I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, since the recommendations of the Allport Commission in favour of harbour works, fishing accommodation, and connecting railways for Gweedore, another Report of a somewhat different character has been made by the Board of Works; and if he will state what the nature of any such Report is, and lay the details upon the Table?

I am not aware that the Board of Works has made any Report in reference to harbour works and fishing accommodation at Gweedore. The hon. Baronet will be aware that there has, this year, been an inquiry into certain proposed lines of railways, but I am not aware that anything has yet been decided.

May I ask whether a Report of the Inquiry will be communicated to the House?

No, Sir; that is not intended.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if it is true, as stated in the Indian newspapers, that, notwithstanding the presence in this country of so many of the claimants under the Indian Civil Service Rules, it is proposed to allow a number of the principal European Civil servants now in India to come home "on duty" at the public expense to give evidence before the proposed Committee, or to allow them to draw full Indian allowances beyond those to which they may be entitled under the ordinary leave rules, or in any other form to place a burden on the Indian taxpayer, to enable them to press the claims of their various Services in this country?

No, Sir; there is no foundation whatever for the statement contained in the question of the hon. Member. The Committee, if appointed, would itself determine what witnesses are necessary. The Secretary of State would, of course, give every reasonable facility for the attendance of such witnesses as the Committee might desire to examine.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the following passage in a speech made by Mr. Stanley at the dinner to which he was entertained by the London Chamber of Commerce on the 21st of May—

"The Germans had recently captured 10,000 bullocks from the Natives in British territory, and there was no one to say, Boh! (Loud cheers,) He could speak very forcibly, but he would restrain himself";

whether it is true that the Germans were allowed to capture 10,000 bullocks from natives in British territory without remonstrance: and whether the British Government have surrendered any territory to Germany; and, if so, what territory? I may add that a portion of the quotation from Mr. Stanley has been omitted, in which he said that the British Government have permitted the German Government to extend their influence beyond the line originally agreed upon.

In answer to paragraphs 1 and 2 we have no information to that effect. I was about to answer to the third paragraph in the negative; but, upon the explanation now given, I will add that no arrangement has been come to in regard to the respective spheres of influence.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the annual compensation awarded by 6 and 7 William IV., c. 110, s. 3, to Sion College, in lien of the privilege then abrogated of receiving a copy of every printed book, is still paid? if so, what is the amount, and where does it appear in official accounts; and whether any Report is, as required by the above-cited Statute, sent to the Treasury of the use made of the annual grant; and, if so, are such Reports for the last ten years accessible to Members of this House?

The amount of the annual grant awarded by 6 and 7 William IV., c. 110, to Sion College is £363 15s. 2d., and will be found recorded in the Finance Accounts under the heading "Compensation under the Copyright Act," p. 62. In claiming payment in each year detailed information is given, as required by Section 3 of the Act, of the applications of the money last issued; and on this the Treasury directs the amount for the year to be issued. The annual statements are retained in the Treasury, and have no general interest.

Are the Reports accessible to Members of this House?

The Reports are obtainable at the Treasury, but they are not presented to Parliament. I shall be happy to let the hon. Member see them.

Is this one of the permanent payments as to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been making inquiries this year, with a view to their determination?

Yes, Sir; I believe this is included in those payments.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the excessive and dangerous overcrowding of the morning and evening suburban trains running on the Great Eastern Railway to and from the Liverpool Street Station, and to the insufficient and inconvenient exits provided for the passengers at many of the local stations; whether he will obtain a Return of the average excess number of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd class passengers respectively conveyed by such trains; and whether he can take steps in future to remedy the inconvenience and danger complained of?

No, Sir; my attention has not been specially directed to overcrowding in the morning and evening trains on the Great Eastern Railway, and the General Railway Acts do not give me any power of dealing with it. I have, however, communicated with the Company, from whom. I have received a letter, of which, if he wishes it, I shall be happy to send the hon. Member a copy. In this letter the Company say that they have spent, or are spending, sums amounting' to over £1,750,000 in the accommodation of their suburban traffic, and add that, if the hon. Member will specify the local stations of which he considers the exits inconvenient, they will communicate with him.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, having regard to the fact that a Local Government inquiry was held in February, 1889, as to the Stainland-with-Old-Lindley Local Board's application for power to borrow £10,000, for the purpose of constructing water works at Coldacre, in Stainland, and that the Local Government Board, 12 months later, sanctioned the said scheme, subject to certain conditions, which have been complied with, whether repeated applications for the documents necessary for the carrying out of the scheme have been made by the clerk to the Local Board without avail; and, if so, why it is that the Local Government Board continue to withhold from the Stainland-with-Old-Lindley Local Board the necessary authority to borrow the said sum of £10,000, thus depriving the inhabitants of the township of the water which has become to them an absolute necessity?

The Local Government Board caused an inquiry to be hold in February, 1889, as to an application of the Stainland Local Board for sanction to borrow for the purpose of a scheme of water supply. As the Local Board are aware, objections have been strongly urged to their proposals, and questions have been raised as to their right to obtain water from the sources proposed by them, and the question has been one of much difficulty. The Local Board, however, after obtaining the opinion of counsel, informed the Local Government Board that they were prepared to undertake all the responsibility of proceeding with the scheme, and the Board then expressed their willingness to sanction the loan upon certain conditions, one of the conditions being certain proofs with regard to the consent of an authority within whose limits of water supply part of the Local Board district is situate. The Board are now awaiting a reply to a communication which they have addressed to the Local Board on the subject of such consent. I have no reason to doubt that the matter will be settled speedily.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now aware of any facts as to engineer students tending to show that an insufficient number of candidates have been found qualified for the vacancies advertised this year by the Admiralty; whether he can state the engineer officer vacancies advertised and number of candidates competing; and how many found qualified in 1889 and 1890 respectively?

Ninety-three candidates presented themselves for 40 vacancies at the recent examination for engineer studentships, of whom a sufficient number were found to be qualified for appointment to the Service. No specific number of vacancies for engineer officers was advertised, but the number laid down in the Regulations is about 10. For these vacancies there are five candidates. The examination for these appointments, which is the first that has taken place, is still proceeding. The number of candidates for appointment as engineer students who competed in 1889 was 177, of which number 85 qualified for appointment. There were 32 entries.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what authority, statutory or otherwise, the Commissioner of Police in the Metropolis acts in forbidding the passage of public processions through the streets of the Metropolis; whether, in so doing, he is acting by the express instructions of the Home Secretary, or on his own responsibility; and whether the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown has been taken as to the legal power of the police to prohibit the passage of organised and peaceful processions?

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is with his sanction that the Chief Commissioner has informed the Demonstration Committee that "the Metropolitan Police will not afford protection to processions to the Embankment;" and whether he is aware that the Committee have received from the City Police the promise of such protection to processions while passing through the City?

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can explain why the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has prohibited the promoters of the demonstration on Saturday next from taking the same route which was followed in 1888 by a similar gathering; and whether the demonstration in 1888 was of the most orderly and peaceable character?

To ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the action taken by the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police with regard to the Hyde Park demonstration on Saturday next, when the Chief Commissioner declines to allow the procession to take the route which was taken in 1888, has his sanction and authority; and whether he endorses the statement of the Commissioner in his letter to the Executive Committee organising the demonstration that—

"It is also clearly to be understood that the police will not protect or keep open a route for processions to the Embankment?"

To ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the letter of the Chief Commissioner of Police, altering the route of the proposed procession to Hyde Park on Saturday next, was written with his knowledge and authority; and whether representations have reached him that such interference will be provocative of confusion, by divergence of routes and by dividing the responsibility and control of those who have undertaken the duty of organising the procession?

To ask why the Temperance Associations are to be prevented from assembling on the Thames Embankment on Saturday next, and marching from thence to Hyde Park in one organised procession, to hold their proposed demonstration in the Park On that day?

I propose to answer the various questions which appear upon the Paper at the same time. I am advised by the Law Officers that the Commissioner of Police is authorised by Statute to regulate the route to be observed by public processions, with a view to prevent obstruction in the streets. He has my sanction for so doing; and I consulted the Solicitor General before giving the Commissioner specific instructions with reference to the proposed procession of Saturday next. These organised processions, now so frequent, largely interfere with the convenience and rights of the public. If the processionists were left to their strict legal rights they would have to take their chance of being interrupted and divided, like all other traffic, and would soon cease to be a procession at all. When the police undertake to keep open a route for a procession they can only do so by hampering the right of free passage of other persons. It is wholly unreasonable to expect that this privilege should be conceded to processionists simultaneously taking a number of different routes in several directions across the Metropolis. The Temperance Associations will not be prevented from assembling on the Embankment on Saturday; their route thither has been regulated as public safety required, and they must make their way thither subject to the conditions under which all persons have to use crowded streets, and without a monopoly of the thoroughfares. The procession of 1888 was orderly and peaceable; but it only got to its destination by practically taking possession of the streets and stopping public traffic. The object of the Commissioner in the regulations he has made has been to minimise the recurrence of similar public inconvenience. I have no information as to the course taken by the City Police, and no representations have reached me to the effect suggested by the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green.

The right hon. Gentleman in his reply mentioned Temperance Associations. Does he draw any distinction between those Associations and other bodies, and does he not think that the orderly conduct of the Eight Hours' procession on the 4th of May may be taken to afford some indication of the orderly character of the proposed demonstration on Saturday next?

I should like to ask whether it is not the fact that the orders of the Chief Commissioner contemplate the fullest protection to all these processions which is compatible with protection to the trade of London from serious dislocation, and protection to the peaceable citizens of London from intolerable annoyance and inconvenience?

In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. C. Graham) I have only to say that I mentioned the Temperance Associations because they were referred to in the question of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton). Of course, there is no difference between one body of processionists and another. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge), I entirely concur with him. It seems to me that the orders of the Chief Commissioner of Police do contemplate such protection to the proposed processions as is compatible with protection to the rights of the citizens of London.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as he has gone out of his way to answer the question put by the hon. Member behind him, there is any chance of dislocating the trade of London either on a Sunday or on a Saturday afternoon?

Judging from my experience, Sunday in London is a quieter day than Saturday. But there are many thoroughfares in which there is an enormous traffic on Saturday, and, sometimes, in order to enable a large procession to pass, the traffic has been stopped for three-quarters of an hour, or more, and enormous inconvenience has resulted.

I should like to understand from the Home Secretary what it was in the experience of 1888 that prompted the Chief Commissioner of Police to make the Order?

It was the extreme inconvenience suffered by the public through such a thoroughfare as Oxford Street being monopolised for several hours by the passing of a procession.

Were any statements made at the time with respect to the inconvenience that had been suffered?

Information was received on the subject from various quarters.

If I am not mistaken there were two processions in 1888, and I should like to know whether the same representations were made in each case as to the inconvenience which the processions had occasioned?

I cannot give an answer in reference to these details with accuracy without notice, but I will make inquiries with regard to them.

Inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged the right of the temperance and other associations to assemble on the Embankment on Saturday, will he afford facilities to the members of those associations to proceed to the place of assembly?

I am afraid that I can offer to the members of these associations no greater facilities than the general public are entitled to.

Will the Government not give to Englishmen in their own capital the same facilities as—

Order, order!

Is it not the fact that the executive organising the demonstration submitted an alternative route which would have avoided Oxford Street and Regent Street?

Is it not the duty of the police to provide for any increased traffic which may be expected to occur in any part of the Metropolis?

I do not conceive that it is any part of the duties of the police to prevent persons from using thoroughfares in the Metropolis in order to enable other persons to go in procession. Of course, people going to the Embankment with banners or otherwise will receive the same protection from the police as other persons.

Then am I to understand that if a body of 50, 60, or 100 people march towards the Embankment with banners they will not be interfered with?

Order, order! The hon. Member is now arguing the point.

Will the Government give the same facilities on Saturday as were afforded on the occasion of the visit of the Shah of Persia?

Order, order! The question is quite out of order.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is a rule in the Metropolitan Police Force that all complaints shall be made individually; and, if so, whether he will alter the rule so as to permit the police collectively to represent their grievances in the form of Petitions and Memorials?

Yes, Sir, there is such a rule, and I concur with the Commissioner in thinking that there would be grave objections to any alteration of the rule in the manner suggested.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office when and by whom the swords of the East Kent Yeomanry were last tested; whether during the mounted sports recently held at Dover one of the troopers struck at a lemon and his sword thereupon broke in half; and what is the pattern and date of manufacture of the swords in the hands of that regiment?

