, school boards had tried to do their duty in this matter. He believed, as one who took considerable interest in educational matters, that a very great change indeed had been made by the introduction of the merit and labour certificates.
  *MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid the matter to which the hon. Member for Mid Lanark had called attention was not at all a trivial affair. It was not a light matter. In 1897, as the Committee would remember,
  1382
  he took a deep interest in opposing the proposals of the Government in reference to the distribution of the money. He ventured to point out then that the amount of the equivalent grant to which Scotland was entitled was £110,000 per annum. How was that argument met? It was met by a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that, once and for all, this equivalent grant had disappeared, and that Scotland need no more look for it under that head. The excuse given was that referred to by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark. It was then definitely announced that the sum of £66,000 would be paid by the Government to Scotland. Their complaint in Scotland now was this: that a Parliamentary pledge was given, but, unfortunately for Scotland, it had not been kept, and that instead of £66,000 they had only got £40,000, this diminution representing in four years a sum of over £100,000. The way in which that arose was very simple. It was proposed out of the £26,000 a year which ought to have been received to raise the capitation grant from 10s. to 12s. As events had turned out the extra 2s. had been provided out of entirely different sources—out of Scottish money pure and simple—and the grant from the Imperial Exchequer of £26,000 a year had not been made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted plainly that that Parliamentary pledge was given, and that in any readjustment of Scotch education finance that must be remembered in favour of Scotland. He wanted the Lord Advocate now in presence of the Committee to adhere to that pledge. Depend upon it, if this went on much longer, a sense of acute misfortune would grow in Scotland, because they held that they had been deprived of money for educational purposes to the extent of the difference between £40,000 and £110,000. per annum. It was not as if Scotland did not require it. They had claims ready to consume it. They had free education in the primary schools up to the age of fifteen, and he could imagine no better use for that money, if paid regularly, than that it should be applied in abolishing fees in the continuation schools.
  *SIR MARK STEWARTsaid Scotland was entitled to a considerable sum of arrears which, if

  1383
  paid, they could easily find a way of using. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in framing another Budget, would take this into account, and that Scotch Members would not have to make this protest year after year. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark had moved to reduce the salary of the secretary of the Department. The secretary was one of the most competent men in the public service, and had a thorough grasp of the whole system of Scotch education. It had been suggested that some allowance should be made in respect of children whose parents lived in remote districts. He hoped that matter would be considered before another year was over. Many a man had been forced to leave the situation where he had been for years in order to come to a town or village for the education of his children. That was surely a great hardship to subject a working man to. Otherwise he had to board his children out. With respect to the question of an appeal for teachers he asked the Lord Advocate if anything had been done. Of course the theory was that, if they gave the right of appeal from a school board direct, they would weaken the power and authority of the Board. He did not want to do that but he knew of very great hardship in the case of teachers who had been dismissed in a somewhat summary manner and no reasons given. He thought some way out of the difficulty might be found. There was no feeling that all boards were imperious, tyrannical, or harsh, but cases would occur where dismissals seemed vexatious. There were a few teachers whose tenure began before the Act of 1872 came into operation, and those men could only command comparatively small pensions as compared with teachers who came in at a later date. A strong feeling of hardship was felt in these cases. He knew that the Department had given some assistance, but he thought it might give a little more. He trusted the Lord Advocate would bring in the Scotch Education Bill of last Session again. He believed the Scotch people and Members were ready for the Bill; he did not say in the same form as last session, for he was aware there was strong opposition to the rating clause. If that difficulty could be got over it would be
  1384
  of great advantage to pass a good Education Act for Scotland to include this small Bill, or at any rate one clause of it.
  MR. J. WILSONhoped that the Lord Advocate would be able to announce that Scotland was to obtain the arrears to which she was entitled. These amounted to over £100,000, and they could use that sum exceedingly well. New buildings were required for the Glasgow and West of Scotland Technical College, and for that purpose £80,000 had already been contributed, but to provide suitable premises £180,000 was required.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid it would, perhaps, be convenient that he should now reply, not so much upon general matters as upon the point raised by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark. In the first place he wished to assure the hon. Member that he perfectly understood his remarks were not intended in any way as a personal attack on the present Secretary of the Department. So far as that official was concerned there was no change. It was quite true that his official salary, if they looked at the Estimates, seemed to have been raised from £1,200 to £1,500, but then in previous years he used to draw besides his salary of £1,200, a sum of £300 in respect of higher education. That sum was now included in his salary. The only additional sum which he drew, in respect of the greatly increased work of the Science and Art Department, was £150, but that was a personal and not a pensionable salary, and so far as his position as a pensionable officer was concerned he was really in precisely the same condition as on the Estimates of last year. Passing on to refer to the vexed question of arrears, to which the hon. Member for Mid Lanark had called attention, he said he did not know exactly how to deal with it, or in what manner to approach it. The Committee had no doubt listened with rapt attention to the figures unfolded to them by the hon. Member in his very best style. He thought he had heard the hon. Member's speech many times before. The hon. Member had gone back over the history of the funds, and he had told them of his own exertions in the matter, and of the long struggle in which he had

  1385
  been engaged with the view of setting the matter right. It would be a very simple matter if what the hon. Member for the Border Burghs said was correct, that there was a pledge given in 1897 by the Government that £66,000 should be granted to Scotland. Of course if there was a pledge given there would be nothing simpler than to ask the Government to redeem that pledge. But with great deference to the hon. Member for Mid Lanark and the hon. Member for St. Rollox Division, no such pledge was given. He did not want to defend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the hon. Member for Mid Lanark was most complimentary to the right hon. Gentleman. In fact he drew a rather unflattering contrast between the representative of the Scotch Office and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He spoke of the one as "honest and hard," and the other as "tricky and soft spoken." After all the Chancellor of the Exchequer scarcely deserved the encomium of "honest and hard," if it were the fact that he had never kept his pledge to the House that he would give £66,000 to Scotland. No such pledge was ever made. The view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that this was not a question of an equivalent grant at all. He would remind the Committee that the whole matter arose in 1897. In that year a large sum given to assist necessitous board schools and voluntary schools in England, and the claim was at once made that if England were to get this sum, Scotland ought to have something too. It was said that the proper way was simply to make an arithmetical calculation, and to give eleven-eightieths of the amount given to England to Scotland. It was said that there was a precedent for this. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer never admitted the principle of this claim, holding on the contrary that the principle of equivalent grant in the matter of education was perfectly absurd. The true position was to give equality of general treatment as between the two countries, and to hold that if either country could show that it had educational needs of the same class as were ministered to in the other country, it was fair to make a claim on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was no pledge to give the £26,000 which had
  1386
  been referred to; on the contrary, such a pledge would have been in opposition to the view that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took. At that time there was a wrong appreciation of the future as regarded what sum would be necessary to raise the Scotch grant from 10s. to 12s. per head. He (the Lord Advocate) had said that it was expected that it would come to £26,000 a year. As a matter of fact, they had not required to draw on that sum at all. But still they had the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if at any time the other funds were not sufficient the grant would be kept up to 12s. The probate duty had exceeded the most sanguine expectations, and it was through the failure to believe that the probate duty would ever come to the present very large sum that the miscalculation was made in 1897. He entirely denied that any sum was promised or any injustice done to Scotland if they once abandoned the inadmissible principle of there being an equivalent grant to another country when anything was given to one. If, on the whole, they found that Scotland was paid as much from the Imperial Exchequer as England, he could not see that upon that matter there was a Scottish grievance. Now, taking the total Imperial figures for 1900–01, he found that they were for England £8,667,745, and for Scotland £1,267,073. Taking the average attendance, the figures were, for England, £4,743,518; Scotland, £629,867. If they divided the sum by the number of scholars in average attendance, the capitation payment to England was £1 16s. 11½d. per head, and to Scotland £1 18s. 3¾d. He did not say that because Scotland got a little more England had a grievance—probably she earned it by extra efficiency. But on the other hand, it was absurd to say that Scotland was not treated as well as England. With regard to questions put to him by hon. Gentlemen behind him, concurrently with the increase of merit certificates, labour certificates had gone down very substantially. The subject of pupil teachers was occupying the attention of the Department, but it was a matter which would have to be dealt with by the two Educational Departments of Scotland and England. They could not have a different system on the

  1387
  two sides of the border, and they must have a concerted policy between the two Departments. In regard to the question of pensions, he realised that the older teachers regarded it as a hardship that they did not receive as much as those who came in now, but the terms were fixed by Act of Parliament, and the Department had no power to alter them.
  MR. HALDANEsaid they did not want to discuss the policy of equivalent grants, although there was a great deal to be said against them. This Amendment was based upon a special arrangement made in the year 1897, at a time when money was being given for voluntary schools in England, and in circumstances which made it a matter of moral obligation on the part of the Government to make a grant to Scotland at the same time upon the same footing, or at least to give a binding promise to that effect. But for that being done it would have been regarded as an intolerable
  grievance. It seemed plain enough that in the year 1897 what was tantamount to a solemn promise was given that £26,000 should be forthcoming for Scotch education. They now asked that that pledge should be repeated, and, as the Lord Advocate had not repeated it he thought the hon. Member for Mid Lanark had made out his case.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he had already categorically denied that there was any definite pledge.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he had betas reading carefully, as a whole, the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it appeared to him that the House was intended to understand that £26,000 would be forthcoming for Scotch education.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 98; Noes, 110. (Division List No. 181.)

  AYES.

  Allen, C. P. (Glouc. Stroud)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

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

  Ambrose, Robert

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.

  Asher, Alexander

  Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

  O'Doherty, William

  Austin, Sir John

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Bell, Richard

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Dowd, John

  Black, Alexander William

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Boland, John

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Malley, William

  Brigg, John

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  O'Mara, James

  Bryce, Rt. Hon James

  Hammond, John

  O'Shanghnessy, P. J.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Partington, Oswald

  Burns, John

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Caine, William Sproston

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Caldwell, James

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

  Rea, Russell

  Cameron, Robert

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Kinloeh, Sir John George Smyth

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Colville, John

  Leamy, Edmund

  Roche, John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leng, Sir John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Lundon, W.

  Tully, Jasper

  Crean, Eugene

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Ure, Alexander

  Crombie, John William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Wallace, Robert

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Daly, James

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Weir, James Galloway

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Mooney, John J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Delany, William

  Moss, Samuel

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Murphy, J.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Dillon, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Duffy, William J.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Mr. Thos. Shaw and Capt-

  Elibank, Master of

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sinclair.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B. (Hants

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Bigwood, James

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

  Helder, Augustus

  Purvis, Robert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Randles, John S.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffi'd, Brightside)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (W'rc'r

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Renwick, George

  Chapman, Edward

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Ridley, Hon. W. M (Stalybridge

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas Thomson

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Denny, Colonel

  Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Spear, John Ward

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

  Stroyan, John

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Finch, George H.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Garfit, William

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigton

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Montagu, (Huntingdon)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Wilson, Arthur S. (York, E. R.)

  Greene, Sir E W (Bury St Edm'ds

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Hain, Edward

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midd'x

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Sir William Walrond and

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Mr. Hayes Fisher.