The occurrence to which the hon. Gentleman alludes has been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State, and he has already called for a Report. As soon as the Report reaches the War Office I shall be glad to reply to the hon. Gentleman's question.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the question.

I am not in possession of the information.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to be in a position to give the names of the persons to be appointed under the First Schedule of the Savings Banks Bill; whether the members of the Committee are to be remunerated; what is the amount of the proposed remuneration to each; and what is their proposed number?

I hope to be able to give the names at an early date, but my idea is that the first Committee, which should consist of either five or seven persons, should not be remunerated. The members of the subsequent Committee may possibly be remunerated by fees. But as the question of remuneration might preclude Members of the House from serving on the Committee, and it may be desirable to appoint some hon. Members on the Committee, I do not wish, at present, to come to a definite decision on the point.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether an official reporter was present at the annual conference of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association held last week; and, if so, was he present by his order, and in spite of the protest of the members of the Association?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether servants of the Post Office have been officially called upon to explain why they attended meetings of the Postman's Union; and, if so, has this action been sanctioned by the Postmaster General?

What the Postmen have been called upon to explain is how they came to attend the meeting held on Clerkenwell Green, on the 16th ultimo, in spite of the warning which I had given them only a day or two before-These explanations were called for by my direction.

Am I to under-stand that the Postmaster General claims the right to forbid the Post Office servants from attending meetings, whether out of uniform or not?

In my opinion, servants of the Department in their relations to the Department are properly subject to official regulations.

Can the Post Office servants attend such meetings out of uniform?

Does the same rule apply to all servants of the Crown?

I am not responsible for any Department except my own. With respect to the question of uniform, the hon. Member is perhaps aware that it is competent for the servants of the Post Office to hold meetings, provided such meetings are hold in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Department.

May not Post Office servants attend political meetings out of uniform; and, if not, where does the rule begin, and where does it end? Does it begin with the Postmaster General, and how far down does it extend?

I have already stated that it is competent for the servants of the Post Office to attend public meetings in accordance with the regulations. Those regulations apply, not to political meetings, but to meetings at which official questions are discussed. There are no regulations requiring them to attend such meetings in uniform or otherwise.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a letter, dated 14th May, addressed by him to one of his constituents, Rev. Peter Thompson, on the subject of the licensing proposals of the Government, has been printed in official form and sent, at the public expense, to the clerks of the Local Authorities throughout the country; and if this is in accordance with precedents?

It is not the fact that the letter to which the hon. Member refers has been sent to the clerks of the Local Authorities throughout the country. I have received a very large number of communications with reference to the Local Taxation Bill, which were evidently based upon information supplied from two or three common sources, since in many cases they manifested similar misconceptions as to the nature and effect of the Government proposals. These misconceptions I endeavoured to remove in the letter to the Rev. Peter Thompson, and the transmission of a printed copy of that letter to my correspondents afforded, in my opinion, a satisfactory reply to their communications, and resulted in an economy both of labour and expense.

Is it not the fact that this communication has been sent to the Town Clerks?

No, Sir, it is not the fact. It has not been sent to any Local Body to my knowledge. No doubt, if a Town Clerk wrote to the Board upon the matter in an individual capacity, a copy of the letter may have been sent to him, but no communication, either official or unofficial, has been sent to any Local Authority by the direction of the Local Government Board.

I really must press the right hon. Gentleman upon this point, because I hold in my hand a copy of this letter which has been sent to a Town Clerk. Is it possible that it may have been posted to a Town Clerk without the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman?

Of course I cannot tell what may have been done without my knowledge, but I cannot see how any official communication could have been made without my knowledge. Of course, if a Town Clerk wrote to make inquiries, it is quite possible that a copy of the letter may have been sent.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in his speech at Acton on the 20th May, he, as reported in the West Middlesex Standard of 24th May, said that he would briefly summarise the proposals which the Government had this year brought forward for improving the Licensing Laws, and, in doing so, stated that the Government

"Proposed that the County Councils shall have control over all licences, and that to them the appeal and jurisdiction now in the hands of the Magistrates shall be transferred;"

and whether, in the event of his having been correctly reported, he has any objection to state in what measure introduced by the Government these proposals or provisions can be found?

The statement in question is an incorrect version of the words actually used by me on the occasion.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the frequent cases in which smacks are run down by steam colliers in the estuary of the Thames, as in the case of the Osprey, of Burnham, on 18th May; and whether the Public Prosecutor can be instructed to take proceedings when loss of life has resulted from the neglect of those in charge of the steamer?

The case referred to by the hon. and gallant Member was reported in due course to the Board of Trade. On the information in my possession, such cases do not appear to be frequent, as the number of smacks run down by steamers of all kinds in the estuary of the Thames during the last six years has been 10, and the number of lives lost in consequence 14. With regard to the last paragraph of the question, when loss of life results from the personal culpable negligence of any person in charge of the steamer, the Public Prosecutor may take proceedings.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer from what date the grant in relief of payment of school fees in Scotland, proposed in the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise Duties) Bill, will commence to run?

The first thing is to secure the passage of the Bill. When that is done, and the time comes for the actual distribution of the moneys, the Scotch Education Department will issue a Minute setting forth the conditions on which the sum shall be applied in relief of the payment of school fees.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Mayor, Corporation, and Burgesses of Hanley (Staffordshire) purchased the Queen's Hotel in Hanley out of the public funds and converted it into a town hall and borough buildings; whether they sold the licence for £800; and whether the Local Government Board gave its sanction to this transaction?

I find that application was made to the Treasury by the Town Council of Hanley in 1883 for sanction to a loan under the Municipal Corporations Act for the purchase of premises, including the Queen's Hotel, with a view to its adaptation for a town hall and municipal buildings. The Local Government Board, by desire of the Treasury, directed an inquiry as regards the application by one of their Inspectors, and the necessary loan was sanctioned in December, 1883. I have no information as to whether the licence was sold for £800; but assuming that it was, no sanction on the part of the Board was necessary.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what vessels of the British Navy are stationed on the East Coast of Africa and in the Red Sea respectively for the suppression of the Slave Trade; what number of boats, if any, specially fitted for that duty, such as largo steam launches, are supplied to such vessels; and whether the boats at present usually supplied are not almost useless for intercepting dhows, and at the same time are so small as to be detrimental to the health and lives of the men employed in them?

In addition to the performance of other duties the following vessels are engaged at the present time in the suppression of the Slave Trade:—Dolphin, in the Red Sea, in the neighbourhood of Suakin; Ranger, at Aden; Turquoise, Conquest, Brisk, Kingfisher, and Reindeer, on the East Coast of Africa, with headquarters at Zanzibar. There are two 37 feet steam pinnaces, specially fitted for cruising against slavers, which are manned from the ships at Zanzibar, and are employed with other boats belonging to the ships of the squadron. The boats of the vessels on the station have been employed on this service for a long time past, and have been instrumental in the capture of a large number of slave dhows, while the health of the men manning the boats has been quite as good as that of the crew of the ships from which they were drafted.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty is it a fact that no matter how efficient, or how many lives may be saved, the Chief Officer in the Coastguard has the same rate of pay on the first day he is promoted as after 20 or more years' service, which is contrary to the usage of all other Naval servants of the Crown, and especially of those who have risen from the ranks, and that although these officers may be appointed to the command of Coastguard divisions they continue to receive 6s. per diem; would he explain why these officers are only given 20s. per annum for their seamen's time, while those who have served with them under precisely the same circumstances get 30s.; and what difference is made in the pensions of those officers who command divisions to those who remain chief officers of stations?

Chief officers of Coastguard do not receive an increase of pay after promotion to that rank, nor when appointed to the command of a division, but these officers in certain cases receive a considerable addition to their substantive pay in the form of allowances for duties connected with the Royal Naval Reserve. Chief officers of Coastguard are still pensioned upon the scale applied to Warrant officers prior to 1870, as it was not considered necessary to extend to them the higher rate of 30s. now allowed to Warrant officers serving afloat. No difference is made between the pensions of chief officers in command of divisions and those of officers in charge of stations.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the interest felt in and importance of the provisions of the Savings Banks Bill, he will arrange for its Second Reading at a time when reasonable discussion can take place?

I attach great importance to the Bill; but I am not authorised by my right hon. Friend the leader of the House to state the nature of the arrangements which may be made for taking the Second Reading.

May I ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is authorised to announce what business will be taken on Thursday?

The Government intend to proceed with the Tithes Bill on Thursday.

Will the Bill be taken day by day?

I am not in a position to make any further statement upon the matter.

Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer cause information to be conveyed to the First Lord of the Treasury as to the great inconvenience which is being occasioned in consequence of the delay in the re-committal stage of the West Australia Bill? I hope that some understanding may be arrived at.

I will convey the question of the right hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend; but the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Bill can only be proceeded with by the cooperation of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

, Member for the South West Division of Bethnal Green, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the threatened interference on Saturday next with the customary right of public demonstration in the Metropolis; but 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 40 Members having accordingly risen,

This is the first occasion, Sir, on which I have ventured to take the somewhat extreme step of moving the adjournment of the House. I can assure the House that I should not have done so now if I had not been firmly convinced of the extreme importance of the action proposed to be taken by the Government, which action this Motion is intended to impugn. The action of the Government is most important from two points of view: in the first place, because, whatever its intention may be, it is calculated to cause public mischief and public disorder; and, secondly, because it seems to me to be really a consistent part of the policy which has characterised the present Administration, a policy that aims at destroying piecemeal all the great rights of public meeting in this Metropolis. When large bodies of men are brought together, if the public order is to be preserved, organisation is essential, and the best security for organisation is single control and undivided responsibility. In order to attain those great objects past experience has shown the propriety and wisdom of marshalling such processions as those which are proposed to take place on Saturday next upon the Thames Embankment, in order that they may proceed from thence in one continuous course to the place of meeting, namely, Hyde Park. The action of the Chief Commissioner of Police, which, as we have just heard, has the approval of Her Majesty's Government, is calculated to interfere very materially with that undivided control and responsibility, because we are told in the letter of the Chief Commissioner that those bodies of men who propose to go to Hyde Park from the north and west portions of the Metropolis, and also to some extent the processions which are to come from the south, are not to be allowed to go to the Embankment at all, but will be required to find their way to Hyde Park by various other routes. Now, I venture to assert that a proposal of that nature is likely to lead to confusion and disorder, owing to the divergence of route, and also to the division of responsibility. In 1884, and again in 1888, large demonstrations of the kind which it is proposed to hold on Saturday took place, and all that the organisers of the present demon- stration require is that the course then pursued should be adopted now. The Chief Commissioner does not say that either in 1884 or 1888 there was any disorder. Is it true that in 1888 there was a monopoly, as he calls it, of Oxford Street? I was present at that demonstration, and I say with some confidence that there was nothing like a monopoly of Oxford Street, nor was there any material interference with the public passing along that street. And here I wish to point out that the Chief Commissioner has not been quite ingenuous or fair to the Organisation Committee in the statement contained in his letter, because he has made it appear that the Organisation Committee insisted on passing along Holborn and Oxford Street. The fact of the matter is, that the Committee were perfectly willing to make every reasonable concession in order to meet the views of the Chief Commissioner; and although the Committee first proposed to go along Holborn and Oxford Street, and would undoubtedly have preferred that route, yet, in order to meet the objection of the Chief Commissioner; they were willing to alter the route. There is, therefore, a little disingenuousness on the part of the Chief Commissioner in ignoring the concession they were willing to make. But there is something still more serious in the letter of the Chief Commissioner, having regard to the preservation of public order. He says—

"It is also clearly to be understood that the police will not protect or keep open a route for processions to the Embankment, but will be instructed to arrest the progress of or interrupt and divide such processions whenever and so long as may be necessary in order to allow the ordinary traffic to pass.