  Original Question again proposed.
  [Mr. JEFFREYS, Hampshire, N., in the Chair.]
  *MR. BLACKdrew attention to the distribution of the equivalent grant for Scotland under the Local Taxation Act of 1898, under which it was agreed that a certain sum should be applied out of the equivalent grants to higher education in Scotland, in such manner as might be settled by the Scotch Education Department. In the allocation of the grant he pointed out that the Education Department had made serious mistakes, following a policy of encouraging higher schools in large towns to the exclusion of secondary education in rural districts. The traditional educational policy throughout Scotland had been to direct special attention to pupils in elementary schools carrying on their education in the same schools into the higher grade, and a policy which cut out the elementary schools was in absolute opposition to the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman professed to promote with such earnestness. In Banffshire there were more scholars over the compulsory age than in any other county in Scotland, and a good system of secondary education
  1390
  was carried out in Banffshire, producing excellent results, as he showed by quotations from reports. Yet the county was excluded from any share in the equivalent grant because it had no large-towns with higher grade schools. He suggested that the Department should have some regard to local circumstances and give assistance out of the equivalent grant, when it was assured good work was done in secondary education, even though there were no special secondary schools in the administrative area. This would be in harmony with educational traditions in Scotland, and not have the effect the present policy of the Department had of sending young people into the towns in search of secondary education. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries), be reduced by £100 in respect of the salary of the Secretary."—(Mr. Black.)
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Before the motion for the reduction is put, a point of order arises as to whether the hon. Gentleman can move this reduction. It is a complicated matter, and I do not quite know whether the hon. Gentleman understands it. The

  1391
  hon. Gentleman is speaking of money which is granted out of the local taxation account, and which does not come under this Vote at all. So far as the Education Department of Scotland is concerned, the Secretary is bound to allocate it in this way. It is impossible for us, as an administrative machine, to alter the distribution of this money, unless we bring in a new minute; that being so, I should like to ask whether, the money not really belonging to this Vote, a reduction can be moved.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that this was a matter which was within the full authority of the Scottish Department. They had it in their power to alter the distribution of this money by superseding the Minute under which the distribution was made by another. It had always been held that it was purely a matter of discretion.
  SIR MARK STEWAET, rising to a point of order, said that this matter appeared to him to come under the rule that nobody had a right to criticise a Minister for a thing which he had not done. One could only criticise a Minister's acts; no one could attack a Minister because he had not done something.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! As I understand, the hon. Gentleman does not propose to reduce the amount of the appropriation; he proposes to reduce the salary of the Secretary for Scotland, and therefore he would be in order.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The point raised by the hon. Member is the sum distributed under the Minute of April 27, 1899. The question is exceedingly complicated. The amount to which the hon. Member has referred is really a small contribution to the whole fund which is dedicated to secondary education. The principal nucleus of the fund devoted to that purpose is the £60,000 derived from the local taxation account of April, 1892. So far as that amount is concerned the hon. Member has no grievance as Banffshire gets its full share.
  *MR. BLACK: Have I not a grievance with regard to the rest?
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: If the hon. Member looks at tables 10 and 11 at the end of Report of the Education Department for Scotland, circulated this morning, pages 50 and 70, he will
  1392
  find the share which Banffshire gets; in other words, Banffshire gets its share, and if there is anything wrong in the way in which that share is distributed among the schools, the responsibility does not rest with the Secretary but with the County Committees. Besides that, there is a certain sum under the Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1898, which is distributed under the Minutes of the 27th of April, 1899, and 1st of May, 1900. I may remind my hon. friend that the policy of that Minute was fully discussed at the time, and it received the general approval of the education authorities of this House. The distribution of the money under that Minute, which, after all, is a very small sum, represents £37,000 allocated for higher education exhibitions and certificate examinations, £2,000. The hon. Member for Border Burghs is also an educationalist, and I am sure he thinks no money was ever better spent. Agricultural education; £2,000. That, surely, is not excessive. Then there is a grant under paragraph 3 of £25,000, and the rest is carried under paragraph 6 to the Committee. The hon. Member's real grievance comes under this sum of £25,000. He says that of that £25,000 Banffshire gets nothing. The paragraph in the Minute which deals with this money is paragraph 3, and that says this—
  "The remainder of the balance available under that section shall be applied in aid of such higher class secondary or technical schools in Scotland as are not in receipt of grants under the Scotch Code, provided that no aid shall be given to any school not being either a school under the same management as a State-aided school or a higher class public school, or a school managed under the provisions of any Act of Parliament, or scheme, or provisional order issued pursuant to an Act of Parliament."
  In other words, you are to give it not to private institutions, but public schools, but they must be higher class schools. This is for the purpose of helping secondary education, and surely it is more sensible than to spread this £25,000 over the whole of Scotland? It would be simply to fritter the money away to divide it pro rata among the different areas according to population. Nobody supposes that this Minute is anything more than a temporary arrangement, and the time has come for the rearrangement of the various sums

  1393
  devoted to secondary education; but the whole matter must be dealt with in a Bill. We are anxious and wishful to introduce a Bill at the earliest possible moment; and it would be most unjust if the salary of the Secretary was reduced because we could not at once sweep away all these schools.
  *MR. THOMAS SHAWexpressed his agreement with the remarks of the Lord Advocate. He believed it was better that this money should be directed to specific secondary institutions than spread over the secondary branches of primary institutions, as it would be under the scheme adumbrated in the Amendment.
  MR. BRIGG (Yorkshire, W.R., Keighley)said there was no worse thing than to make a fine division between the elementary part of instruction and that which in this country was called the higher grade system. He was not prepared to go into details, nor was he disposed to accept the Lord Advocate's declaration that there was no power in the Department to deal with the question. If there was not, there ought to be.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I did not say there was no power. I said it could not be done without an alteration of the Minute.
  MR. BRIGGsaid that was the very point. Scotland set an example to the rest of the country, and they should be supported when they advocated that these higher schools should be amply supported.
  MR. PARKER SMITHthought the proposal was a most retrograde one. It failed to distinguish between lower secondary schools and mere higher departments of ordinary schools. Certain Members, such as the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, always had the feeling that money was wasted if it went higher than a certain level. They believed it ought to be spread equally over the whole country, and that justice demanded that every school and every child should have an equal amount of attention. It seemed to be thought that the true principle was to begin with the very lowest, and to level the lowest up to the level of the next stratum, and to pay no attention to the higher needs of
  1394
  children to whom a real secondary education might be given until the impossible task of levelling up the strata below had been accomplished. For a long time there was jealousy over the expenditure of any money whatever in regard to higher and secondary education, but now he was glad to recognise there was a greater tendency to acknowledge the separate needs of secondary education. He regarded the principle of securing an effective education as far as they could go for the children whom they could not carry beyond a certain stage, and of giving a higher and better style of education to those who could go on to secondary schools, as infinitely more valuable than that of giving to every locality an equal share of the money. It was known from the very first that there would be jealousy of the great centres on the part of localities, but it was felt that if the money was equally divided among the localities it would be wasted. It would simply help the higher departments of elementary schools, and would not really develop and carry on secondary schools as they ought to be. There was the local jealousy which had been put forward in an extremely crude form by the hon. Member for Banffshire, but it was impossible to have effective secondary schools in the more remote parts; they must be concentrated in particular localities. The children who were fit to profit by higher education should have the best means and opportunities of getting that education, and should not be hampered by the consideration that other children, who were not equally fitted for development, did not get an equal amount of money spent upon them. That kind of equality was not desired, but it was desired that everybody should have exactly equal opportunities to enjoy the benefit of education, and to rise to the highest education the country could give. The old parish schools did the very best that could be done for the children at that time, but there certainly was not that equality of attention given to each child which the hon. Member for Mid Lanark desired. It was the common and proverbial reproach that the stupid children were neglected, while the dominie employed himself in the more congenial task of developing and carrying on the one clever boy who happened to be with him, and in giving him the secondary education

  1395
  which often led from the crofter's cottage to the university. That was how education was discriminated in those days. We had now advanced to a different point in the scale. It was not necessary to neglect the stupid boy in order that the clever boy might get to the secondary school, and from there, through bursaries and other means, be carried to the university. To adopt the scheme suggested would be to throw back the whole educational system of Scotland, and to set up one country against another. They were now getting rid of the trammels of the old Code, and were reaching a state of greater freedom in the distribution of money for educational purposes. To upset a Minute which was doing first-rate work, and which had developed secondary education in the country, not on account of any general criticism or of any faults in the system, but merely because Banffshire did not get an adequate share of the plunder, would be a truly retrograde action, and one which he could not believe the House of Commons would ever sanction.
  *MR. BLACKdenied that this was a mere matter of local jealousy. The feeling was not confined to any one locality, but was spread all over Scotland. It was not a question of whether one locality received less money than another; it was whether they were to have some secondary education, or none at all. Many of the pupils had not the means to leave their homes and to go to these centres of population, and unless the needs of the several localities were considered according to some principle of local option, a very large number of persons who, under a proper arrangement, would receive adequate secondary education, although perhaps not so advanced as might be given in large centres, would receive none at all. That was the issue before the Committee. He repudiated the suggestion that this was a mere matter of local jealousy. It was a matter of importance to the whole education of Scotland. The Lord Advocate had referred to the miserable sum available. It was a miserable sum. A great deal more money was needed for the purpose, and he hoped the Lord Advocate would be able to give them satisfactory assurances when he introduced his Education Bill that the amount would be
  1396
  increased. He asked leave to withdraw his Amendment, expressing the hope that the Lord Advocate would give full weight to the arguments which had been adduced.
  *MR. J. A. CAMPBELLhad a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. Member in regard to the schools in Banffshire. There was no county in which better work had been done in the higher departments of the ordinary schools. He trusted that that work would continue, and that neither the Government nor the Scotch Education Department would cease to encourage the advanced education in ordinary schools in places where there was no higher class school convenient. But the matter before the Committee was the application of a particular sum of money, not very large in amount, and the question was as to-how it could best be applied for the promotion of secondary education. The higher class schools in Scotland, having no Government grants under the Code, were more in need of assistance than any other, and therefore he thought the Department had a good case in confining their attention in the distribution of this moderate sum of money to those schools.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  *MR. WEIRsaid there were two or three grievances in connection with the Highland schools to which he wished to call attention. In the case of the school at Ullapool, there were three years arrears of the annual grant of £60, formerly paid by the governors of the Trust for Education in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Although not a large amount in itself, to this small school it was of considerable importance. In 1897 the clerk to the school board was instructed to send a communication with reference to the grant, but failed to do so. Three years afterwards the authorities swooped down upon the school board, and said that because they had failed to do certain things this grant was to be withdrawn. Why was not a communication made at an earlier period? The school rate at Ullapool was 7d. or 8d. in the £1, but if the board had to call upon the ratepayers for this amount the rate

  1397
  would go up to 16d. or 17d. Such an action, however, would be illegal. What did the Lord Advocate propose the school board should do? He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that the money would be paid. With regard to Highland schools generally, he complained that children were taught in schools which were in an unsanitary condition. The buildings were not properly ventilated, and there was not an adequate water supply. Sanitary inspectors reported upon the deficiencies, but no attention was paid to their reports by the Scottish Education Department. Many of the schools had no cloak-room, and the wet clothes of the children, instead of being dealt with systematically, were bundled pell-mell one on top of another. If the managers failed to provide proper accommodation it was the duty of the inspectors to report these matters to headquarters. It was the business of the secretary of this Department to arrange matters. Probably they would be told that it was the school board managers who had not performed their duty. He would remind the Committee that in the Highlands of Scotland, in Ross and Cromarty, there were 6,000 heads of families who had no votes because their rent happened to be under £4 a year. He knew he would be out of order in discussing that point, but he wished to point out that those people were disfranchised through no fault of their own. In many of the schools which he had visited he found that the infants were compelled to sit for hours on forms without backs. [Ministerial laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laughed, but he had gone round the schools with doctors who were higher authorities on this subject than hon. Members opposite who laughed, and they had informed him that it was a very serious thing for young children to sit for hours on forms without any back. On behalf of those little children he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to take some steps to remedy this state of things. He thought the scholars should be given a better knowledge of agriculture. What possible chance was there under the present system for boys and girls to get any knowledge of handicrafts or of agriculture? There were scarcely any industries in the Highlands, and he thought that more attention
  1398
  should be paid to agriculture. The Secretary for Scotland was most anxious that the young men of Scotland should go abroad. But if they did send them abroad, why not send them properly equipped? What was the use of sending them abroad without a knowledge of building construction? He knew they would not all stay in the Highlands, but they should be educated so as to give them a chance, when they went to other lands or into the large cities, of earning a living, not merely as hewers of wood and drawers of water, but as skilled workmen. The late Mr. Gladstone was of the opinion that more attention should be paid to handicrafts in the Highlands, and Lord Rosebery was of the same opinion. He trusted that some attention would be paid to these matters.
  With regard to inspectors' holidays he knew of one inspector who had not had a single day's holiday for two years. That was a matter which ought to be arranged better by the Secretary to the Department. It was his business to see that those gentlemen who worked so hard should have a reasonable holiday every year. He begged to move a reduction of £500 on the Vote in respect of the salary of the Secretary to the Educational Department. If the right hon. Gentleman gave a satisfactory reply he would withdraw his motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £500, in respect of the Salary of the Secretary."—(Mr. Weir.)
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that before the Lord Advocate replied he wished to put forward a complaint on behalf of the Leith School Board, of which he had given the right hon. Gentleman notice. He thought he would be able to show that the money which should have been devoted to Scottish education might have been, at any rate, usefully spent. The obligations contracted by the State had been so modified by the financial effects of the Code of 1899 that the basis upon which educational progress in Leith had been founded was greatly affected. Under the new Code there would be a loss of rather more than 1s. 6d. per head in Leith, amounting to a total of £700 a year. The Leith Academy, which was working admirably before the new Code

  1399
  was adopted, had now been disorganised. Before the change 122 out of 161 pupils obtained merit certificates, but the year following the change only 93 out of 240 went up to the higher classes. There had been an increase of staff at this Academy, which was called for under the new regulations, and the cost of this increase would be between £300 and £400 a year. The school board rate would rise from 1s. 2d. to at least 1s. 5d., and perhaps to 1s. 6d. The Leith School Board foresaw what the consequence of the new Code would be, and they made representations to the Department, which he was asked to support. The Department thought otherwise, but the worst fears of the board had been realised under the new Code. The progress of education in Leith during the sixteen years he had represented Leith Burghs had been remarkable. In 1885 the schools rate was 4d. in the £, but in 1899 it was 1s. 3d. The accommodation for children, which was very small in 1885, had now become quite adequate. In 1885 the number provided for was 5,213, but in 1899 there was accommodation for 13,428. The average grant earned per scholar in 1885 was 17s. 11½d., but this had increased in 1899 to £1 5s. 5½d. The total expenditure per scholar in average attendance in 1885 was £1 14s. 6d., but in 1899 it was £3 6s. 9¾d. The cost of staff per school in 1885 was£1 7s. 8d. and in 1899 £2 7s. 9d. In 1885 the cost to the rates per scholar was 7s. 7½d., but in 1899 it was £1 3s. 1¾d. Those figures showed that very large burdens had been placed upon the community during the past fifteen years. The rates of the locality had been trebled while the Government grants had only been advanced by one-third. The cheerfulness with which the burden of the rates had been borne testified to the confidence in the board, and he could praise the board with all the less reserve because it had been composed of gentlemen who did not agree with him in politics. The work which the board had done would not have been done had it not indulged in perfect confidence as to the stability of contracts made under the Code. The more obvious causes of the loss were the redistribution of grants in favour of smaller boards, and the consolidation of areas which needed assistance. If the smaller boards required assistance, why
  1400
  should it be given at the expense of the rates in Leith or at the expense of the Department's reputation for continuity of policy?
  Another reason for the deficiency was doubtless the amalgamation of the Science and Art Department with the Scottish Education Department. No doubt some of those economies, on account of overlapping, were in the public interest, but one of those economies was the lowering of the status of the school of science in Leith to that of a higher grade school. By this agreement with the Department the board was bound "to equip and continue in perpetuity part of the academy as a science and art school." And yet, when a deputation of the school board met the Department to discuss this change of status to a higher grade school, it was told that the status of the academy was largely a Treasury matter, and that the Treasury had insisted on the change. Therefore, after spending £20,000 on this institution unnecessarily, the board lost it as grant-earning expenditure. That expenditure would not have been incurred unless the school of science had been approved of by the Department. The inference was that at the time the Department was hard up, and it had been cutting its coat by the Treasury cloth. The inevitable result of the policy of the Government was that voluntary schools had been subsidised and voluntary subscriptions diminished, whilst their national Scotch system had been left stranded in order to find a national subsidy to a Church school or to relieve people who would not rate themselves for educational purposes. That he believed was the real origin of the injustice from which Leith now suffered.
  He would briefly condense the points of the board's case. On the 24th of March, 1899, the board expressed its apprehension to the Department as to what the consequences of the New Code would be. It stated also that on the faith of the Department's Circular of the 19th August, 1898, it established a science school. It was surprised to find that the 17s. 6d. limit would apply, although the Circular letter implicitly stated that it would not apply. That limit was applied, in spite of the specific assertion in the Circular that it would not be. The Department stated that

  1401
  it gave the board the option of continuing the institution as a school of science, but the condition of the Department and financial exigencies rendered that impossible. The board had no option but to accept the higher grade scheme, with all its limitations and loss of grant-earning power. The higher grade schools were a new feature in Edinburgh, whilst the Leith School of Science was in full swing when the board was compelled to upset all its arrangements by this new system of a higher grade school. The board believed that if they were to restore the name it would increase the attendance, and they indicated that the test for merit certificate seemed to be applied to Leith with extraordinary rigour. The percentage of passes varied from 94·7 in Dumfries to 41·2 in Leith, and yet all the Leith schools had otherwise earned the highest possible grants, and received the most excellent reports. The correspondence between the board and the Department had been circulated, and he would not weary the House with long extracts from the correspondence beyond quoting the following assurance given him by the board regarding the science school—
  "The preparation of the plans, the provision of fittings and equipment, the preparation of the various schemes of work, and the appointment of teachers, etc., were all carefully considered, and brought into line with Government regulations existing at the time.
  "No part of the work was entered upon, because of the board holding views of their own as to the method of making educational provision. The desire of the board has all along been to carry out the spirit of Government regulations. All the board's schemes and plans have been submitted to, and approved by, the Department, so that were the Department to adopt a course in any way condemnatory of the construction of the academy or of any scheme of education, elementary or advanced, in Leith, they would in effect be censuring their own work."
  The petition of the Leith School Board was that it had—
  "1. Had to spend some £20,000 on the science school, which might have been saved had it been equipped at first as a higher grade school;
  "2. Has suffered a loss of over £700 (equal to 1s. 6¼d. per scholar in average attendance) for the year 1900, while for some inexplicable reason it has not received the extra 6d., under Article 19 B(2).
  "3. Has since the 1899 Code had to expend between £300 and £400 additional in respect of an increased number of teachers rendered necessary by that Code; and
  1402
  "4. Has suffered not only in grant-earning power, as already mentioned, but also indirectly from the change in the status of the school, which has been largely the cause of the great decrease in the number of scholars going into the higher departments after having secured the merit certificate."
  The board represented that the recent policy of the Education Department was calculated to shake the confidence of school boards in the continuity of departmental policy and so prejudice the cause of education, and they would urge that such alterations be made as might make it possible for the schools of the board to earn as much in future as they were able to do prior to the Code of 1899. On these grounds he strongly urged that the Department should once and for all decide what its educational policy should be, so that in incurring large expenditure for educational purposes all boards might know that they could depend upon the continuity and the stability of contracts entered into with the State. He had never before, that he could recollect, had occasion to address the House on any local grievance with respect to his constituency in the last sixteen years, but he felt bound to represent the cause of education in Leith, which he thought had suffered not only at the hands of the Department, but also, in common with the rest of Scotland, at the hands of the Government.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The grievances of Leith may be practically divided under two heads. The first complaint is that they have not received as much and they have had to spend more-under the New Code than they would have had to do under the old. The second complaint is as to the science school. In the correspondence to which the hon. Member has referred, the Leith School Board wrote to the Department to the effect that they anticipated the effect of the New Code, would be to raise their rates from 1s. 2d. to 1s. 5d. or 1s. 6d., and they attributed this increase to the action of the Department. I am able to show that the total loss of grants over all the-schools of the Leith School Board is something less than £400, while the only additional expenditure which the board specifically urge as due to the action of the Department is the expenditure of £300 or £400 to increase the number of teachers instituted by the change. These