That course was not taken in 1884 or in 1888, but on both occasions the bodies of men who were passing to the Embankment had the protection of the Metropolitan Police; and upon the present occasion the City Police have promised the protection which the Metropolitan Police refuse. It seems to me that whatever the intentions of the framers of this Order may have been, its operation will be to hold out almost an invitation for the interference of those persons who, we know, look with disfavour and hostility upon the processions of Saturday next. The intimation that the police will not afford protection to them is a distinct invitation to those who are opposed to them to bring out brewers' drays and other vehicles for the purpose of breaking up the order of procession and provoking the hostility of those who may take part in them. As to the grounds on which this rescript has been issued, the author of it lays great stress on what he calls the right of every individual member of the public to free and unrestricted passage along the public thoroughfares. To use language of that kind is to use the language of pedantry, seeing that the suggested right is interfered with every day and every hour in every day. Unless it were for the observance of mutual forbearance and the good-humoured exercise of the social virtue of give and take, the legitimate business of the Metropolis could not possibly be conducted. The Chief Commissioner himself recognises this, because in another place he says—

"I am not able to find in the incident of 1888 any valid grounds for asking the public, in the absence of any expressed wish on their part, to submit to such sacrifice of their rights in 1890."

The words "in the absence of any expressed wish on the part of the public" are somewhat peculiar. They may suggest two questions. In the first place, what mode of expression of the public will does the Chief Commissioner require? If he will kindly indicate what will satisfy him, there may possibly be a mode of supplying the deficiency. But this further question is also suggested—has the public ever expressed a burning desire to sacrifice its convenience in order to enable persons to attend Drawing Rooms and Court ceremonials? The other day an allusion was made to the Lord Mayor's Show, and the right hon. Gentleman based the case for permitting it upon custom. It is upon custom that I mainly rely now. There has been, until the present Administration came into power, for many generations an absolutely uninterrupted custom of holding public demonstrations in the Metropolis; and if the right hon. Gentleman is to set up a custom on behalf of the Lord Mayor's Show, and to say that custom is to have no force and validity where political demonstrations are concerned, then I say that the Government are playing against the popular liberties with loaded dice. A short time ago the right hon. Gentleman referred to the statutory powers which the Chief Commissioner possesses. I do not propose to enter into any legal argument, but I will simply state what I believe to be the fact that, properly and fairly construed, these enactments were designed not to suppress, but to protect, processions. They give power to organise a demonstration, but they give no power to the Chief Commissioner to suppress, practically, the right of demonstration in London. I am not anxious, as I said, to discuss the matter from a purely legal point of view, because I know that, if popular liberties are to be taken away, there is seldom any difficulty in finding a more or less plausible pretext. I know, also, it has frequently happened that popular liberties have been destroyed in the very name of law. Another point of view from which I regard the question is, that it is a step in the progress of encroachment. It is obvious, from the very terms of the Chief Commissioner's letter, that it is not the last step, because I find this passage—

"I wish it to be distinctly understood that these arrangements have only been sanctioned as a special case."

In conclusion, let me recapitulate the steps of progress through which the present administration have passed. In the first place, they laid an embargo upon Trafalgar Square; in the second place, they blocked up the approaches to Trafalgar Square; and now they prohibit the right of the exercise of the old custom of public demonstration through the main thoroughfares of the Metropolis. The next step, I have no doubt, will be, as is indicated by the threat in the Chief Commissioner's letter, to forbid processions altogether. And then, Sir, may come the last stage of all, which is already realized by our fellow citizens across St. George's Channel, whose happy privilege it is to be at this moment in the full enjoyment of the ultimate stage of the Government régime; the last stage of all will be to proclaim the meeting itself, and to bludgeon or even to shoot down those citizens who have the impudence to take part in it. For these reasons I think it is imperative that a protest as effective as we can make it should be entered against this gradual process of encroachment upon the popular liberties, and I beg to move the Adjournment of the House.

I have no doubt the fact that a great demonstration is to be held in Hyde Park on Saturday next is a most inconvenient thing for the Government to contemplate. They have, during their term of office, invariably displayed a terrible fear of the democracy. [Cries of "Oh!"from the Ministerial Benches.] Oh yes, I quite understand that; but I do not mean what you call a Tory democracy, which you have for the time being managed to manufacture for your own particular Party purposes. I am speaking of the genuine democracy, the people themselves. The honest expression of opinion on their part which you have always dreaded you dread to-day; but underneath all the efforts which you are making to stifle the expression of public opinion on Saturday next, the voice of the people will be lifted up, and the action of the Chief Commissioner, endorsed by the Home Secretary, will only have the effect of increasing the volume of sound. You have already, in fact, recruited our ranks by sending over to us people who were at first scarcely as strong as we could have desired—weak-kneed brethren, who were somewhat halting between two opinions. You have managed to brace them up and strengthen them, and the only result of your interference and attempt to stifle this honest expression of opinion on the part of the people will simply be to give increased volume and force to our demonstration. During their term of office the Government have invariably displayed a great dread of popular opinion, except when it has expressed itself in the endorsement of the course they have pursued, and that has been very seldom indeed. The demonstration on Saturday next is one which the people out of doors are looking forward to with very great interest. I do not mean the publicans and sinners. They are dreading the result of that demonstration, but I mean the people themselves, who are anxious to protest against the proposals of the Government to endow the publicans and to give them a permanent interest in their licences. I am very glad to say that up to the present time we have always avoided any collision between the police and the people when we have been met in a spirit of fair-play by the Government. In fact, when you have left us alone, we have managed to preserve the peace, but when you have attempted to divert our processions into back streets where no one can see them, the peace has not always been preserved. The object of the Government on the present occasion is to send the people through back streets where nobody can see them. When left alone we have always conducted our proceedings in an orderly manner. No communications were addressed to the Times, the Standard, or the other reactionary journals, complaining that the public convenience suffered in consequence of the demonstration of 1888. That demonstration having passed off in such an orderly and peaceable manner, we selected the same route for the demonstration of next Saturday. Now, for the first time, the Chief Commissioner of Police is setting himself up as the authority to select the routes through which processions shall pass. The police never attempted, except in regard to two or three very recent instances of very small demonstrations, to interfere with the routes of processions, but left them to be arranged by the promoters themselves. One would have thought that out of courtesy the Chief Commissioner would have sent his letter first to those to whom it was addressed, and invited them to sit down with him to discuss the desirability of changing the route, so that an amicable understanding might be arrived at. Nothing of the kind. This high and mighty Police Commissioner issues this ukase and sends it to the Press before he sends a copy to the Demonstration Committee. This is an extraordinary proceeding, and we should be wanting in our duty to our constituents if we allowed the action of the First Commissioner to pass unchallenged. To my mind it is clear that this is part of the policy which the Government have for a long time pursued. They are trying to transplant into this country the arbitrary rules which have been set up in the sister isle. First of all they struck a blow at the right of public meeting in Trafalgar Square on the plea that it was an interference with the traffic of the Metropolis. There were a great many people who were caught by that cry, and I myself have admitted that Trafalgar Square is not the best possible place in the Metropolis in which to hold a demonstration. The action of the Government, however, is not animated by a desire on their part to consult the public convenience. It was a blow struck against the rights and liberties of the people. I baited a little trap for the Home Secretary on the last occasion, and the right hon. Gentleman fell into it. I asked whether the people would be allowed to make a public demonstration on the Horse Guards' Parade, and after six months' serious consideration of the question the right hon. Gentleman announced that the Government had resolved that they could not allow public meetings to be held there. It is clear, therefore, that their intention was on that occasion to strike a blow against the right of the people to meet in order discuss their grievances. Now another effort has been made, and it is obvious that the Government will be able to have their own way. They have had it for three or four years. In a few months, however, the turn of the Opposition will come, and we shall then restore to the people not only the right to marshal their own processions, but the right of meeting in open spaces. Without indulging in a threat I tell the Home Secretary that all his efforts and those of the Chief Commissioner of Police will be simply futile, because they can not prevent the tide of public opinion from rising. The democracy is now omnipotent. The fact that you are going to interfere with the demonstration proves that you dread an honest expression of opinion on the part of the people. I presume you fear that such an expression of opinion will somewhat endanger the passing of a Bill which you hope will help you at the next General Election.

The two hon. Members who have just addressed the House have claimed to speak on behalf of the people of London. On a famous historical or quasi-historical occasion I think there were three gentlemen who claimed to speak on behalf of the people of England, and I hope the two hon. Members opposite will allow me, as I, too, am a Metropolitan Member, to say a few words on this subject on behalf of the people of London. I speak for those peaceable and law-abiding citizens who desire to be allowed to go about their own business and to use the thoroughfares just as much as other people, and with no greater monopoly. It seems to me that only two points demanding any serious reply have been submitted to the House. The first was brought forward by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill). The hon. Member pointed out that the City Police Authorities hadgiven facilities for processions that had, according to the hon. Gentleman, been denied by the Chief Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I am doubtful whether that is quite accurate. The hon. Gentleman forgot, however, that in the City the streets are comparatively deserted on Saturday afternoon. In this respect they are much on the same footing as the Embankment and Birdcage Walk, which are opened by the Chief Commissioner to the hon. Gentleman and his friends. Then there is the point raised by the hon. Member for Shoreditch, that the rights of individual citizens to the free use of the thoroughfares of the Metropolis are frequently interfered with. The hon. Member mentioned such occasions as the visit of the Shah of Persia, the Lord Mayor's Show, and Drawing Rooms or Levees of the Sovereign. I would point out to the hon. Member that such occasions stand on an altogether different footing from a demonstration like that which is to take place on Saturday. Of the merits of that demonstration I will say nothing, but it is confessedly a partisan demonstration, confined to one party and to one section of the people of the Metropolis. I venture to say that the hon. Gentleman would be very much surprised if he were to find the humble individual who is addressing the House or any hon. Member on this side taking part in the demonstration. I would point out to the hon. Member that I claim no more for those for whom I speak than I allow to others. I have the honour to be a member of the Primrose League. Would not hon. Members opposite think the League was claiming too much if it demanded the sole monopoly of the busy streets of London for the purpose of marching through them in procession? I think we should be asking too much, and I should never dream of putting forward such a claim on behalf of the Primrose League, or any other organisation. I apply the same rule to the proposed procession on Saturday. Moreover, it should be remembered that when special facilities are given for the occupation of the streets on such occasions as the visit of the Shah we are acting in a national and Imperial spirit. I am bold enough to say that even with regard to the Lord Mayor's Show, that function is, at any rate, a non-contentious one. It is a demonstration of a strictly Municipal and Metropolitan non-partisan character, and in regard to which all parties are to a certain extent agreed. Therefore, I say, hon. Members opposite are not justified in demanding for Saturday's procession an undue and unjust monopoly of the streets of London, although they may have the right to ask for such facilities as might be given without interfering with the rights of the other inhabitants of the Metropolis.

I desire to join my hon. Friends on this side of the House in protesting against this unnecessary interference with the right of public meeting. It is rather remarkable that the Government should avail themselves of the opportunity, when an inconvenient demonstration is about to be held, to interfere with the Temperance Associations. I quite concede the legal right of the Home Secretary and the Chief Commissioner of Police to regulate, for the public convenience, the route which the procession should take, but they should exercise that right with discretion, and should, as far as possible, endeavour to meet the reasonable wishes of those who desire to take part in the procession. It must be obvious to the right hon. Gentleman that one of the purposes for which this procession is to take place is to enable the Temperance Associations to demonstrate in an organised fashion. The idea was that the various societies should assemble on the Thames Embankment, and then inarch through some public thoroughfares to Hyde Park, there to hold a meeting. There may be objections to the processionists marching through Oxford Street, but I do not see what objection can be raised to their proceeding through Northumberland Avenue. The only point at which any difficulty might occur would be, I apprehend, Trafalgar Square. But if a large procession is to march from the Embankment the same difficulty will occur in crossing from the Embankment to the Bird Cage Walk. I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman should have assented to the proposal of the Temperance Associations to march through Northumberland Avenue, and he would have met the requirements of the associations. He would thus have afforded them an opportunity of displaying their numbers. When I put the question to the right hon. Gentleman earlier in the evening I was led to believe that he had prohibited the assemblage of the processionists on the Embankment, but I find that is not so. But if the people are to assemble facilities should be afforded to enable them to get to the place of assemblage. Unless the right hon. Gentleman will enable them to come in forties, fifties, and hundreds, with their bands, banners, regalia, and other paraphernalia for display, they will not be able to avail themselves of the privilege of assembling and marshalling themselves in processional order on the Embankment. It is essential that the Home Secretary should give them the opportunity of getting from their various neighbourhoods to the Embankment. The suggestion that the people should form themselves into a number of processions might be a convenient suggestion if the right hon. Gentleman anticipated the demonstration on the Embankment would be so enormous that it could not conveniently be organised in one procession there and inarch to Hyde Park. I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman has not quite realised that the duty of the police is to afford accommodation to the public, and to provide for all the public, and not merely a few individuals who are casually using a street. If half-a-dozen individuals are to have facilities to walk up and down a street, surely 10,000 people who want to use a street have far greater claims to the protection and assistance of the police in exercising their increased requirements in connection with a public thoroughfare. I must confess I am surprised at the line adopted in Mr. Monro's letter, or ukase, as it has not been inappropriately called by a pre-ceding speaker, and for a subordinate officer of the Government to talk about his "duty as far as possible to prevent large bodies of menmarching in procession through the crowded thorough fares" makes it appear that he entirely misunderstands his duty. If large bodies of people march through public thoroughfares of this city it is his business to afford them facilities, and not to interfere with them and create a disturbance by attempting to break up their procession. If the people were likely to be disorderly or seditious I could understand the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety and fear, but the right hon. Gentleman will hardly suggest that the Bands of Hope, Good Templars, and other organisations of the Temperance Party are dangerous or seditious in their character. A great many of the people who will join in the procession desire the assistance of the police in getting from the Embankment to Hyde Park, and they are the very people whom the Chief Commissioner and the right hon. Gentleman ought to afford facilities to. There is a great deal in this letter of the Chief Commissioner of Police which grates very much on English notions of the right of public meeting. The tone of the letter is certainly very objectionable. There is a reference to a statement made in Parliament by the right hon. Gentleman himself. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will disavow that statement. To say that a body of 600 persons marching in procession with bands and banners through a crowded thoroughfare is a public nuisance is to use very strong language indeed. If a thoroughfare is crowded it is the duty of the police to facilitate the traffic. Towards the end of this remarkable letter of Mr. Monro there is what I submit is really an invitation to disturbance.