  1403
  amounts would represent about a halfpenny rate in Leith. Therefore, I think it is abundantly clear that an increase of 3d. or 4d. in the £1 in the rates is not entirely due to the action of the Department. But, apart from this and upon general grounds, the changes made in the Code of 1899 were, as the hon. Member knows, made in pursuance of a general educational policy. Putting aside for the moment what is, after all, the real justification of our action, namely, the educational advantage of the new system as against payment by results, the effect as a mere instrument of getting money out of that milch cow the Treasury has been decidedly favourable to the schools of Scotland. For the year previous to last year under the old Code the sum per head extracted from the Imperial Exchequer in grants was £1 2s. 1¾d., but in the year which has just passed under the New Code the amount per head is represented by £1 2s. 4d. Therefore, quite apart from the educational policy—although that is the justification of the whole proceeding—if you look upon it as a mere question of how much you get for Scotland out of the Treasury, the New Code has been a gain to Scotland and not a loss. The hon. Gentleman when speaking of Leith felt that he could not altogether forget that. He merely said that the New Code had been of benefit to many of the smaller boards in Scotland. I assure you it has been of benefit not only to the smaller boards, but, on the contrary, to a great many of the larger boards. I notice in the report of the Committee on School Work—the work of the board schools in 1899–1900 in Edinburgh—the following passage—
  "The grant per scholar last session, calculated on an average attendance of 28,866, was £1 4s. 2d. The previous session, on an average attendance of 28,314, it was £1 3s. 7¼d. It will be seen, on reference to the analysis of His Majesty's Inspectors' Reports, that the increase over the previous session is almost wholly due to the large grants earned in the Higher Grade Departments of Broughton and Bruntsfield schools which amounted to £3 9s. 3¼d. and £3 6s. 2½d. respectively per scholar. The schools which were inspected under the old regulations, i.e., the Code of 1898, earned an average grant per scholar of £1 3s. 9d, while those schools inspected under the Code of 1899 earned £1 5s. 5½d. per scholar. The total amount of grants actually earned for the session was £34,899 9s. 1d., compared with £33,420 17s. 1d. for the previous session."
  1404
  A larger town even than Leith is now in a position to see the effect of this Code, which, it has found, has been entirely to our advantage in getting money out of the Treasury. After all, these regulations are entirely general in their character, and if it is a matter of fact that Leith has not got as much as she used to get, and that Leith has suffered from regulations of that character, it must be, I think, because it has had a smaller number of advanced scholars according to the school population. Now, I believe one other argument that was used was that a fewer number entered in 1899 in the secondary departments. But before 1899 pupils were entered into the secondary department without any preliminary test either as regards age or qualification. In the succeeding year there was introduced a perfectly reasonable test—the merit certificate examination—and I am afraid that there again the only inference about Leith one can draw is that in the past it included as secondary scholars a class who ought not really to have been considered as secondary scholars at all, and as soon as they were subjected to the test of the merit certificate they did not secure their status as secondary scholars. So far on the question of grants. I turn now to the higher grade department. That after all is merely a question of organisation. I have already explained to the Committee how the system has changed, and how we are now distributing together the money which we used to distribute to continuation schools, and the money we used to distribute under grants of the Science and Art Department. That will no doubt make an essential difference in some places, but the real difficulty in Leith lies in something quite else. The so-called school of science in Leith was not a separate school at all. It was only a section of the secondary department of a public school taught by the same teachers. In the New Code of 1899 provision is made by giving grants on the Parliamentary Votes to those public schools that made science a prominent feature in their curriculum. The only grants for science which can be made to a school which is a public school are the parliamentary grants. If a board is dissatisfied with the status of a school

  1405
  as a public school they can adopt, if they choose, the method described in the Act of 1872, and convert it into a higher grade school. In that case they would forfeit the parliamentary grant, but what they cannot do—though they would like to do it, and the grievance is that they cannot do it—is that they cannot have a school at one and the same, time a higher class and a scientific school. When we come to the money they spend, that is really very difficult to follow, for this reason, that the money spent on this school is inextricably mixed up with the technical school or the school of art. The truth really seems to be that perhaps we have been too sanguine as to the nature of the grants in general, and the Leith board seems to have spent a little too much money, and the only way they can get that back is to increase the number of pupils receiving advanced instruction; but there I am afraid they are probably hampered by a tendency which, I think, exists—the hon. Member will know more about it than I can tell him—which is that there are, I think, a good many parents in Leith and Edinburgh who will not retain their children at school to the age of sixteen or seventeen, because they prefer to send them to other schools that are not free schools. You will always find that in a well-to-do place like Leith, for very obvious reasons. There they cannot unfortunately have their school both a public school and a higher class school. I hope that disposes of the case of Leith.
  I now come to certain very varied matters that were brought to my notice by the hon. Member for Ross-shire. There were a good many of them in which really it was somewhat difficult to follow him.
  *MR. WEIR: Shall I go over them again?
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I do not mean it is difficult to follow him in that sense, but I mean it is a little difficult to make out how the permanent secretary of the Education Department is to cope with the matters of which he complains. For instance, he complains that there are many Highland schools where the children have no cloak-rooms, and where constantly they have to keep on wet garments. Well, all these matters, of course, in regard to proper school accommodation
  1406
  are matters primarily for the school boards, but really, to expect the Secretary of the Education Department to know the condition of all the cloakrooms in every school in the Highlands is rather, I think, to credit that admirable official with more argus eyes than he is generally provided with. It is said, "Why did he not find out that children were sent to school in an infectious state?" He would, indeed, have an extraordinary prophylactic power if, sitting in Dover Street, he could say that a child had returned to school sooner after an attack of measles than he ought. These matters savoured more of public health than of education, and must be treated to the best of our ability by the resources that are open to us on the spot. If there is any specific case, any Member who does not shrink from putting questions might bring it before the notice of the House. I am sure we should not consider the subject too trivial, and we would be able to look into even the smallest matter. But as to the general complaint, without chapter and verse, I really do not know, even after this debate, what I could tell my friend the Secretary of the Education Department. The hon. Gentleman compared the number who were learning Greek and Latin with the number learning book-keeping and various other more modern studies—[Mr. WEIR: Agriculture]—agriculture, and so on. He spoke of the difficulty of young men from the Lews going out into the world without being properly equipped. I did not gather from him that those 6,704 who were learning languages were learning them in the Lews, and although the general sentiment as to the propriety of being instructed in agriculture and so on is very proper, it is obviously quite impossible to give a thorough curriculum in all these subjects in all the elementary schools in the Kingdom, which are the institutions we are now discussing. I would remind the hon. Member that technical instruction is just one of those things my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland is very anxious to take into the work of the Congested Districts Board. I hope he will be able to do it in an amending Act.
  I think I have gone through what I may call the multifarious subjects to which the hon. Member called

  1407
  attention. I come to the specific complaint as regards the school at Ullapool. I may say in passing, of course, that the Secretary for the Education Department, on whose salary he moves a reduction, is only very incidentally implicated in this affair at all, because he has only got what I may call an advisory position. The real parties are the Governors of the Trust for Education in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Now, these persons are a statutory body, and they act under a scheme which allows them to give grants, and, of course, they are bound by the conditions of the scheme. Under Section 33 of their scheme there is this—
  "The governors shall at once reduce or withdraw a grant if they are satisfied that it is not being applied in accordance with the provisions of this section, or the conditions made by them; provided always that if the goyerning body of the school have incurred any special obligations on the faith of the grant, it shall be competent to them to appeal to the Scotch Education Department, and in that case the consent of the Scotch Education Department shall be necessary to the withdrawal or reduction of the grant."
  That is the only way in which the Scotch Education Department comes in. The gravamen of the hon. Member's charge was that there were no auditors, as in England, that matters were allowed to slide for three years, and that at the end of three years they pounced on these unfortunate people. Let me tell the Committee how matters exactly stand. In 1891 the school board made application to the governors for a grant to Ullapool school, and on particulars furnished by the school board a grant was made, subject to the further conditions drawn up in respect of that school. These further conditions contained this—
  "That the school board should maintain such a teaching staff as should be fully adequate to give efficient instruction in the higher subjects."
  In 1895 the governors began to have suspicions that the staff was not as it ought to be, and acordingly they wrote to the school board requesting them to increase the expenditure to the extent of £100, and intimating that if they did not do it the grant would be taken away next year. In answer to that they received a letter in 1896, which contained the following—
  "In compliance with the request of the governors, the expenditure on the school staff
  1408
  has been increased, and my Board propose to still further increase it this year."
  Surely this is a sufficient answer to the charge of the hon. Member that the governors were letting matters slide and not looking into them. I do not know what else the governors could do. If you get a letter back from the authorised clerk of a school board you cannot suppose that it is written behind the backs of those for whom he professes to write. The governors' suspicions were again aroused, and they pointed out that the expenditure had been altogether inadequate. They got an answer to that which they did not consider satisfactory, and they wrote again and informed the school board that they could not go on with the grant until they had had an inspection by one of their own number. Well, they did inspect, and found that the teaching was utterly inadequate. What happened then? I think the school board then really saw their own position. Now I quote from a letter which the chairman of the school board himself wrote. He says—
  "I frankly admit that for years the School Board of Lochbroom received grants without fully implementing the conditions on which they were received. I further admit that when you first wrote the late clerk of the board that you got an evasive and inaccurate reply, but the matter was never submitted to the board, which only recently came to know the whole facts. I know well that a school board is a corporate body, and legally responsible for the action of its predecessors."
  *MR. WEIR: What is the date of that letter?
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The date is December, 1899. When you get that confession from the people themselves, can the hon. Member come here and say it is the fault of the Scotch Education Department that they did not interfere with the governors for having stopped the grant for two years?
  *MR. WEIR: Three years.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: No, two, I understand. It says two in the Papers I have got. I cannot help thinking that the Committee will not consider, after the explanation I have given, that in this matter, at any rate, there was very much cause for criticism of the action of the Secretary of the Education Department.
  *MR. WEIRsaid he did not refer to scarlet fever or any other fever at Ulla-

  1409
  pool, but in the whole of the Highlands of Scotland. He hoped that this business would be attended to. He was not satisfied with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. Reference had been made to Section 33 of the scheme under which the governors acted. Why did the governors not "reduce or withdraw" the grant at once when they found the teaching staff was inadequate? They allowed three years to pass. The governors ought to have stopped it at once, so that the school board of Ullapool might know where they were. The right hon. Gentleman had not pointed out any way for relieving the school board of the difficulty. It would be illegal to impose a rate for these arrears. The Secretary of the Department should have placed on the governors the duty of seeing that the work was properly attended to instead of allowing three years to pass, with the result that the Ullapool board had got into this difficulty. He regretted that in consequence of the unsatisfactory reply he could not possibly withdraw the motion.
  Question put.
  The Committee proceeded to a Division.
  MR. Weirwas appointed a Teller for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as second Teller, the Chairman declared that the Noes had it.
  Original question again proposed.
  *MR. WEIRsaid he wanted some information as to the item of £250 for counsel for legal work. Why was the work not carried on at Dover House by the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor General for Scotland? Who was this gentleman, receiving £250 per year as
  counsel to the Scotch Education Department?
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid he was sorry the time of the Committee should be occupied by those frivolous objections.
  *MR. WEIRmoved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £250 in respect to the salary of junior counsel.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £250, in respect of the salary of counsel."—(Mr. Weir.)
  *THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that there had always been a counsel for the Scotch Education Department. The gentleman was junior counsel and a Scotch advocate in practice. The hon. Member for Ross-shire asked why he or the Solicitor General for Scotland did not do the work. It was for the simple reason that the Scotch Education Department, like other Departments, was entitled to have a junior counsel for ordinary advice in legal matters.
  *MR. WEIRsaid there was no information as to whether this legal gentleman was established in Dover House or in Edinburgh. The Lord Advocate's explanation was most unsatisfactory, and there was no reason why, because it had been paid for a number of years, this salary should be continued to be paid, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asking for economy in every Department. The work should be done in Dover House, and after the uncourteous manner with which his inquiry had been treated he would insist on going to a division.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 63; Noes, 161. (Division List No. 82.)

  AYES.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Ambrose, Robert

  Delany, William

  Lundon, W.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dillon, John

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Boland, John

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Brigg, John

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Mooney, John J.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Burns, John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Moss, Samuel

  Caldwell, James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murphy, J.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Colville, John

  Gilhooly, James

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Hommond, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Crean, Eugene

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Cullinan, J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvons.)