"It is, of course," he says, "to be understood that the police are not prepared to keep open the route for the processionists to the Embankment; they will be instructed to arrest, break up, and divide such processions whenever and so long as it may be necessary to allow the ordinary traffic to pass."

But I say that if there is an extraordinary addition to the traffic, and the police have notice of this addition to the ordinary traffic in a particular district or place, then I say the police should have regard to the larger number of persons wanting to use the streets, and use every effort to afford them free passage. By refusing to discharge that duty, the police are actually inviting disturbance, and suggesting interference with processions by those who hold views adverse to those who take part in them. If the Home Secretary would give an assurance that every facility shall be offered by the police for people to proceed to the Embankment on Saturday next, that would satisfy most reasonably minded people, but while the right hon. Gentleman admits the propriety and reasonableness of the proposal to assemble on the Thames Embankment, and yet refuses to afford facilities to persons to proceed to the place of assembly, he acts inconsistently, and invites disorder and trouble in this city. I am not here for the purpose of making an attack on the reasonable exercise of discretion by the police and the Home Office in regulating the passage of processions, but I say it is the duty of the Commissioner of Police, and his superior here, to afford reasonable protection and assistance to any number of the public who desire to have the opportunity of making a peaceable demonstration on any public question. On this occasion it happens to be an unfortunate question for the Government. The Government do not want to see a large demonstration, and possibly they might be glad to have obstacles in the way of any large procession or any great meeting. It may not be so, but the very suspicion of such a thing should have induced the Home Office to use the greater forbearance and consideration. If the demonstration should happen to be small and insignificant, then the Government would serve their own purpose by assisting the demonstration. If it is large and important, then it has the more claim to appear before the public in its true proportions. Certainly the Government should be more particularly careful to display fairness towards political opponents. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will re-consider his arrangements, and allow of police assistance to facilitate the assembling of the various contingents of Temperance Societies from different parts of London, allowing these to march along selected routes to the place of ! assembling for the general procession. An hon. Member opposite has suggested the possibility of a Primrose League demonstration; and all I can say is that if the hon Member and his friends desire to organise such a procession and demonstration, and the police throw difficulties in the way we will join in protest against such interference. Indeed, we would willingly do this, for we should like to see the numbers of the Primrose League, and we would heartily join in endeavouring to secure all facilities for a Primrose League procession, with all its paraphernalia, insignia, and decorations. I protest against unnecessary interference with a peaceable procession, and I protest against Government interference indirectly with public meeting. I am not prepared to say the interference is with the desire to embarrass political opponents, but it certainly wears that aspect, and is likely to encourage such a suspicion.

I regret that the hon. Member who has just sat down should have departed from the reasonable temper and rational concessions of his opening observations. Of the opening part of his speech I should not have had a word to complain, but when he imputes to the Government a political motive—some dislike of the opinions and views of those who want to organise the procession next Saturday—I can only assure him that he is entirely mistaken; and if his mischievous advice be followed by my hon. Friend, and the Primrose League should inconvenience the Metropolis in the same way as is proposed next Saturday, the same measures precisely will be taken. I do not wish to treat the subject with acrimony, and I hope hon. Members will excuse me if I do not follow them into many heated comments as to popular rights and so on. Really it seems to me that they have no bearing on this question, but I ask leave to offer a few common-sense suggestions upon the question of processions. I think hon. Members must feel that, in the condition to which the streets of this Metropolis are rapidly coming, the frequent passage of such organised bodies of men is, to say the least, a highly inconvenient thing, and I venture to say that it is not consistent with the public rights to the thoroughfare. If half-a-dozen men choose to walk down Bond Street arm-in-arm, sweeping everything before them from the foot pavement, and preventing others from going on that foot pavement, they would be clearly exceeding their rights, and I think it would be the duty of the police to interfere. These processions consist not only of one rank of half a dozen men, but of hundreds of such ranks of men, linked together, and not giving and taking—as I think the hon. Member for Shoreditch said—which is the rule of the thoroughfare, giving others just as much opportunity of using the thoroughfare as they take themselves, but sweeping before them carriages and foot passengers alike, and preventing all use of the thoroughfare so long as the procession is taking place. Let us get rid of the idea of processions entirely. If an owner of carts were to take half a dozen of them, and tie them together, and insist upon their passing in an uninterrupted line down Bond Street, that would be in excess of his rights, and his string of carts might be broken up in order to allow other vehicles and foot passengers to cross the line occupied by his carts so connected. Do not let it be forgotten that this organised occupation of large portions of the highway, to the prevention of all other use of the highway, is an abuse of the right which we all have equally in the streets. It is a departure from that principle of give and take by which alone the use of our thoroughfares can be maintained; it is a monopoly claimed for processions, but the good nature of the public is such that on most occasions they wink at this sort of usurpation, when persons, having no mischievous intention in their minds, make a demonstration of their views by means of a procession. But do let the House observe that the matter has now become one of serious consequence. On inquiry I find that there is an increasing mania for these demonstrations, for it really is so. The recorded figures which I have before me show that in 1887 there were 200 of these processions, in 1888 there were 1,400, and in 1889 there were 1,200 altogether.

The large processions numbered 17 in 1887, 13 in 1888, and 60 in 1889. I leave the House to imagine what sort of labour that threw upon the police in keeping the route open for the passage of these processions. All traffic is stopped on both sides in order to enable them to pass, and enormous numbers of the police have to be employed on that duty. Indeed, the amount of extra work is so great that the increasing frequency of these processions may well suggest the consideration whether it is not expedient to make a large increase in the Police Force. Now, the hon. Member for North St. Pancras has stated the rights of the police with fair accuracy; they regulate the passage of processions so as to cause as little general inconvenience as possible. Can it be contended that a demonstration of public opinion cannot be made in Birdcage Walk or Grosvenor Place, and that it is absolutely necessary to obstruct Piccadilly and Oxford Street? The hon. Member opposite is somewhat mistaken in his facts. The processionists desired to take, not the shortest, but the most circuitous route they could, and through the most crowded thoroughfares, to Hyde Park. What they wanted to do was to cause the maximum of inconvenience to the public and the maximum of trouble to the police. The difficulty and trouble that the police have in keeping a route for a procession of this sort are enormous. What the Commissioner says is this:—

"If you want to go to Hyde Park, where you can have your speeches and your expressions of opinion and your demonstration, the nearest way is by Birdcage Walk and Grosvenor Place."

But do not let it be supposed that even then inconvenience is not inflicted upon the public. An hon. Member told me that the last Sunday when a procession was protected by the police the necessary interruption of traffic caused no less than 81 omnibuses to be stopped in the Knightsbridge Road, while it was passing Hyde Park Corner. Can it be said that processionists have a right to obstruct the traffic like that? If they were kept to their strict rights, the police would break up the procession and allow the other traffic to pass, as they do with all other traffic. But if that course were taken the procession would cease to exist, and would be broken up; it would not get 200 yards in a crowded thoroughfare before it would be broken up, to permit the passage of traffic from other directions, and would cease to be a procession. The hon. Member for St. Pancras and the hon. Member for Bethnal Green want the procession to be preserved unbroken in the crowded thoroughfares, as the various contingents proceed towards the Embankment. That is a claim to use the streets in a manner which does not belong to any one section of the public. I am not aware of any body of persons having the right to use the streets to the exclusion of others in the manner contended for by hon. Members. I wish to deal with this matter in the most liberal spirit; but I confess I have felt doubtful whether the police ought to keep a route for these processions, as they have done, or whether they ought not to treat them as other traffic is treated, and stop them when necessary to allow other traffic to cross. If that rule were applied rigidly to processions, and they were treated as other traffic, neither more nor less, then they would soon cease in a crowded thoroughfare to be processions at all. But that was not the course taken in this instance, which was only to forbid the processionists going into the most crowded streets, where they would inflict the greatest inconvenience. Then the Commissioner says that if 15 processions approach the Embankment from different routes he could not undertake to protect them, but they must divide themselves to let the other traffic pass. In saying that the police would not protect the processionists, the Commissioner did not mean that the police would not protect them from violence and harm, but that he could not undertake to keep a route for and protect them as processions to the exclusion of the other traffic.

That is not what the Commissioner said.

I think the hon. Member will find the meaning of the Commissioner is clear. He uses the ordinary phrase. He means that the police will not prevent the other traffic from breaking up the processions. The police will simply deal with the pro- cessions as they would deal with ordinary traffic, and as a necessary result in crowded thoroughfares the processions would be broken up to allow the passage of cross lines of traffic. These subsidiary processions would necessarily become divided. Personally, I should be glad if the streets were so nearly empty as to allow the various sections of the contemplated procession to march to the place of meeting, but the streets never are empty, and it seems to me it is only reasonable prudence on the part of the police to say that persons must make their way to the place of meeting like other members of the public.

There is one great advantage in this Debate—that there is no difference of opinion either as to the objects of this meeting being lawful, or that the place where it is proposed to hold it is a perfectly proper place. But Her Majesty's Government have laid down a doctrine with regard to processions which, in my opinion, is far too high. Their major premiss is far too wide. The basis of the Debate is the letter of the Chief Commissioner of Police, in which he sets the case out very clearly. He said—

"I have the authority of the Secretary of State that a body of 600 persons marching in procession, with bands and banners, through a crowded thoroughfare was a public nuisance."

Now, I think that is far too high ground to take. Of course, a very much smaller body of men than 500 or 600 might cause great inconvenience. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary admits that six people walking arm in arm in Bond Street might be a nuisance, but if this doctrine were applied they were always a nuisance.

In a crowded thoroughfare.

Crowded, if you like—which means a broad street in the day time, when traffic is passing. The words quoted by the Commissioner cover a very broad doctrine, under cover of which it may be possible the right of procession may be altogether lost. With much that the right hon. Gentleman has said I fully agree; but my contention is that we cannot lay down any such doctrine. It is perfectly impossible to enforce any fixed rule of the kind; the facts in each case must guide us There is danger in accepting this proposition which is put forward by the Commissioner, and I think we ought to protest against the overstraining of this doctrine of public convenience. The fact is that a great mistake has been made in this case, and I hope that the Government will not insist upon a doctrine which would be extremely mischievous in its results.

The whole question before us now is whether from this time processions shall cease in the Metropolis. I appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, who was so careful not to introduce any heated language in his speech, to give us a reason for the action the police have taken; and I venture to say that he has entirely failed to meet the charges which have been made from this side of the House with regard to the ten our of the language held by a subordinate of the right hon. Gentleman. I say that this document is couched in language totally unbecoming in a permanent official speaking of the people in whose employment he is. It contains almost an incentive to disorder. Those of us who have raised this discussion are most anxious that there should be nothing in the shape of disorder, and we want the Government to act in such a way as will do away with all friction between the public and the police. The defence of Mr. Monro has been based on a statement by the Home Secretary in 1889, in reference to a Salvation Army procession, which was making its way to Exeter Hall, and had proceeded more than two-thirds of the distance when it came into collision with the police. And what was the reason for that collision? According to the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary this procession of 600 persons became a public nuisance directly it entered the area controlled by the Metropolitan Police, although it had just passed, without difficulty, through the crowded streets of the City, where the arrangements were controlled by a police force managed by the citizens themselves. The citizens of London are face to face with a state of things which cannot be equalled in any other town in the country. We know that at the great Franchise Demonstration in 1884 the processions were allowed to pass from the Embankment, up Whitehall, and through Trafalgar Square to Hyde Park, and the Heir Apparent and his family occupied a seat in Whitehall, from which they viewed the citizens expressing their opinion in a Constitutional manner. There was no danger felt then; why should there be now? Yet here we have an edict issued by a permanent official and couched in language which we are bound to resent. All that the promoters of Saturday's demonstration desire is that the same facilities should be accorded to them as have hitherto been enjoyed. They are not anxious that the methods of the Chief Secretary should have too strong an influence on the Cabinet, or that the right hon. Gentleman should try and induce his Colleagues to imitate in this country some of his characteristic acts. I protest most strongly against the action of the Chief Commissioner. I protest against the speech of the Home Secretary and against the ideas which underlie his views on the subject of public processions. The ukase of Mr. Monro practically prevents the people from assembling on the Embankment, for it directs that those who come from certain directions, as from Westminster Bridge, shall proceed direct to Hyde Park. The right of public meeting has been the safety valve of public opinion in this country in times gone by. Men have been allowed to meet and demonstrate in the past, and I say by all means do not prevent them doing so now. You ought not to rob them of a privilege they have so long enjoyed, and I submit it would be a most dangerous thing to do so. I think we are bound to press this matter to a division.

I agree with the Home Secretary that these questions are of growing seriousness because of the huge population we now have in London. This population is increasing year by year, and consequently these public assemblies on important occasions also grow larger. The Home Secretary says that the duties thrown on the police are exceedingly heavy. That is so, and yet he is now putting upon them duties which they used not to be called upon to discharge. I have during the last 30 years had wide experience of the police in connection with public meetings. It has been my good fortune never to come into collision with them. But I have never gone to the police for assistance in connection with any of the great meetings I have held. I have not conceived it to be the duty of the police to interfere or to do anything except to keep order so far as their jurisdiction extends. It is not for me to criticise the action of the promoters of next Saturday's demonstration, but I am not sure that they have been wise in applying to the police authorities. Those who summon huge demonstrations of this kind should take reasonable precautions for maintaining order, and should not have recourse to the police, except as ordinary citizens. What has happened, especially during the last half a dozen years, has been a disposition on the part of the Police Authorities to interfere in political demonstrations. I recently put some questions to the Home Secretary as to some inquiries made by the police with reference to a Post Office employés' meeting, and I received a denial founded on information supplied to the police by we know not whom. I am afraid there is a growing feeling on the part of the police that it is their duty to act in the same way as the Continental police, and to interfere with the arrangements for holding political meetings. They used not to adopt this policy, and it ought to be no part of their duty so to act now. I think we ought, therefore, to enter a strong protest against their action. The Home Secretary tells us that there are more meetings now, and that it may be his duty, unless something is done, to ask for an increase of the Police Force.

I said that there were more processions, and that if the police are to be charged with these duties the number of the Force must be increased.

But why do you not shut your eyes to these processions, as other Governments have done before you? Most of my demonstrations have been held without any police interference. The working of the Police Force is not a thing merely in the hands of the Home Secretary or of the Chief Commissioner. It is regulated by statute, and I deny that the Act gives the Chief Commissioner any sort of authority to break up processions or to hinder them. He has the duty cast upon him of making regulations for the preservation of the peace; but when he acts as he is now doing he brings himself into conflict with the people, and that is a very dangerous thing to do. It is absurd to say that the police can control the whole of the people of the Metropolis. The people are only controlled by their desire to be law-abiding, and unless they are law-abiding it is impossible to restrain them without the assistance of the military. I repeat that the Chief Commissioner had no right to issue from his room at Scotland Yard such a decree as Mr. Monro has sent out.

The hon. Member for North Kensington has rebuked two of my hon. Friends because they have come forward as the spokesmen of the London people.

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I am sure he has no desire to misrepresent me. What I said was this. If the two hon. Members who have spoken claim to represent the people of London, they surely will not object to my also claiming to be a Metropolitan Member, and, like them, to represent the people of London.

I accept the hon. Member's explanation, although I remember the hon. Member's verbal reference to the Tailors of Tooley Street; but I want to draw attention to the fact that it is the London Liberal Members who have risen to uphold the rights and privileges of the people, and that the only London Member on the Tory Benches who has spoken is the hon. Member, who has already avowed that it is not his intention again to seek the suffrages of his constituency. Now I do not wish to prolong this debate; but I want to emphasise the fact that it is a Tory Government which is trying to deprive the people of London of their rights and privileges, and unless the people through their Parliamentary Representatives make a strong protest, they will soon have no rights left at all. The Home Secretary has referred to the increasing number of these processions. But why are these demonstrations held? Simply because the policy of the Government is so distasteful to the people of the Metropolis; and the more educated the people become, the more frequent will be the protests of this character. I can assure the hon. Member for North Kensington that, if he desires to have a Primrose League demonstration, nobody will be more willing than the London Liberals and Radicals to assist in keeping order. The fact is, that the Government have no confidence in the people; on the contrary, they have a terrible fear of the people. I believe, however, that the people of London are as orderly as any body of people to be found in any part of the world. We very much object to the fact that we have not the same rights and privileges as people resident in cities and towns such as Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, and the City of London, where the police are under the control of the directly elected Representatives of the people, and not under the sole control of the Home Secretary or a Chief Commissioner. The Chief Commissioner has said that he is responsible for what is contained in his letter, and the Home Secretary has in this House taken the responsibility upon himself. Whom are we to rebuke? I hope it is not too late for the Government to say they will allow the different branches of the procession to go to the Embankment and assemble there without any restriction being placed in the way of their meeting, as they have hitherto been enabled to do.

I rise, Sir, for the purpose of answering the taunt that hon. Members on this side of the House have refrained from taking part in this Debate. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on the firm position he has taken in this matter, and I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman's subordinate, Mr. Monro, upon his action. The reason for the action which has been taken in this matter is to be found in what has been going on in the Metropolis for many months past when processions of this kind have been taking place almost day by day to the great interruption of business and the extreme inconvenience of the inhabitants generally. I am the Representative of a large democratic constituency, and should be one of the last to attempt to restrict the legitimate rights of the people in regard to public meetings; but I assert unhesitatingly that the regulations and rules laid down by the Home Secretary are not intended to interfere with those rights, but merely to regulate the proper use of the thoroughfares, by diverting processions from the busy streets so as to prevent their interference with the regular traffic of the Metropolis. As the Civil Governor of the Metropolis, the right hon. Gentleman has a perfect right to prevent interference of the ordinary use of the thoroughfares by the public, and I think the boldness of the language he has used is fully justified by the fact that as these processions have been carried out of late they have become an intolerable nuisance. Although I support the legitimate exercise of the rights of the people, I think that those public demonstrations ought to be carried out in such a manner as not to interfere with the ordinary public business. There are undoubtedly many who sympathise with the object of those who wish to make the proposed demonstration; but, at the same time, due consideration ought to be given to the rights of that portion of the public who do not desire to take part in the contemplated procession. Although I am aware that what I have just said may not be popular in certain quarters, I think we have every right to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on the stand he has taken in this matter.

I am not one of those who deny that any Government has a right to control and regulate, to some extent, public processions; but it seems to mo that this matter, which has already occupied the attention of the House of Commons for an hour or two, is rather one that ought to be within the jurisdiction of the County Council, which is specially elected for the exercise of municipal functions, than that it should be allowed to take up the time of the great representative Council of the nation. For once I feel myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Northampton. I think that during the last year or two the police seem to have taken upon themselves the right of controlling the public meetings and breaking up public processions in a manner which creates some ground for alarm; but I ask the Government whether they think that in the future these processions are likely to be increased or diminished by the course they are now taking? Some observations have fallen from the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Causton) with which I do not altogether agree, He said the people of London were demonstrating in large processions because they do not agree with the policy of Her Majesty's Government, thereby inferring that if the Government were to be replaced by a Government composed of Members sitting on this side of the House the people of London will necessarily be in agreement with the policy of that Government. That I believe to be an absolute fallacy. I do not think that the policy propounded from either side of this House will ever in the slightest degree be accepted by the vast bulk of the population of London. I may, however, say that there is one matter which is not a cause of any astonishment to me, because I have become accustomed to it, and that is the attitude taken by the occupants of the Liberal Front Bench on this occasion. We have just had a halting little homily from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Last Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) of a kind to which we have become accustomed. But, apart from the right hon. Gentleman, we have seen to-day, as on many previous occasions when very serious matters are going on in the Metropolis, the occupants of the Front Bench have sat like so many stuffed figures at Madame Tussaud's, making no observations whatever, but occasionally running out to look at the telegraph tape to see what news was coming from Connemara or other parts of the world out of which they might be able to make political capital. Such conduct does not much astonish me; but I hope that the people of London, if they attach much importance to this question, will read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the silence of those right hon. Gentlemen; and I trust, also, that at some future time, when votes are to be caught and kudos is to be gained at a small expense, we may be enabled to hear a word or two from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, or from some other right hon. Gentleman now seated on the Front Opposition Bench in the undignified attitude of members for Madame Tussaud's.

I am sure that I need scarcely ask for the attention of the Committee while I perform the three-fold task, first of moving the Educational Estimates for the current financial year; secondly, of giving some account of our stewardship at the Education Office in Whitehall, and reporting the progress we have made during the school year ending August 31, 1889; and thirdly, of giving in some detail an explanation of the New Code. In performing that task I do not propose to waste time in making any preliminary statement. Hon. Members are aware that increased attention has, during the last few years, been directed in this country to educational matters, and that that attention has been, as it were, focussed by the recent Report of the Royal Commission. It is perfectly true that although in the Estimates we shall be able to show that within the last few years there has been a gradual and a steady progress all along the line, yet both within and without the walls of this House there has been a growing dissatisfaction with the existing state of things. Now, what are our proposals, and what is the basis upon which we rest them? It is impossible for anyone to study the position of elementary education to-day, compared with what it was a few years ago, without coming to the conclusion that although we have attained a vast degree of efficiency in our national system of education, there is below the high-water mark of efficiency a vast number of schools which do not do us credit, and which, in fact, ought not to exist at all as they now are. What has been the chief basis upon which we have proposed to proceed in making the changes we have brought about? In what we have done, we have sought to raise the level of the weak schools, and thus to make our elementary schools more generally efficient. In dealing with this subject we were confronted with various difficulties, and one of the very first of them that met us was that of the qualification of our existing staff of teachers, and especially of our pupil teachers. That is a question of primary importance, and it is one of the first with which we had to deal in framing our New Code. Of course, in saying that, I must by no means be supposed to intend to cast a slur upon our present staff of teachers. I do not stand here as an advocate of the claims of the teachers. The teachers' record for the last 20 years is a great record. It is a record of continual improvement, not only as regards the general work they have done, but in the constant increase in the number of children in Standard IV. and upwards, and in the ratio that number bears to the number of children in the school. I should like to show by what means we propose to improve upon the existing Code, and what is the two-fold object we have in view. First, we deal with a fundamental part of the Code, the pupil teacher system. It has been advocated by many that the pupil teacher system should be abolished. We propose to strengthen the system as it exists. We propose to deal with pupil teachers by-improving their training and, above all, by affording opportunities to leave their profession to all who are likely to fail as teachers. In this we are fallowing the lines of the recommendation of the Royal Commission. Article 84 of the new Code lays down that

"The managers are bound to see that the pupil teacher is properly instructed during the engagement, and the Department if satisfied that this duty is neglected may decline to recognise any pupil teachers as members of the staff of a school under the same managers."

This throws upon managers the onus of giving efficient instruction to pupil teachers. In Article 41 we strengthen the successive tests to be applied to pupil teachers before the end of their term of engagement. It is laid down that the final examination of pupil teachers will be the Queen's scholarship examination, while they will have to produce the same certificates as under the old Code. Article 41 (g) is most important; it provides that

"When a pupil teacher of the first, second, or third year is reported by the Inspector to have failed, the papers will be further revised in the Department before the result is communicated to the managers."