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

  Daly, James

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Doherty, William

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Tully, Jasper

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

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  O'Dowd, John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Roche, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  O'Malley, William

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Mr. Weir and Mr. William

  O'Mara, James

  Sullivan, Donal

  Redmond.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Flower, Ernest

  Partington, Oswald

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Garfit, William

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Asher, Alexander

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Purvis, Robert

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Randles, John S.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Greene, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bain, Col. James Robert

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ry SEdm'nds

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

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

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Renwick, George

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

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridge

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ritchie, Rt Hon Chas. Thomson

  Beach, Rt Hn. W. W. B. (Hants.

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Bell, Richard

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

  Ropner, Col. Robert

  Bigwood, James

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bill, Charles

  Helder, Augustus

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Black, Alexander William

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Bond, Edward

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Brassey, Albert

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.)

  Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Bull, William James

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Spear, John Ward

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.)

  Leveson-Gower. Frederick N. S.

  Stroyan, John

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol S.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. Jas. (Kent)

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

  Chapman, Edward

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Ure, Alexander

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cranborne, Viscount

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Crombie, John William

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Dewar, John A. (Iverness-sh.)

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Durning-Lawrenee, Sir Edwin

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord

  Faber, George Denison

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Morris, Hn. Martin Henry F.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute

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

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

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

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Finch, George H.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Sir William Walrond and

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Mr. Hayes Fisher.

  Original Question again proposed.
  *MR. C. M. DOUGLASsaid he wished to obtain, if possible, some declaration of policy from the Government in regard to the training of teachers in Scotland. A new departure, was inevitable and essential, and it
  1412
  rested with the Government to say what their new policy was going to be and what changes were to be made. The majority of Scotch Members would agree with him that in this, as in almost every matter concerning Scotch education, they were happily able

  1413
  to exclude the religious difficulty. They had a system of compromise which worked with moderate satisfaction to the great majority of the people of Scotland, although, in his opinion, it inflicted a certain degree of injustice on the Roman Catholics in Scotland. There was no keenly felt animosity in any considerable section of Scottish opinion against the denominational character of the Scottish training colleges, but it was perfectly plain that a great reform of these institutions was essential in order to meet the demand for school teachers. The churches of Scotland could not be expected to contribute largely to putting the training colleges on a proper educational footing; and, in fact, they did not recognise any binding obligation on them to raise the standard of efficiency of their training colleges.
  In these circumstances there were only two alternative lines of progress open, namely, to reinforce the existing colleges and improve their equipment, or by some administrative change to associate the training of teachers more closely with the higher education of the country. He confessed he was altogether sceptical as to the first, and he would look with very grave suspicion on the management of the training colleges in Scotland directly from Dover House. He should look with greater hope to the increased use of the facilities offered by the Scottish universities. That was a process that was now going on, stimulated, he most willingly acknowledged, by the wise policy of the Education Department. The sanction of the Education Department to the attendance of training colleges' students at the universities was obtained in 1874, when there were only thirty-three students at the universities. In 1896 there were 246, in 1897 320, and in 1898 380. That was the policy, the advancement of which would, he believed, solve the difficulties they were in. In the first place, training colleges were extravagant institutions; he did not mean extravagantly managed, but the system was extravagant. The average student cost for teaching £28 a year, whereas the average student at Glasgow University—a man reading the classics, philosophy, and the very expensive studies of science
  1414
  and medicine—cost only £16, about half the cost in the training colleges. That was not due to wasteful management, but to the fact that the system was a wasteful and extravagant one to work. Again, the educational results produced in the training colleges, excellently managed as they were in their own way, were very unsatisfactory. In the first place, it was plain that the best students were entirely dependent for the best of their teaching on the universities, and yet they could not really belong to the universities. They were in the universities, but not of them. Their life in them was not the principal part of their educational existence; and it was in the nature of the case that students working in two entirely different types of institutions should frequently find a collision in their minds between their work at the universities and at the colleges. He did not for a moment mean that there was any friction between the authorities of the universities and the training colleges. He thought that by discretion on both sides that had always been largely avoided, and could now be said not to exist, but there was the difficulty that the students were working for two sets of people not in close relation with each other. Training college education tended in the nature of the case to be narrow and mechanical. It consisted chiefly in a close and somewhat mechanical instruction in the narrow range of subjects afterwards to be taught, and he doubted if it tried to produce anything that might be called a broad or generous scholarship. He very much doubted whether that very grave defect could be remedied in the existing institutions. Inspected as they were, they could not hope to get rid of the tendency to substitute cramming for education, or of their narrow spirit of professionalism, and they could not attain to the quality of the education given in the universities. They could not afford to employ the same class of men and the same high type of scholar as the universities; they had not the intellectual breadth or the social advantages of the universities; and they could not give the same idea of the academic method of learning and teaching.
  There was a further consideration of importance connected with the greater introduction of teachers to the universities.

  1415
  He believed it would constitute a greater and more substantial advance than any other step could constitute in the social position of the teachers. All who knew anything about Scottish education recognised that one of the greatest difficulties to which it was exposed was the extreme difficulty of providing an adequate staff of teachers. From his own experience of Scottish students he could not resist the conviction that that was in a large measure due to a certain sense of inferiority that existed, wrongly and foolishly enough, in the minds of many people with respect to teachers, but especially teachers in the public elementary schools. He was glad to think that that feeling was disappearing, and it was most important that they should do all they could to hasten its disappearance. He was certain that a University education received with men destined for other professions—the future minister or lawyer or doctor—would do more than anything else to affect the social status of the teaching profession.
  He would not theorise, but refer to facts. As he would remind the Committee, in 1896 there began a rapid and, as he thought, a fortunate increase in the number of training college students attending the universities, and he believed that the Committee would agree with him that it was something more than a mere coincidence that the number of men students attending the training colleges during the two years in which that great development took place increased by fifty per cent. Up to that time the inspectors had noticed, with apprehension and dismay, that the number of men applying for admission to the training colleges was steadily falling, but with an increased use of University opportunities there came—he himself was a spectator of it—a greater desire on the part of competent men to enter the teaching profession. In general he was sure that the Committee would accept the view that the less supervision, the less restraint, and the less separate treatment there was the better would be the teacher and the higher the social status of the teaching profession. His solution of the problem would be to entrust the Universities of Scotland frankly with the teaching work, and
  1416
  to endow them with the necessary funds, leaving separate institutions no more than the mere supervision of the future teachers. That would not be made to apply to the Roman Catholic or Episcopalian colleges. He would be very sorry to see them compelled to consent to that management. But he believed that, after some consideration, and perhaps some controversy, the Presbyterian colleges would willingly assent to such an arrangement. The Presbyterian colleges in Scotland had never been slow to approach educational questions in a broad-minded and fearless manner, and they had never allowed sectarian interest to stand against educational advantage. He believed they would adopt the same public-spirited and patriotic course as they did in 1872, when they put on one side all the difficulties which might easily have been interposed. He fully realised the difficulties of such a policy as he had suggested—difficulties which were so great ten years ago that the Scottish Universities Commission found itself unable to arrive at any decision on the point. He should like to say two things about the action of the Committee. In the first place nothing was put forward except a very limited and one-sided scheme, which was expressly rejected because it was limited, and did not apply generally, In the second place, since that decision or absence of decision, on the part of the Universities Commission there had been a very great increase in the use made of the universities by training college students, which led him to hope that the main difficulties in the way could be overcome.
  What he wished to urge on the Government was that whatever policy was adopted in the meantime ought not, at all events, to preclude some such final solution as he had suggested, but rather to lead up to it. He suggested that the Department ought not to develop the existing institutions, whether governed by the churches which would not pay for them or by the Department which must, but rather that the Department should devise an administrative method which would preserve its own interest in the teachers in their future work, and yet allow them to avail of the very best educational opportunities that are open to them of the Scottish universities for all sections of the Scottish people

  1417
  something of the sort already existed. In Aberdeen and St. Andrews, Queen's students took their education at the universities under the supervision of local committees. He recognised all the difficulties of such a scheme, but he believed that it was not only possible, but was the only wise course open to them. They should not develop the inferior side of the existing system, but rather its best side, and they should continue in a more coherent and rapid fashion that policy to which all the facts of the case had driven them, and which had been adopted, he might almost say, in principle. It might be urged that he was prejudiced in favour of the universities. He was not concerned to deny it, but it was no argument against the reform to urge that it might be advantageous to the universities. No money was better spent on education in Scotland than that which was spent on the universities. For his part he thought there could be no sound or complete educational system in which universities did not exist as part of it, the goal of its achievement and the object of the ambition of all. That had been to a certain extent true of the Scottish universities, and the best results of education in Scotland were due to that fact as much as to any other. He hoped the Government would recognise the seriousness of the issue connected with the training of teachers, and that the Committee would have an assurance from the Government that they would not formulate any plan for dealing with the matter without a more complete discussion that was possible that night. Nothing but good could result from such a discussion, and he believed that there was no educational policy in which the Government would have more cordial and united support from the Scottish people than that of maintaining and developing the connection between the universities and the whole system of public instruction.
  *MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I confess that in many of the individual remarks of the hon. Member—
  MR. CALDWELL: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I understood the hon. Member to move a reduction.
  MR. C. M. DOUGLASI began by moving a reduction.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is not necessary to move a reduction, and the hon. Member did not conclude with a motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item Q (Annual Grants to Training Colleges) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Charles Douglas.)
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: With many of the remarks of the hon. Member, with many of the sentiments he expressed, and with much of the general tone of his speech, I believe I am quite rightly representing the views of the Government and the Department when I say that we are in entire sympathy. It would really be almost painting the lily to say that we entirely agree with him in his praise of the universities, and in his wish that members of the teaching profession in Scotland should have the advantage not only of university training, but university contact with men in other branches of life. But when I have said that I am left in very great doubt as to what precisely the hon. Member wishes the Government to do. I would wish on this educational evening that I was entitled to set hon. Members down to the task of writing precisely what they think is the proposal of the hon. Member, and if that were done, I think we should have varying results. In particular, the hon. Member left me in doubt in what he said about the training colleges themselves. He began, as far as I could see, by deprecating some suggestions in the report of Dr. Stewart, which had the result of interfering with the present training college system.
  MR. C. M. DOUGLAS: Of confirming the present college system,
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Oh, I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. He went on to say that he thought the training colleges were in accordance with the general desire of the country. I am entirely with him in his remarks with reference to the Roman Catholic college. That is the best equipped and most thoroughly efficient of all the training colleges we have, and I am perfectly certain that no more unpopular step could be taken with the very large number of Roman Catholics in Scotland than for the Department to take proceedings in any way to put an end to that