This will enable the Department to carry out the principle that these young people are not to continue to overburden the profession if they are unfit for it by allowing them to seek some other calling for which they are more fitted. Articles 47 and 48 improve the machinery of training, and Article 48 (d) lays down that

"Candidates who fail twice to pass the Queen's scholarship examination may not be again examined."

Article 52 provides that pupil teachers who have obtained a place in the first class in the Queen's scholarship examination may be recognised as "provisionally certificated teachers," to whom, however, no certificate is issued. Here, again, we raise the standard of efficiency for provisionally certificated teachers, and put a much stronger test upon them. I call special attention to these details, because they are of the utmost importance. What we are anxious to do is gradually and surely to improve the standard of excellence in the teaching profession, beginning at the very foundation. We are anxious to secure that all aspiring to follow teaching as a profession shall be put through much more severe tests, and we further wish to prevent the profession from being overburdened by a number of teachers who are not likely to do credit to themselves or service to the State. On the same lines we propose to apply much more severe tests to certificated teachers. By Article 55—

"Candidates for certificates must be examined twice, and must undergo probation by actual service in school;"

but teachers above 20 who are now employed will not be affected, and ample notice is given to all others. It may here be convenient to state that these changes are, one and all, prospective; we do not wish to give the least shadow of excuse for a grievance to any existing teacher or pupil teacher. In no sense are these changes intended to be retrospective in their operation. By Article 61 we again raise the standard of the test to be applied by providing that after the 1st of January, 1891, teachers will not be permitted to superintend pupil teachers unless they have in the examination in second year's papers been placed in the first or second division. By Article 62 we give another chance to teachers to be examined again for the qualification to superintend pupil teachers; and by Article 63 we require that, in order to obtain a parchment certificate, a teacher must, after passing the examination in second year's papers, obtain, while continuously engaged in one and the same school, two favourable Reports from an Inspector at two consecutive annual visits. One important change is that we do away altogether with written endorsements on certificates; we make no distinctions between them; we do not classify them; and the only distinction which will hereafter exist will be the right or otherwise to have the superintendence of pupil teachers. In dwelling upon these details my object is to show that, while we propose a vast change in our educational system, and ask Parliament to spend a much larger sum upon elementary education, so far as we are concerned, we are determined to begin our improvements at the very foundation of our system by raising the qualifications of teachers, and through them and by other means we give an increased impetus to our educational system. From this question of teachers I proceed to the most important and what I may call the vital change we make in the method of assessing grants. Here, again, we proceed upon lines which have been broadly and generally laid down by the Royal Commission. They recommended a fixed grant of 10s. We go further, and are more liberal. We propose to do away with the existing per centage grant, the old merit grant, and the old fixed grant, and to establish a fixed grant of 12s. 6d. or 14s. The principle on which the change will be worked will be this: that in future the grant will be paid only to an efficient school; and the conditions of efficiency are laid down in Articles 86, 98, and 101. If the conditions laid down are not fulfilled the Inspector must report that the school is inefficient, and the Department will issue a warning that, if improvement is not made, and if the school does not come up to the standard at the next examination, the school will be struck off the list. On the second adverse report 14 days will be allowed the managers to appeal: the matter will then be referred to the Chief Inspector; and then the school will be finally struck off the list, if the report is still adverse. The next question is, What are the steps to be taken to avoid this catastrophe? Here, I admit, lies the real gist of our scheme; if in this regard it breaks down, I admit that the catastrophe will be great, and also that an enormous responsibility will rest on those who advocate these reforms, and on those who are charged with the duty of carrying them out. We propose to enable these schools to attain to efficiency by a twofold process. We propose to improve the quality of the teaching staff, and at the same time to afford facilities to unfit teachers to withdraw from the profession. We also propose, by fixed grants and by freedom of classification, to tempt school managers to take a wider curriculum by introducing class subjects, and to add to and to improve the teaching staff for this purpose. There is one other fixed grant of 1s. or 1s. 6d. for discipline and organisation, and we put this fixed grant on precisely the same basis as the first grant. If any school should fail to obtain this grant it would be liable to be struck off the list. This grant will throw a further responsibility on managers, teachers, and all concerned. It will not be given to any extent, with reference to the teaching in elementary subjects; and as to discipline and organisation, the whole state of the school will come under the purview of the Inspector. There must be evidence of good moral teaching, and the school must be well found. How will the application of this grant affect schools in general? There are a large number of schools now obtaining 90 per cent. of passes which, under the new system, will not actually be monetary gainers by these changes. But there are other changes by which they will be gainers, and I think that under this new grant, and under the new method of assessing it, every school in England and Wales will be enabled to come up, at all events, to the maximum of the 17s. 6d. limit. Article 105 of the Code is of very great importance. It is the Article which deals with the small rural schools. As the Royal Commission pointed out, it is impossible for these schools to attain anything like efficiency in their present financial condition. We have taken the advice of the Royal Commission, and to all schools situated in a school district of which the population is below 500 we propose to give an extra grant of £10 per annum. This represents a very considerable sum, as our estimate of the number of such schools is 4,500. So that if each and all of these accept our challenge and come under the regulations under which we assess the grants we shall on this account ask for £45,000 per annum.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the average attendance in these schools?

I have not the figures before me just now, but the right hon. Gentleman shall have them. Besides this lump sum which we propose to give, these schools will be able to earn a larger grant by becoming more efficient, and they will be able also to earn extra grants for efficiency in drawing and manual instruction. We are dealing in no niggardly spirit with these schools, and the question at once arises, "How are you going to secure their efficiency?" We hope that they will have an improved staff, and in Article 105 we press upon them the necessity of further staff enlargements. We incur a great responsibility in giving this money; but I think that we shall be able to bring such pressure to bear upon the managers and teachers as to make the schools quite efficient. As far as the Department is concerned, it is determined so to handle these schools as to bring them gradually and surely into line with the rest in the country. As to the question of the abolition of payment by results, there is much in the late system which has met with universal condemnation. It is, no doubt, true that the changes which we propose will give enormous relief to the teachers, and while they are not alone to be considered, yet education must advance with much longer and surer strides when we have a willing and con tented profession. We are told that this new grant of 12s. 6d. is nothing but a merit grant in a new form; but I deny this. It will be worked by the Department as a fixed grant essentially. And if we have another grant of 14s., it is because we do not wish to reduce all schools to one dead level. In Article 92 (power to warn instead of withholding grants), the words "or a portion of the grant" occur. These words were not inserted in any sense to weaken the system under which this grant is to be assessed. They are merely to meet some emergency or some possible case where the managers have failed to comply with some minor requirement, and the Department does not feel justified in sweeping away the grant altogether. But it will be the essence of the new principle that the schools will know what their financial means are exactly. We hope that the result of these changes in the administration of the assessment will be to bring relief all round. The managers and teachers will no longer feel bound by the old system of a monetary payment per head of the scholars. The Inspectors, we hope, will find that these reforms take away the drudgery of their work, and give them more time for chance inspections, enabling them to divide their time more in accordance with the requirements of the different schools. Then, as to freedom of classification, it is said that, according to the words of the Instruction, we propose to give a benefit with one hand and to take it away with the other. The words to which I refer are in paragraph 14 of Instructions to Inspectors. They have given a false impression abroad, and therefore we shall issue a Circular distinctly laying down the views of the Department. Under the present system the teacher may be induced to keep children in a particular standard longer than is desirable. This will be remedied under the new system. But we must take care that the privilege is not abused in its use, and we must therefore reserve to the Inspectors this right—that where the freedom of classification has been abused to the injury of schools they shall have the right to step in and stop it. There is another matter to which considerable reference has been made. We have resolved that recitation shall be retained, as from all the information we have been able to gather we find it would have a very adverse effect on the schools if you did away with the teaching of recitation. The Royal Commission strongly recommended that the children should have the advantage of learning by heart, and one of our Inspectors (Mr. Coward) speaks of recitation as a most valuable addition to the school curriculum.

"I was glad to see it made uniformly compulsory in the Code last year, because it affords the children an opportunity of storing up their minds with valuable information."

I come now to a very important part of our Code, namely, that relating to the school curriculum. It is true that we do not make much alteration in the curri- culum as regards obligatory subjects, but we propose to make considerable changes with regard to class and extra subjects. In this matter, although I at one time held a different view, we have decided to adopt the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and offer all elementary schools a large range of alternative courses in class subjects. I have already alluded to the extra time which will be afforded, and I trust one of the first advantages of that will be a large extension of the class and extra subjects as part of our elementary school system. We hope further, by means of this extended curriculum, to make school life more attractive and to abolish cram. We hope to popularise our schools and to make them more attractive places altogether than they are at present. We also hope by this extended curriculum to supply scholars with a special form of knowledge which will be useful to them in their own localities and at their own doors. We offer a complete syllabus for elementary science and another for history, while with regard to English we give five courses. In geography we give one original course and two alternative courses. In elementary science in Class "D" there are introduced into the curriculum important changes in regard to agricultural teaching. I consider that this question of agricultural teaching in our schools is one which has been far too long neglected in the rural districts, and that the changes we have made will tend to popularise this class of instruction. I have detailed to the Committee the generous and liberal manner in which Parliament is to be asked to consent to our dealing with this matter. I know that grave responsibility rests with the Department, but I fully accept it, and I hope we shall be able to find some means of inducing school managers to consent to teach these class subjects. I believe the new system we are promulgating will be found generally acceptable, and I trust that in time the effect will be seen of the liberal grants we offer. In regard to teaching cookery to girls, I may mention that in consequence of our exertions the girls who learned cookery in 1889 showed an increase of 36 per cent. in that year, and that being the case I see no reason why, with a more complete system, the increase another year should not be 50 per cent. We all know how desirable it is in the present state of agriculture that children should be taught matters relating to agriculture. They ought to learn many things about plant and insect life. I live in a fruitgrowing district, where we have been subject to the most fearful devastation by caterpillars. At one time growers put it all down to the influence of the East wind; but now they have discovered that it was due to the ravages of, insects, and hon. Members who pass through a fruit plantation will notice a belt of glutinous substance around the trees, which insects cannot pass over. With regard to specific subjects, if hon. Members will turn to Article 15, they will find that considerable changes have been made. It will be found that the Government have met the demand which has been made on them by the Welsh Members, and have given facilities for bi-lingual teaching in Welsh schools for the special purpose of relieving them of disabilities which undoubtedly existed, and which deprived their scholars of the same chances of success as children in English schools. Then we have introduced for the first time the teaching of German and shorthand, which may be said to apply to commercial education. Bookkeeping and physical training are also introduced for the first time, and navigation has also been introduced. With regard to cookery, it has been arranged that an Inspectress shall be appointed for this subject. In the evening schools a shorter number of hours will be allowed for teaching cookery, and for the first time, again, the teaching of laundry work will be introduced into the elementary schools. I have no doubt that those subjects of cookery and laundry work will prove very popular; they are most important matters, and will most beneficially affect the comfort of the whole of the working population of the country. Another matter of importance is that of the compulsory teaching of drawing and manual instruction. Many fears have been expressed with reference to this point, but it is not intended to make drawing compulsory at once; it can scarcely be done, and the process must be gradual. During the last two years, and since the last change was made, great progress had been made with regard to the teaching of drawing. In the year ending March, 1889, drawing was taught in 3,700 schools to 845,000 children, while in the year ending 1890 it was taught in 4,466 schools to 1,019,000 children, which showed a considerable advance. During the last two months, also, 233 schools have been added to the list. As I have stated, it is not intended to make the teaching of drawing compulsory at once; but I can assure hon. Members that the Department are very earnest in the matter, and it is hoped that before many years have passed there will be very few schools in which drawing is not taught. Something like agreement has now been come to as to the opinion that drawing and manual instruction shall be combined. I think it would be wrong to introduce a compulsory system in regard to such a matter. In this connection I should like to quote the recommendations of the late Commission on Technical Education with regard to manual instruction and drawing. In the first place, it is recommended that manual instruction should be given as far as possible out of school hours. With regard to that we think it right to agree to this, I do not say in all cases, but in some at all events. The Commissioners then say:—

"Whenever more attention shall be given to drawing, and especially to mechanical drawing, in the ordinary and higher elementary schools, it will be proper and desirable that the manual work should be executed from drawings prepared by the children themselves."

That system we propose to proceed upon on starting; we wish to test it. Some people scoff at this system of teaching; but it is one of great importance, and our object in making these new departures is to cultivate the general intelligence of the child. In regard to manual instruction, then, we propose to ally it with drawing as much as possible, and to give opportunities to our scholars to enable them to draw from the solid. We also now propose to give a grant for manual instruction. We think it important that a grant should be given for it, and I think we shall give it on some system which will nearly approach half the cost. That grant will be outside the 17s. 6d. limit, and on precisely the same system as the present grant from the Science and Art Department. Before I leave the proposals which I am now making to the Committee, I should like to remark that they practically carry us into smooth water with regard to technical education, for I venture to urge that, practically, these proposals, coupled with our Act of last Session, will develop until they cover the whole ground of technical education. In respect to evening schools, there, again, we propose to make a great change. Not only Bills-that have been laid on the Table of the House, but also discussions that we have had, go to show that in this House there is complete unanimity with reference to evening continuation schools; and when I state that we propose practically to establish such schools, I presume that not a single hon. Member will vote against the proposal. There can be no question, then, that this proposal meets with universal approval. Some of the Inspectors have expressed their opinions on this matter. Mr. Coward, whom I have previously quoted on another important matter, says—

"I come now to the subject of evening schools. I regret that I have no statistics to offer for the division to indicate what progress (if any) is being made. Not much, I fancy, from the little information that has reached me. These schools are the continuation schools of the day, and any large development of such schools must, it seems to me, spring from the extension and organisation of the evening school system."

Mr. Sharpe says—

"The recreative evening classes have been successful both in creating interest and higher instruction; but they can avail themselves only to a very limited extent of the benefits of inspection, owing to the necessity under the present Code of presenting all the scholars in the three R's before they can be presented in any other subject. The chief demand in these classes appears to be for bookkeeping, shorthand, and French, and for any subject that may be useful in the scholar's line of life."

We propose to do away with the limitation which is here referred to. We propose, it is true, to put a certain test to every scholar, and there, I hope, I shall be upheld by the general opinion of hon. Members that it is absurd to establish continuation schools for scholars who are not grounded in elementary matters. I will not go at any length into this subject, but it is one which goes to the very heart of our social system; and, when we come to discuss the question in a practical way, it is surprising to see how sleepy and how backward we have been in this respect, in spending millions upon education minus these continuation schools. Worse than all, the lad who is injured most under the present system is very often the sharpest; the one who has passed the standards of education the quickest. A boy of this description in a large town has often a bad chance at home, and he is pitched into the streets, with all the dangers of contamination there, during the huge gap that exists between the time that he gets through the standards and obtains occupation. We do not wish in the future with our continuation schools to shut out voluntary efforts such as those of the Recreative Evening School Society and other societies, and we think that, with proper care and inspection, we shall be able to follow out a system by which voluntary bodies who wish to carry out a proper form of amusement shall be allowed to do so as long as it is supplemented by one hour of solid work. We feel strongly that we cannot bring compulsion to bear with regard to these evening schools, and, therefore, we must make them attractive. Now, with regard to the change as to the staff, I have no doubt that it will be urged that we have not done enough; but we make a new starting point. I know that there are scarcely any good schools which are not staffed up to the requirement; but we are raising the minimum requirement, and, therefore, we hope that this improvement, though it may not satisfy all our critics, will materially raise the condition of the staff in most of our schools. With regard to day training colleges, I know that I shall be told that the recognition of only 200 students as Queen's scholars is not enough; but we propose, at all events, to add another 200 next year. With regard to this matter, I would invite free and frank discussion. It is avowedly an experiment, and is capable of expansion. I have been much pressed by Members from Lancashire and Yorkshire with regard to our present system of half-time, and many teachers have asked for more lenient treatment in this direction. There is no doubt that our half-timers have done splendid work in our schools, and I think that, in dealing with the question of technical education, there is no better argument than the quickness and thoroughness with which half-timers do their work, and it is because they are receiving what is really technical education at the same time. If I am asked to deal with this question, I say that I shall be prepared to do nothing which will destroy this splendid record of work done by half-timers; but there are many points which I admit may be dealt with more leniently; and the Department propose to issue a circular which I believe will give general satisfaction to teachers, and will also give assistance to the half-timers. Though I do not suggest that the new Code is perfect or incapable of improvement, I submit with confidence to the Committee that if it is put to the test its main provisions will live for many years as a benefit to the education of the future. I should now like to give a short statement of our educational work during the last year. The sum granted for expenditure for the financial year ending March 31, 1890, amounted to £3,684,339, and the sum expended was £3,684,264, showing a saving on the year's expenses of £75. That is running it very close. The sum voted for annual grants for day and evening scholars was £3,323,903, and the expenditure £3,326,328, or an excess of £2,425. This excess represents the increased grant paid per scholar of 17s. 10d., or 1¾d. per head. With regard to the estimates for the year 1890–91 the figures are based upon the existing Code; therefore, of course, if the new Code comes into operation there will no doubt be a supplementary estimate in connection with that Code. The sum required under the existing Code amounts to £3,782,224, being an increase of £97,885 over last estimates. The annual grants for day and evening scholars are estimated at £3,418,366, being an increase of £94,463. This increase is accounted for by an increase of 45,000 in the average attendance, and an increase of 3¼d. in the rate of the grant per day scholar. Allowance is also made for an increase of 4,230 in the average attendance at evening schools, and of 5d. in the rate of grant per scholar. This comparison is, strictly speaking, one of estimates only, because in regard to actual results a considerable discrepancy is shown. In the day schools during the year 1889–90 the average attendance was less than the estimates, and therefore the present estimate allows for an increase of 74,000, instead of 45,500, as shown on the face of the estimates. On the other hand, the rate of grant allows for an increase of 1½d. per scholar, and not 3¼d., as shown on the estimates, because the actual rate paid per scholar in 1889–90 exceeded the estimated rate by 1¾d. There is no change, either in respect to the staff at Whitehall, or in regard to Inspectors, except that five vacancies of Inspectors have been filled up by five Inspectors' Assistants being promoted to Sub-Inspectors, and a most important change has been made by the appointment of an Inspectress of cookery. A saving of between £4,000 and £5,000 a year has been effected by the appointment, in 1882, of the Sub-Inspectors' class, which now numbers 42. With regard to pensions to teachers, there is an increase of 35 on the year, of whom 12 receive the highest pension—£.30; 15 receive £25, and eight receive £20. I do not admit that this question is at all in a satisfactory condition, and I hope that before many years are over we may arrive, at all events, at some modus vivendi. The question is a very difficult one, and those who have gone most deeply into it will best appreciate its difficulties. I will shortly explain to the Committee what the progress of the year ending August last has been. The number of schools inspected in 1888 was 19,221; in 1889 19,311, an increase of 89. There was school accommodation in 1888 for 5,356,000 scholars; in 1889 for 5,440,000 scholars, an increase of 84,000 scholars. The number of scholars on the register in 1888 was 4,687,000; in 1889 4,755,000, an increase of 68,000. The average attendance in 1888 was 3,651,000; in 1889 3,683,000, the increase being the same as that of the scholars on the register. The percentage of passes in the standard examination was, in 1888, 87·97; in 1889 89·10, an increase of 1·13. The number of scholars examined in Standard IV. and upwards—one of the best tests—was, in 1888, 954,000; in 1889 973,000, an increase of 19,000. The percentage of such scholars to the whole number examined was 37·4 in 1888, and in 1889 37·7. The number of girls who earned grants for cookery was 42,100 in 1888; and in 1889 57,500, an increase of 15,400. The number of certificated and assistant teachers was 68,683 in 1888, and in 1889 70,752, an increase of 2,069; while the number of pupil teachers was, in 1888, 29,901, and in 1889 30,397, an increase of 496. There is nothing startling in these figures; but, so far as they go, they are satisfactory, showing, as they do, a steady rate of increase in all important matters. Cookery is an important feature in the Code, the progress made in this matter being so great as to warrant the belief that these extra subjects, provided proper means and appliances are adopted, will grow in favour with the working classes. In the previous year the increase in the number of girls earning the cookery grant was 11,700, and in the year before only 5,900, and at this date about 60,000 girls are earning the grant. The increase in the percentage of passes, equivalent, as it is, to 1·13, is also very marked, when we consider the difficulty in increasing the percentage the nearer the limit is approached. The percentage of passes is now within a fraction of 90, and shows the success of the teachers as regards the elementary subjects. A steady increase is being maintained also as regards scholars examined in Standards IV. to VII. The progress under this head is well brought out in these figures, which I will read to the Committee:—The number of scholars examined in Standard IV. and upwards in each year, from 1885 to 1889 inclusive, was as follows:—783,000, 848,000, 912,000, 954,000, and 973,000, the percentage of such scholars to the whole number examined being respectively 32·9, 34·7, 36·3, 37·4, and 37·7 Although I consider this progress satisfactory, there is still much good work to be done. There are many laggards in the race, because there are 43,700 scholars over 10 years of age, who should have competed in Standard IV. and upwards, but who were really examined in lower standards fit for children from seven to nine years old. The old difficulty with regard to regularity of attendance, too, still hangs over our heads. No doubt there are a vast number of children who should be included in the elementary schools, but when I look to the liberality, not only of voluntary, but Board schools, I have hopes that under our new system we shall be able to make our school life more popular and attractive, and so to fill up the large gaps which now exist in the numbers who ought to be in regular attendance. I should like to give a few figures with reference to the cost of maintenance per scholar in average attendance. In the Board schools the cost was, £2 4s. 6½d., as against £2 4s. 7½d. in the previous year, a decrease of 1d.; and in the voluntary schools £11 6s. 4d., as compared with £1 16s. 4½d. in the previous year, a decrease of ½d. In the Board schools outside London the cost was £1 19s. 7¾d., as against £1 19s. 8d., a decrease of ¼d., and in the voluntary schools £1 15s. 9¾d., as compared with £1 15s. 8½d. in the previous year, an increase of 1d. In the Metropolitan Board schools the cost was £2 19s. 8¾d., as against £3 0s. 6¼d., and in the Metropolitan voluntary schools £2 3s. 7½d., as compared with £2 4s. 1¾d. in the previous year. And now, in conclusion, I have only to plead for the proposals I have placed before the Committee that consideration which the importance of the subject deserves, and although when next Session arrives we may find ourselves in regard to this great question perhaps in troubled waters, for pity's sake let us, while we are in smooth water, endeavour to steer this ship safe into harbour! If hon. I Members approach our proposals in a fair and candid spirit, and if they will for the present, at all events, thrust aside all Party and sectarian feeling, I believe we may be enabled to give effect to a scheme by which we shall secure a vast improvement in our educational system and raise the young lives committed to our keeping to be a God-fearing, industrious race, no unworthy citizens of a great Empire. (9.0.)

I do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman in his remarks upon the Education Estimates for the year, the interest at the present time, both inside and outside the House, to whose attention is turned educational matters, centres upon the new Code. I am quite sure that on this side there is every desire to deal with the Code in an impartial spirit, with an absence of Party feeling, and any criticisms offered will be made in no unfriendly spirit. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon being fortunate enough to hold office at a time ripe for the introduction of this reform.