  1419
  college. Passing from that, while I understood his opening remarks to be generally in favour of the training colleges, he very quickly began to dissemble his love, and in the latter part of his speech he called them extravagant, academic, and suffering from all the disadvantages of an inspection system, which really prevented any proper training being given in them at all. So far as the inspection system is concerned, let me remind the hon. Member that it is not looked upon as a system to be desired from the educational point of view; but, so far as I know, it is an absolutely necessary corollary. If public money is given to any institution, you must have a check, and therefore inspection is a necessary evil. But what, after all, is the function of the Department in connection with training colleges? It is not a condition or a rule of the Department that a man cannot be a certificated teacher without going through a training college. Any man may be a certificated teacher who can pass a certain examination, and who also, of course, can show a practical experience of teaching in schools. In one sense it is really for persons to come forward and offer themselves as teachers, so far as the Department is concerned, but if the matter were left entirely alone no doubt the stock of teachers would suffer. Accordingly, all the efforts made by the Department are not to impose a particular standard for teachers—that is done by examination—but with a view to fostering the training of teachers in order to provide a proper supply for the educational needs of the country.
  We take these colleges as we find them and we do the best we can with them. The hon. Member says that the teacher who is trained in one of them will never be like the man who is brought into contact with the life of a university. I agree; but what has been the policy of the Department. As he knows, we have done our best to enlist the unversities in this cause. In the first place we have tried to put a certain tincture of the universities into the training colleges themselves, by arranging that students at the colleges, if they are fit, should take a certain amount of their classes at the universities, and the expense of taking these classes is treated and paid
  1420
  as a training college expense. Then, as the hon. Member mentioned, we have inaugurated a system of Kings' students as opposed to King's scholars. King's students are not in the training colleges at all; they get their education at the universities. The hon. Member, no doubt, would like to see that system very much increased. We are doing our best to increase it, but let me remind the hon. Member of one thing. There is yet to be proved about King's students whether we shall get what we want. There is a practical guarantee that if a man is trained in a training college he will become a teacher. There is a certain check upon the training colleges in this matter, and consequently we are quite certain that in giving money to the training colleges we are at least getting teachers. We have not got that guarantee in the case of King's students, and we must have the proof of experience. We might train a King's student and then he might turn round and say "Well, I have changed my mind. I am not going to be a teacher after all." I do not know exactly what could be done in that case. You cannot take the money from him, although you might possibly try to recover it. Therefore, the hon. Member will see that there is a certain amount of difficulty in the way of what I might call the unlimited extension of that system. But, so far as the system goes, we are entirely with the hon. Member. I would like to know what precisely the hon. Member wishes the Department to do. He gave us what he called one practical suggestion. He said develop the present training colleges. If he means to improve the curriculum, we shall do our best in that direction, and also in increasing the opportunities for going to the universities. I do not think we shall make any decided change of policy without further discussion, and therefore I hope the hon. Member will be satisfied.
  It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  House adjourned at five minutes after Twelve of the clock till Monday next.

The Earl of BUCKINGHAMSHIRE took the Oath.

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—
Cardiff Corporation.
The same was ordered to lie upon the Table.

LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
SOUTH ESSEX WATER BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
TYNESIDE TRAMWAYS AND TRAM ROADS BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
LYNTON AND BARNSTAPLE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments.
GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
PRESTATYN WATER BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
DEVONPORT CORPORATION (GAS) BILL.
  GLASGOW AND RENFREW DISTRICT RAILWAY TRANSFER BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

  HARROGATE WATER BILL [H.L.]
  LEEDS CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.].
  RIPON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
  HARROGATE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Somerton (E. Normanton) be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Buckinghamshire; read, and agreed to.

  HEYWOOD AND MIDDLETON WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
  ELLAND GAS BILL [H.L.].
  WOLVERHAMPTON AND CANNOCK CHASE RAILWAY BILL.
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Buckinghamshire be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Somerton (E. Normanton); read, and agreed to.

  PRESENCE OF THE SOVEREIGN IN PARLIAMENT.
  Ordered, That the evidence taken before the Select Committee be delivered to such persons as the Committee think fit.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2594. Netherlands (Curaçoa and its Dependencies).
  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Revised Rules and Regulations of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland for the year 1900–1901.

  ARMY.
  Return showing the number of recruits who joined the Cavalry (including Household Cavalry), Royal Artillery, Infantry (including Foot Guards), and Militia respectively in the first three months of each year, from 1897 to 1901, inclusive.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INDIA (ESTIMATE).
  1. Estimate of revenue and expenditure of the Government of India for the year 1900–1901 compared with the results of 1899–1900;
  2. Home accounts of the Government of India;
  3. Finance and revenue accounts of the Government of India for the year 1899–1900.

  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS.
  Eighteenth Report of the Comptroller-General, with appendices, for the year 1900.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordsred to lie on the Table.

PETITIONS.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
  Petitions against the sale of, on Sundays; of meetings at Lowestoft; Burn-ham-on-Crouch; Coggeshall; Parkstone; Harwich; Folkestone; and Sutton; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  CREMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of, of the Battersea Borough Council; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILLS.
  BISHOPRIC OF SOUTHWARK BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to provide for the constitution of a Bishopric of Southwark, and for matters incidental thereto; was presented by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury; read 1a; and to be printed. [No. 71.]
  LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS (WOMEN'S DISABILITIES REMOVAL) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the London Government Act, 1899, in respect of the eligibility of women as councillors and aldermen. Was presented by the Viscount Gordon (E. Aberdeen); read 1a; and to be printed. [No. 72.]

  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Order for the House to be put into Committee (on re-commitment) read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, in moving that the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, I desire to say that I have availed myself of the opportunity which the re-commitment of the Bill has afforded of adopting several Amendments, the most noticeable of them being the two which stood in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Morris. Those Amendments were to strike out Clause 1 (Service of Process) and Clause 20 (Recognisance or lodgment upon appeal), and from the Bill now before your Lordships those clauses have been deleted. I took that course not only in deference to the great experience which my noble and learned friend has had in this matter, but because I found that there were great differences of opinion as to the desirability of applying these clauses to Ireland at the present moment.
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order); Bill reported without further amendment; and recommitted to the Standing Committee.

  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD KENYON: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to amend the Alkali, Etc., Works Regulation Act, 1881, and to control the escape of certain acid gases of sulphur or of sulphur and nitrogen. Under the Act of 1881 the inspectors are allowed to test the gases when they get into the chimney or in the air, but many manufacturers allow the gases to

  1281
  escape through a flue, in which they mingle with other gases. This renders the work of the inspectors exceedingly difficult. The point of this Bill is to show clearly what the inspectors have to determine with regard to the amount of acid gases which escapes after the process. It makes no alteration with regard to the limits of the escape of muriatic acid gas. The Bill carries into effect the suggestion of the Royal Commission which sat in 1878, and elucidates certain matters which are at present somewhat complicated.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

  LUNACY (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  COALING STATIONS.
  *EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I rise to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Board of Admiralty have decided to take charge of certain coaling stations now garrisoned by five regiments of the Army; and, if so, what are the stations which will be thus affected, and how the arrangement will be carried out? I have no hesitation in asking this question, which has been for some time on your Lordships' Paper, of the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty. It has reference to a subject of very great importance to the nation; it affects the policy which is to be pursued by both the Services, the Army and the Navy, in time of war, and therefore it is of the utmost importance to have a clear and sound principle laid down. Now, my Lords, my attention was first called to the necessity of having some explanation from the First Lord of the Admiralty on this subject after reading the speech in another place of the Secretary of State for War. I hope it may not be considered out of order if I quote the words of that speech. They are very important and are really the text of the speech which I am about to make. These were the words to which I refer—
  "I come now to a subject upon which I have a very strong feeling myself, but on
  1282
  which I cannot give an absolute decision or pronouncement to the House. The War Office view is that the time has come for the smaller coaling stations to be taken over by the Admiralty. I do not mean fortresses like Malta and Gibraltar, but the smaller stations, like Singapore and Colombo and others, which are not attackable from the land, and in regard to which, therefore, you would have this gain—that you would not have two authorities in the island, but one. You would have the Admiralty supreme in their domain and you would not lock up our infantry, and with a constant change of ships you would give the Admiralty a chance of relieving some of those men and providing others as the exigencies of the Service might demand. But the subject requires a great deal of examination, and the First Lord of the Admiralty has not yet seen his way to give a final decision. But if I am able to prevail, and I trust I may, we shall then have five more battalions, making eighteen in all available to be added for home service."
  I may remark on the somewhat singular fact of a Minister of the Crown, responsible for an important Department, making remarks bearing upon another equally responsible Department. I shall not dwell upon that, and I will only say that it is somewhat unusual for a Minister responsible for a great Department to make a statement referring to his own opinions, which opinions apparently were not shared by the First Lord of the Admiralty and other members of the Cabinet. Later on there was some comment—on March 18th, the statement having been made on March 8th—and the Secretary to the Admiralty made these remarks—
  "There remains one matter of great interest to the House in connection with the personnel, and a statement has been made in the House which if carried into effect would largely touch the question of the personnel of the Navy, and that is the question of furnishing protection for coaling stations. This matter has been mentioned by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War, and my right hon. friend has stated that in his personal view it is desirable that the Navy should undertake to find the men for garrisoning certain coaling stations. I think he made it clear to the House, and if he did not I desire to do so, that the view expressed by the Secretary of State was, to a certain extent, a personal view. The view expressed by a Secretary of State for War is, of course, of very great weight, but it is also fair to state, as he said, that this matter has yet to receive the careful consideration of the Admiralty authorities. The Board of Admiralty is most anxious in this, as in all other matters, to co-operate with every other Department for the service of our country, but they feel entitled, and indeed bound, to consider whether they can effectively contribute to the service of the country in this

  1283
  particular manner. I know I am correct in stating that the Lords of the Admiralty have not up to the present moment been able to examine with the minuteness so important a project deserves the whole of the bearings of this very grave proposition. It will be the duty of the Admiralty to review the subject in all its bearings, and I hope the House will accept my promise that when it is so reviewed they will be informed of the result: but I ask them not to anticipate the view of the Admiralty at the present stage."
  I thought it only fair, in referring to these somewhat unusual statements in another place to give both extracts, on behalf of the War Office and on behalf of the Admiralty. After reading that statement I postponed my question, as I did not wish to press the Board of Admiralty, but now a considerable time has elapsed and, apparently, no decision has been arrived at; therefore, as I do not like to postpone this question any longer, I should like to say a few words on the general policy which is affected by this proposal. Of course, that might involve a very long speech. It is one which has been very much discussed at various times, and it is rather hazardous, perhaps, to attempt in a few sentences to say what that general policy has been considered to be. But I will try, shortly as I can, to state generally what the general policy is that regulates, in the time of war, the Navy and the Army. Everyone will, I think, agree that, in the rather hackneyed phrase, the first line of defence is the Navy. Every Government, of whatever party or policy it might be, has of late years endeavoured to make the Navy as powerful and efficient as it could possibly be. When I had the honour to be in the Admiralty I was happy to be able to be the medium of the Government in increasing very considerably not only the number of ships of Her Majesty's Navy, not only the number of men who served it, but also—and I consider this of the highest importance—in making secure and enlarging the harbours both abroad and in other places. Well, I believe that the noble Viscount (Viscount Goschen), whom I am happy to see opposite, and on whose presence in this House we may congratulate ourselves, carried out with, if possible, greater vigour—at all events with as great vigour—the same policy which I was able to carry out when I was head of the Admiralty under the last
  1284
  Administration of Mr. Gladstone and Lord Rosebery, and I think it is a most happy thing that the policy of the Admiralty has been guided in no sense by a party spirit or by party motives.
  It may be asked, What has our Fleet to do with this motion? Our Fleet has to defend our shores from the danger of invasion, if such a danger should arise. It has to defend our Indian Empire and our colonies from attack, and it has also to keep safe the great trade routes over which our great fleets of merchantmen pass. It is very important, not only that this country should have its food supplies, but that it should have those raw materials which furnish such a large amount of our trade. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that we should have a sufficient force, not only for the defensive purposes of our ports at home and abroad, but for the safeguarding of the great trade routes. This has always been the duty of our Navy, and it has been successfully carried out. In order that it may do this, there have always been at various parts of the world bases to which our Navy might resort. This, perhaps, has been more important of late years than it was in the great wars where we have had such splendid records. In those days we had no steam. Now that our Navy is entirely moved by steam, the necessity of coaling stations has become all the more important. I do not say that we ought to multiply to a great extent these stations. I believe that if we did that we should hamper a great deal the movements of our fleets. This matter was looked into some years ago by a Royal Commission over which a distinguished friend of mine—Lord Carnarvon—presided. That Commission laid down principles and rules which have been very much adopted. It has never been attempted to have large fortifications at all these places; it has always been conceived that it is the case—as it ever was before—that if a coaling station or any of these harbours abroad were attacked by a great fleet, as long as we had command of the sea our admirals could always meet and stop the attack. But these coaling stations have been defended for this purpose—in order that they might be able to ward off the attacks of what are called casual cruisers. That has been the general policy we have

  1285
  pursued. The defence of these stations has, almost without a break, been entrusted not to the Navy but to the Army. Why has that been done? I daresay civilians who have joined the Board of Admiralty have sometimes been somewhat surprised when they have visited our great ports here or abroad, and have asked to be shown the submarine defences of these ports, to be told that the submarine defences were not under the command of the Admiralty or the captain of the port, but under the command of the Engineers and military officers. I remember myself being somewhat startled with this. That is done to carry out the general policy of the Navy, which is that the admirals commanding fleets shall not have on their minds the responsibility of the work that would be entailed upon them by the garrisoning and managing of the defence of the ports.
  Our great naval arsenals at home are not at the present moment mentioned as being likely to be handed over to the naval authorities. At the same time, I cannot help thinking that if the principle is carried out, our large arsenals may follow. A naval commander ought to be able to strike at the enemy without having to think of his bases or of his coaling stations. That is a principle which has been long advocated at the Admiralty, and it is a principle which is almost universally adopted by all the highest opinion among naval men. I certainly in my experience at the Admiralty never came across a different opinion among my advisers, nor among the many able men whom I consulted on this matter. I cannot do better, to emphasise this part of the question, than read part of the Report of the Royal Commission on Coaling Stations. What do they say?
  "The Royal Navy is not maintained for the purpose of affording direct local protection to seaports or harbours, but for the object of blockading the ports of an enemy, of destroying his trade, attacking his possessions, dealing with his ships at sea, and, we may add, of preventing an attack in great force against any special place. It is by the efficient performance of these duties that our commerce and colonies will be best protected. Our seaports must rely for their immediate defence on local means, leaving your Majesty's Navy free to act at sea."
  I do not think you could have a clearer or more precise statement than that. Then another authority, opposing the
  1286
  employment of marines for the garrisons of coaling stations, says—
  "The marines are enrolled for sea services; they are, with the coastguard, our only really reliable trained reserves, and to lock up a number of marines as garrisons for coaling stations would in war time have a serious effect on the efficient manning of our vessels when many men would be required. If this proposal was to be complied with it would not only necessitate a considerable reduction in the number of marines now available for sea service, in order to provide garrisons for coaling stations, but a considerable number must also be retained on shore to meet the reliefs of the garrisons of coaling stations. The coaling stations should certainly be defended by land, and not by naval forces, as are all other land defences."
  I need not say more on the general policy of naval strategy. I should like to turn to the question of the marines. I am sure everybody who knows the Navy will agree with me in saying that no more efficient, no braver, no more splendid force exists in this or any country in the world than the Royal Marines. They are divided into two forces—Royal Marine Artillery and Royal Marine Light Infantry. The efficiency of these men cannot be questioned; their efficiency is so great that they have been demanded for many services. I remember very well a very splendid service which they on one occasion gave to the Government over which I then presided. It was a service about which very little has been said, but I venture to say that no more splendid service or greater proof of their discipline, efficiency, and trustworthiness can be found. When I was in Ireland there was a period—during my last viceroyalty—when matters there were in a very serious state, when there was almost a panic in Dublin, and the police were overburdened with work. The Irish Government were at a loss to know how to restore the confidence of the public, and maintain order in Dublin. What did they do? They applied for and obtained the services of a large force of marines, who were placed under a very distinguished officer who, I am proud to say, I at that moment had as one of my chief aides-de-camp the late Sir Herbert Stuart. These marines strengthened the police, gave them confidence, and rendered the country splendid service. This was hardly spoken of at the time, and probably very few people read the Blue-book which gave an account of the services of these marines—services

  1287
  which did infinite credit both to the men and the distinguished officer whose name I have mentioned, and whose loss in South Africa everyone regretted. Wherever the marines have been they have always done their duty. They have been to Australia and to Canada, but I venture to say that on no occasion have so great a number been asked for as are contemplated in the statement of the Secretary of State for War, which I have read to the House. The Admiralty have strongly opposed the demand made upon them by the War Office, who have desired to get such excellent allies, and in almost every instance the Admiralty have carried the day. I attach enormous importance to maintaining the efficiency of this splendid corps. We hear of the Navy consisting of "handy men." I am sure the marines are also handy men. And how is it they are handy men? It is because their service is not confined to the land or the sea, but is carried out on both. I believe I am right in saying that in old times—perhaps it has been somewhat modified now—it was always the practice that marines should serve half their time on land and half their time on sea. It is this combined practice that makes the marines the admirable force they are.
  I believe—and the officers of the Navy whom I have consulted agree with me—that the efficiency of the marines, and the particular character of the marines, would be very strongly affected if a large number of them were put into permanent garrisons in the coaling stations. In the extract which I read there is some reference to the possibility of a constant change of ships giving a chance of relieving some of the men and providing others as the exigencies of the service might demand, but I doubt exceedingly whether that is a possible way of carrying this out. Take, for instance, the garrison of Sierra Leone. Is it proposed that the marines who would be stationed there are to be relieved by the Admiral on the West Coast of Africa? I am quite certain the Admiral would be very unwilling to make his fleet a sanatorium for the marines who may have to be relieved from Sierra Leone. The efficiency of the marines and of the ship's company who depended on the marines would, I am certain, be very materially impaired if
  1288
  this change took place. Then as to the question of cost. The old practice was to have the marines serve half their time on land and half their time at sea, and I believe that, if this change was made, you would require to raise not 5,000, but 10,000 men to carry out this work efficiently. Therefore I cannot understand why, if you take it on a question of cost, the Army cannot recruit a few more men rather than that they should call on the Navy for this extra work, quite independent of the great questions of policy to which I have already referred. The cost to the Navy of carrying out this work would be twice as much as the cost to the Army. I believe it is correct to say that the Germans garrison their seaports and fortresses with seamen, but they do that in order that the army, on which they principally rely at present, whatever they may do in the future, may be as mobile as possible. I turn that argument in favour of the view I have been urging, and I say that, as we require most mobility from our Navy, let us abide by the old traditions of having our arsenals and coaling stations defended by the Army. There is then the question of dual command. I believe myself that there is no practical difficulty between officers of the Army and officers of the Navy with regard to dual command in foreign places. I know there have been difficulties between other Departments than the Navy and Army. I remember years ago, when I visited Colombo, that there was such a want of unity that, notwithstanding the fact that the Army had gone to great expense in constructing a battery, harbour works were set up in front of it and the battery had to be removed. Even if the proposed change were carried out, there always must be duality of management; but I am not afraid myself of this dual authority. I believe the two forces have always pulled together, and I sincerely trust they always will do so. I appeal to the noble Earl to consider very carefully what I have said, and I challenge him as to the opinion of distinguished naval men. I quite admit there may be some who take a different view—on what question in the world is there perfect unanimity?—but I challenge the noble Earl to say whether the

  1289
  general opinion in the Navy of experts on this subject is not, I was going to say almost violently, but certainly strongly and strenuously, opposed to any change in the system and principle which have actuated this country during the many years when both Navy and Army have successfully defended the rights of the country both at home and abroad.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just addressed the House has covered the ground so completely that I need trouble your Lordships with but few remarks. I may say at once that I entirely endorse the line of argument which has been taken by the noble Earl, and there is scarcely a word—I know there is not a single opinion—in his speech with which I do not most heartily concur. I should be prepared to leave the matter with that speech if I had not myself so strong a conviction of the inadvisability of the change which is proposed, that I should not like to be entirely silent on the subject. The noble Earl adverted to what passed in the House of Commons, and I must say that it did strike me as a somewhat unusual proceeding that a Minister, the Secretary of State for War, should, on a question so vitally affecting another Department, give his personal opinion, at all events without ascertaining that the personal opinion of the Admiralty might be stated contemporaneously, and in that case we should have had one Minister answering another in the House of Commons. It is clear that it would be most undesirable that those proceedings should form any precedent, and it is lest it should be a precedent, and because I hold so strongly to the view that all important decisions should carry the whole of the Cabinet with them, that there should be absolute solidarity, that I venture to make these comments on what passed.
  There are certain general fallacies, I think I may say, which surround this question about the garrisoning of the coaling ports by Marines, and it is to them that I propose especially to address myself. I should not be surprised if a large number of the hearers of the Secretary of State for War, when he announced his opinion on the matter, believed that there would be a saving of 5,000 men by
  1290
  coaling stations being garrisoned by Marines. Certainly there was not a single word which would point in the direction that if he were relieved of five regiments it would be necessary for an equal or a larger number of Marines to be immediately recruited in order to take their place, and whatever decision the Admiralty may arrive at—and I hope it will be in the direction which naval opinion has always held from the first—I hope they will not consent to part with a single Marine to garrison coaling stations unless those Marines are replaced at once in the Navy Estimates by a larger number than the country will be asked to vote. I would wish your Lordships to thoroughly understand that we have not got a single Marine to spare—though the number is adequate in the event of an outbreak of war—and to ask that the Marines who are wanted should be locked up, to use the expression of the Secretary of State for War, in the fortified coaling stations would be a state of things which the public itself would resent. I wish to emphasise the point that we have no Marines to spare. Gentlemen who visited the ports during the South African difficulty, and saw the large number of Marines there, continually asked why we did not send out a couple of thousand of them. They would be ready at once, it was said, to take their place as seasoned troops with the Regular Army. The Marines were, I say almost regretfully, most anxious to go to take their part side by side with the soldiers at the Cape. But why did they not go? Because, if all those Marines told off for the ships in reserve, or for the harbour ships, or for the various relief ships, had been sent to South Africa, mobilisation could not have taken place satisfactorily supposing if, in their absence, in the disturbed state of Europe at that time, mobilisation had been necessary. Therefore, I lay down this first proposition, that you must recruit the Marines in order to perform the duties which would have to be performed if the Navy took over the coaling stations. But, even if we wish it, can we continue to recruit the Marines and keep up the high standard which we are all so proud to see they possess?
  The Marines are a corps d'élite, and a corps d'élite cannot be multiplied and

  1291
  augmented indefinitely, and if to the 18,000 or 19,000 men you have now you were anxious to add another 10,000 men, or even another 8,000, the probability is you would have to lower the standard, and that the same number of fine men would not come forward as come forward now to join what I have called the corps d'élite. I therefore lay down this second proposition, that an increase might affect the general standard of Marines, and that you would not be enabled to enrol sufficient numbers of the same class of men that you have now—a result which, I am sure, everyone would deplore. The corps of Marines is a popular service. It attracts, not by higher rates of pay, but through those privileges which the Marines enjoy but which the soldiers do not enjoy, at all events in the same degree, one of the principal ones being that they have their homes at the three great ports—either at Portsmouth, Chatham, or Devonport. Their service now is divided into sea service and land service. Under the change of system which is proposed they would have three kinds of service—service on board ship, service at Singapore or some distant station, and service at home. Out of which of the other two do you propose to take the necessary time for garrison work? Are the men who are to be put into the garrisons to have shorter sea service because part of their time is to be spent in those garrisons, or are they to have less time at home? If they are to have less time at home, you remove one of the popular elements of the Service, and if they are to have shorter time at sea you diminish their efficiency at sea, which is one of the strong points we have to consider.
  I have submitted these considerations in some detail because they are not generally taken into account by the public, and because I have felt them so strongly that, during the whole time I was at the Admiralty, I resisted most strenuously, and I am glad to say with success—a success which I hope my successor will enjoy—the onslaughts of the War Office in this respect. There is another popular fallacy which has been touched on by the noble Earl—the fallacy that it is so easy for the Admiralty to undertake this duty because they can move the Marines about
  1292
  so easily from one place to another, and that if the climate is at all trying they can be put on board ship and taken for a cruise more easily than the Army. This is a very plausible argument, to which all importance has been attached. But, as your Lordships are probably aware, this is not a new proposal on the part of the War Office, but it is brought forward at a very critical moment—when there is considerable difficulty, apparently, in raising the whole of the infantry necessary, and so the War Office, with considerable shrewdness, said this is the moment to make the last and they hoped the final and successful onslaught on the Navy. I wish to put before your Lordships this consideration—that if there is one thing to which naval officers, captains of ships, attach importance more than another, it is to have their ships at all times in a full state of efficiency. That efficiency cannot be maintained if there is a constant change of men. It is the ships which have been two or three years in commission without changing their crews which are always the finest ships and the most valuable ships for foreign service. The Marines have their functions on board ship with the sailors—they have to man the guns and drill with the guns—and they have other functions to which they must be accustomed. They ought to know every corner of the ship as well as the sailors; but if they are to be taken on board only for short sanitary cruises their efficiency must certainly suffer. These ships, especially in West African waters and East African waters, in the Persian Gulf, and on the China Station, ought always to be in such a condition that if they are ordered upon another duty they can be sent at once. None of them should be in such a condition that they cannot be sent anywhere without consideration for the crew being necessary. It would have been most inconvenient in these later operations in South Africa if, in selecting the ships to be sent at a moment's notice to certain points, it should be necessary to consider whether they had Marines on board who had been garrisoning some hot station.
  Looking at it from every point of view—from that of the training of the men, of the efficiency of the ships, and

  1293
  of the confidence which the officers should have in their men—and officers do not like these interchanges; they like to know their men and how far they can rely on their character—whatever arguments there may be in favour of these proposals, no argument can rest on the facility of interchange of the Marines. I have spoken strongly because my convictions are strong, and I trust that my noble friend and successor will be able to reassure us with reference to the settlement of this question; and that, if no decision has yet been taken, he will assure us that every argument shall be most carefully weighed, and that this change shall not be made unless his naval advisers concur with him cordially that it can be done without detriment to the naval service.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, I need not assure your Lordships how greatly I appreciate the truth of the remarks which fell from Lord Spencer as to the importance of this question. I also recognise in the fullest way the courtesy of the noble Earl in postponing this question to meet my convenience. The history of this question, as it has been brought before the public and Parliament, is extremely simple During the course of his work at the War Office the Secretary of State for War made a proposal which, as my noble friend has rightly said, has in one form or another been made often before—that the responsibility for the administration of certain coaling stations should be transferred from the War Office to the Admiralty. Although I have been a considerable sufferer from this proposal, which has added largely to my work, I am bound to say that, coming from a Secretary of State for War who was engaged in the arduous task of reorganising the Army, the request to examine this question anew was a perfectly legitimate one. I cannot pass without remark the allusion of Lord Spencer to the manner in which the Secretary of State for War touched on the subject in the House of Commons. On the face of it what he said was a representation not of anything which had been definitely settled by the Cabinet, but an aspiration, a personal opinion, of his own and of the
  1294
  War Office. Considering how familiar the public are with this question, I can see nothing whatever either to be surprised at in the manner in which my right hon. friend introduced this question or to deserve the strictures of the noble Earl. Having received this request from my right hon. friend, I felt it my duty, and I am perfectly convinced that it was my duty, to promise that his proposal should receive an unprejudiced and exhaustive examination. That examination has been in progress since, but it is not yet complete; therefore I come before your Lordships in this unfortunate position, that whereas both Lord Spencer and Lord Goschen have dealt with subjects which arouse my keenest interest, and which tempt me to follow them at large, it is quite impossible for me to make that presentation of the case to Parliament at the present moment which I should like to do, and which possibly I may have an opportunity of doing at a later time. While the request of my right hon. friend is still under examination it is quite clear that I cannot inform Parliament of what the final decision in the case is to be. But I am not precluded on that account from making some general remarks.
  I would allude in the first place to what Lord Spencer said, with great clearness and fulness, as to the duties that we expect to be fulfilled by the British Navy. I think he certainly gave an exhaustive list, and I wish to associate myself in the fullest way with all his remarks on that subject. As to what the noble Lord said on the necessity of naval bases, I am glad again to find myself in complete agreement; and I think the noble Lord will be in agreement with me when I supplement his observations on that matter by saying that it is a cardinal feature of naval strategy that these coaling stations are to be the servants of the Navy, and are not in any sense whatever to deflect or hamper the Navy in its one absorbing and eternal duty of searching out the enemy's fleets and destroying them when it has found them. Both the Admiralty and the War Office equally exist for only one purpose, and that is the national service. As to whether certain coaling stations can, with the greater advantage to the national service,

  1295
  be administered by the Admiralty or by the War Office, it is perfectly clear that nothing that was detrimental to the interests of the Navy could possibly be consistent with the interests of the national service. It is perfectly true that the Royal Marines, and in a much less degree the bluejackets, are trained for service on shore in case of necessity; but that is, if I may so put it, a by-product of naval education. What the bluejacket and the marine alike are really trained for is service in the Fleet at sea. The noble Lord who introduced this subject has told us what tasks in a moment of difficulty the Royal Marine can turn his hand to with success. I can only associate myself in the most ample manner with the eulogy which he passed on that splendid corps. I only wish that both Lord Spencer and Lord Goschen, with the noble Earl whom I see on the bench below the gangway opposite (Lord Rosebery), could have seen 1,500 of these men the other day on parade at Malta. I am sure they would have felt, as we felt, that there could be no finer body of men serving the Sovereign of this country. But as my noble friend behind me has pointed out, the number of bluejackets and the number of marines are very carefully calculated from year to year for the purpose of fully manning all the ships of the Navy in case of mobilisation for war.
  It follows, therefore, however this question raised to-night may be decided, that there is not any margin in the corps of Royal Marines existing at this moment which could be used for any other purpose. And, to put it shortly, there is no body of men of any sort at present under the administration and control of the Admiralty who could be used for the purpose of garrisoning the coaling stations, because they are all required, and their numbers are based on that requirement, for the manning of the Fleet. I regret very much not to be able to deal with this question fully and finally to night. I recognise in the fullest manner the great importance of the considerations that have been laid before the House to-night, and I can assure my noble friends, not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of all my colleagues, that none of the arguments which they have
  1296
  brought forward, and with which I am perfectly familiar, will have escaped my attention or that of my naval colleagues, and they will all be weighed in coming to any decision on this question.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, having had the honour of being at the head of the Admiralty, I rise to express my entire concurrence in all that has fallen from Lord Spencer and Lord Goschen on this most important question. I can quote the opinion of a late member of your Lordships' House who filled the office of First Lord of the Admiralty—I allude to my father, Sir Francis Baring, afterwards Lord Northbrook—also against this proposal. In 1859 a Royal Commission on the Manning of the Navy, presided over by Lord Hardwicke, recommended that a force of 5,000 men should be added to the Royal Marines for the purpose of garrisoning the home ports—a proposal, I may observe, far less objectionable than that of placing the marines in coaling stations abroad. Speaking on that subject, my father used these words—
  "No corps is more valuable than the Marines, but if more Marines are required let them be dedicated to naval and not to military purposes. They will be wanted and will be most valuable at the breaking out of war. If they are employed permanently to garrison your naval ports you throw an obstacle in the way of their going afloat when they are most required."
  The observations of my noble friend Viscount Goschen in respect of the recruitment of the marines deserves the most careful consideration. The addition proposed this year to the Royal Marines of 1,000 men is entirely for naval service. And, as year by year we are increasing the ships of the Royal Navy—and I see no reasonable ground for expecting a diminution of that increase in consequence of the shipbuilding by foreign nations—we must increase our reserves. One of the most important sources of our reserves is the force of Royal Marines, and, in my opinion, it would be most inadvisable to do anything whatever that would be likely to diminish the power of recruiting for the Royal Marines. I entirely concur with the view of Lord Goschen that if a large increase of the force of marines was to be demanded, of 8,000, or possibly 10,000 men, coupled with the knowledge that

  1297
  they would in future be employed to garrison stations abroad, there might be a serious difficulty in raising the number. I cannot see what possible advantage, either financial or administrative, there is in this proposal, and I trust that it will not be long before my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty informs us that the plan has been abandoned.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I have not the least intention of prolonging this discussion, but, as I believe I am the only other member in the House at this moment who has filled the office of First Lord of the Admiralty and has not spoken, I desire to express my entire concurrence with what has fallen from the three noble Lords. I hope I do not misinterpret the speech of the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty in understanding him to say that this question is not yet fully determined.
  * THE EARL OF SELBOENE: It is not yet determined.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I am glad to be assured that the matter is still open and under consideration. I confess I must agree with my noble friend behind me (Earl Spencer) in the moderate criticisms which he made upon the speech of Mr. Brodrick in the other House, and I hope we may understand, from what Lord Selborne said, that that speech in no way commits the Government as to its decision. [The Earl of Selborne nodded assent.] It seems to me that the Marines are essentially a naval force under the Admiralty, and as the strong opinion of the great majority of naval officers is that this change would be a mistake, that it would tend to interfere with the efficiency of the Marines, and to diminish their utility as a naval force, the voice of the Navy ought to prevail. Under those circumstances I trust that His Majesty's Government will come to the decision that this is not a step which it is desirable to take. The Marines have proved themselves a thoroughly efficient force. They have recently won high distinction in South Africa at the battle of Graspan; and before sitting down I desire to join to the fullest extent in the praises which have been lavished, not at all unduly, upon them.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six of the clock to Monday next a quarter before Eleven of the clock.