I was congratulating the right hon. Gentleman upon his patience in having waited for the time when there was a fair opportunity of introducing a thorough reform in our educational system, instead of proceeding by small instalments on different recommendations of the Royal Commission. Everyone in the House must feel that the right hon. Gentleman has done what he could to carry out what is in some ways a revolutionary reform in the educational system. This Code, I am sure, has a happier prospect than the Code of last year, because the opposition to the Code of last year has been practically bought off by certain educational concessions. In the first place, the fact that the proposals in regard to accommodation are not to be retrospective is a concession to hon. Members on the other side. The remarks of the President of the Council in another place, and of the leader of this House, with reference to the question of the 17s. 6d. limit, and the rating of voluntary schools, has given heart to those interested in the voluntary system; and they believe that, in connection with the system of assisted education, which we expect will be introduced next Session, the 17s. 6d. limitation will be removed, and thus voluntary schools will be much benefited. I objected to the motives which actuated those who opposed the Code of last year, and deplored the effect of that opposition in the withdrawal of that Code, yet the delay has had its advantages, for this Code is, in many respects, a better one than the Draft Code of last Session. It is simpler in its nature; and it strikes a heavier blow at the payment by results system, inasmuch as it provides two fixed grants instead of three. It gives greater elasticity in the curriculum; it gives teachers more freedom in classification; and, in many respects, it adds greatly to the training and efficiency of teachers. The Code we are now discussing would, however, perhaps, be better compared with the state of things that has existed for the last 30 years than with the Code of last year, and, if that is done, it will be found that it effects what is practically a revolution in our educational system. In that portion of the Code which deals with children in infant schools, the change is not so great as some of us hoped for; it is far more a change in name than a change in nature. But in regard to the elder children, we have provision made for what, I hope, is the final abolition of the pernicious system of percentage payments, and of individual examination as the basis of the grant. Again, we understand that the pecuniary position of a school shall no longer depend on an examination upon one day. That is a very great reform indeed. The new system will give greater financial stability to the schools, and will take much worry from the teachers and all connected with schools. I cordially agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the teachers are not alone to be considered, and rejoice that while they are to receive a liberty in the school which they have not enjoyed before, the Inspectors are to recover the liberty they lost under the Code of Mr. Lowe. They are no longer to enter the schools as mere grant calculators, but are to exercise that individual judgment and responsibility of which they have so long been deprived. With the main provisions of the Code I think we shall all agree. I do not desire to criticise the Code in an unfriendly spirit, but merely in the desire to elicit information, and to see whether it cannot in some respects be improved. I think it would have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had seen his way to carry out the proposition which was practically accepted by the Government the other night, that there should be one fixed grant, to include not only elementary subjects but class subjects as well. It would also, in my opinion, have been better if the one fixed grant had included what is called the "moral tone" of the school. I think we shall all rejoice that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the proposition of the Commissioners that special care should be taken to direct the attention of Inspectors to the moral tone, discipline, obedience, cleanliness, truthfulness, and general character of the children, but I confess this proposal becomes a little ridiculous when we find that a grant of 1s. is to be given for a sort of minimum moral tone, and eighteenpence for a superior moral tone in the school. It would be better, I think, to have had this included in the one fixed grant, and to let the Inspector report upon it in his General Report. If the system of a fixed grant is to prevail, it can only be carried out properly and efficiently if it is clearly understood that in the future its assessment is not to depend on the examination of one day only, but that the casual visits of the Inspectors shall form an important item in the assessment of the grants. I think that what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the classification of children will be accepted with great pleasure and satisfaction. I understand that a supplementary Minute is to be issued, which will clear up the ambiguity of the Instructions, and provide that teachers and managers shall have a full and absolute power of classification in their schools, as they think best, according to the ability and attainments of the children and irrespective of age. This will bo of great advantage, and will prevent much of the over-pressure arising from the bad system that has hitherto prevailed. We are glad to find from the Code that managers in the future are to have a full choice of the class subjects to be taken in individual schools. From both sides of the House there have over and over again been protests against the system, which has so long prevailed in the Department, of making grammar compulsory as a first subject, and not allowing full freedom of choice to managers and teachers. I think we shall find, now that history, geography, and science may be chosen equally with grammar that these subjects will be taken, in preference to the most objectionable class subject of grammar. Recently the London School Board published the results of their inquiries among 750 departments of boys' and girls schools as to the preference of the teachers in the matter of class subjects. In three instances only did the teachers declare a preference for grammar; while no less than 421 declared grammar to be to them the least attractive and useful subject. Yet this is the subject the Department has been forcing down the throats of the children all these years. Again, as to the subject of manual instruction, I am glad to hear that it is proposed to give Special grants to encourage that subject. The right hon. Gentleman has truly said that that will be a great step towards extending technical instruction. By far the most interesting question, however, in connection with the Code is, how will this new fixed grant work, and what will be the result of the introduction of these additional grants? I think we shall all agree that the abolition of the old system of percentages will do a great deal to humanise and improve the instruction given in our schools; and by making it more attractive, improve both the regularity and the age of attendance. But we want to be sure that while good results will follow from the reforms of the right hon. Gentleman the institution of the fixed grants, and the mode in which they are to be carried out, will not tend to lower the standard of education; that they will not be used to bolster up inefficient schools, or go to relieve the pockets of the subscribers to the voluntary schools. I have every confidence that the Department have a bonâ fide desire that the new Code should represent no retrograde step, but a step forward educationally all round. But I am sorry to say some words which fell from the President of the Council in another place the other day arouses a little suspicion of the real intention of some of those who are specially interested in educational matters. The noble Lord said he could not help thinking that the people of this country would, before long, begin to ask whether they were not paying too much for education when it was observed that a "very useful education" could be obtained for £1 16s. 6d. per head, which, in other cases, cost the country £3 10s. The noble Lord further hoped that this subject would engage the attention of both Houses of Parliament. This comparison reminds me of the wine merchant's advertisement, which offers for 36s. 6d. a dozen a champagne as sound and wholesome as that for which elsewhere we pay 70s.? Bat I quote these words as showing to a certain extent the tendency in the minds of those who specially represent the voluntary system. The right hon. Gentleman has omitted from his speech one important point affecting the whole matter. He has failed to state how these new grants will work in regard to the poorer schools; how much per head these schools will receive; and he has also omitted to give a general estimate of the amount that the new Code will probably add to our Educational Estimates. I am quite sure no Member of the House will grudge any addition to those Estimates if good educational results are obtained for the money; and I believe, after careful consideration, that the increase involved will be little short of £200,000 a year additional. If that money is voted we shall want some security that it is properly spent. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of what he called poorer schools; does he mean those schools which are in poor neighbourhoods and where the fees are low, where the inhabitants are poor and subscriptions difficult to obtain, or does he mean schools that are poor because they are badly supported by those who ought to subscribe to their maintenance; schools, in short, which, from the fact of their not being properly supported, show there is no bonâ fide demand for them? How is the right hon. Gentleman going to insist that for this additional grant of money, this additional bonus to the poorer schools, we shall receive proportionate results? How is he going to ensure that the whole of the additional money shall go to increase the efficiency of the schools, and not in substitution merely of present voluntary subscriptions? The original object of the State in aiding voluntary schools was to stimulate local effort, but, unfortunately, the result has been in an exactly opposite direction. The additional grants from the State have merely resulted to a large extent in a diminution of voluntary subscriptions. ["No, no."] I would point out to the hon. Member who disputes that assertion that the President of the Council, speaking on this very subject last year in another place, said that—

"Voluntary efforts had gone down since the 17s. 6d. limit was given, and, therefore, if funds were lavished without by means of hard and fast lines securing efficiency, the money would go to the relief of the pockets of the subscribers, and not to the efficiency of the schools."

Reference to the Blue Books will confirm the remarks of his Lordship, and will show that in the Church of England schools, while the grants have increased since the 17s. 6d. limit was introduced, the amount of voluntary subscriptions per head have at the same time greatly fallen off—the grants having increased by 4s. 10d. per head, and the fees by 9d., while the voluntary subscriptions have fallen by over 2s. per head—so that the practical result of the increased grants has been that about one-half only has gone to promote the efficiency of the schools, and the other half has gone to relieve the pockets of subscribers. We have been told that the 17s. 6d. limit is to be removed next year in connection with assisted education. The result of that state of things, in connection with this new Code, will be that, unless some stringent means are taken to prevent the new grants from going to relieve the voluntary subscriptions, those voluntary schools will in a vast number of cases become such only in name. I should not much deplore that result, because I believe that under such a system as that, the public would enter an irresistible demand for some voice in the management of the schools if they are called upon to pay so much additional money to them. But what guarantee does the Code give that the schools will be brought up to a proper state of efficiency, and that the "vast number of schools that do not do us credit," of which the right hon. Grentleman spoke, will be made creditable or extinguished? I ventured to urge the other night, and I repeat, that in connection with any fixed grant, such as that proposed, it is necessary that the standards of suitability and efficiency of the schools should be raised. We ought to insist also that every school shall be under a proper body of managers. I am not speaking of representative managers, but of private managers. Too many voluntary schools are at present under no managers at all; they are practically farmed out to the teacher, and though the new Code states that a school shall not be farmed out, it does not insist that there shall be a proper body of managers, or that the teacher shall not practically manage the school and be responsible for what is done in it. Then the condition precedent to such proposals as are made, and to such a large extension of grants to the poorer schools, should be a provision insisting upon an increased standard of suitability of building, sufficiency and efficiency of staff, and a larger curriculum. It is time that a step forward should be made with regard to the suitability of the buildings, and the space allotted to the children, and what is insisted on as necessary for Board schools should be also insisted on as necessary for voluntary schools. Although in Schedule 7 in the Appendix to the Code it is stated, in reference to this very point, that "sanitary laws are as vital in a school as in a hospital," yet the right hon. Gentleman proposes to allow a vast number of schools of a most unhealthy character to continue overcrowded, and does not insist that they shall be brought up to a proper state of accommodation. No one wishes to insist that the 10 square feet of space per child, instead of the present limit, should be introduced and applied immediately to all schools; but I certainly think that an improvement ought to be made gradually in that direction in existing schools. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that the result of his exertions will be an increase in the efficiency of individual teachers; but, unfortunately, the Code does practically little to increase the staff of our schools, and yet this was a point on which both the majority and minority of the Royal Commission most strongly insisted. The Commission reported in favour of a considerable addition to the staff; but the right hon. Gentleman has done little or nothing in his Code to give effect to that recommendation. With regard to the question of curriculum, I agree that, so far as optional subjects are concerned, the Code is an immense improvement on its predecessors. With respect to obligatory subjects, however, the Code falls far short of what it ought to include. Here, again, all the Commissioners agreed that it is essential that the obligatory subjects in elementary schools should be raised above the "three R's." But the right hon. Gentleman will allow any school to obtain the minimum grant of 13s. 6d., including the disciplinary grant, even if it only teaches the "three R's" and drawing and needlework. Exception may be necessary in the case of some rural schools, but to my mind, the minimum examinations in our ordinary schools should at the very least include one class subject. With such a low standard of efficiency, much will depend on the administration by the Department, whether schools are kept up to the mark. I have grave doubts, whether, under present auspices the Department will have the strength of mind to extinguish schools not really efficient. It is essential that if a school does not come up to the low standard fixed by the right hon. Gentleman it should not receive the grant. [Sir W. HART DYKE: Hear, hear.] The right hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear;" but I am afraid he will find it is not quite so easy as he expects—at all events, as long as he sits on those Benches, and the same hon. Members sit behind him. It would be a different thing altogether if some right hon. Gentleman now on the Front Opposition Bench were sitting on that side. Appeals will be made to the right hon. Gentleman ad misericordiam; and it will be strongly urged upon him, that if particular schools are extinguished their places will be taken by the hated Board schools, and it will require great strength of mind on his part to resist these appeals. The right hon. Gentleman cannot do everything at once; but I think we may give him fair warning that, as far as we are concerned, we shall not be content to allow continued overcrowding, continued under-staffing, and a miserable and stinted curriculum. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the Code, which I believe will do much for education. Although I think it is in some respects inadequate, I desire to give the right hon. Gentleman full credit for having done more for our elementary education than any Minister, with the exception, perhaps, of Mr. Forster, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will continue in the course he has so well begun.

I desire to join in the congratulations to the Vice President of the Council on the able and satisfactory statement which he has made. I an certainly about to offer a few criticisms upon the now Code. Indeed, it is hardly of any use for independent Members to be here unless they criticise. But still I shall imitate the example of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, in approaching the Code in the most friendly spirit. I cordially acknowledge that it has already attained great popularity in educational circles. I desire at the outset to acknowledge the popular improvements in regard to evening classes, manual and technical instruction, the relaxation of several conditions, which in the last Code alarmed the voluntary schools, the improvement in respect of pupil teachers, the division of schools into two classes, efficient and non-efficient, the comprehensive provision which is entrusted to the Inspectors under the head of discipline, the singular privileges granted to poor country schools—and to rural schools in constituencies such as that which I represent—and the benefits conferred by Articles 102 to 105 of the Code, which will long be considered as embodying the Magna Charta of those schools, the grant for practical science outside the 17s. 6d. limit, and the relief all round to pupils, teachers, and managers. Lastly, of course, I acknowledge the progress, I might almost say the giant strides, which have been made by my right hon. Friend for the attainment of those two objects which are nearest and dearest to the hearts of all educationalists, namely, the abolition of payment by results (by individual examination), and the entire freedom of classification. I admit my right hon. Friend has gone far in that direction, though I cannot say, as a practical man, that he has gone far enough or reached the goal which he apparently hopes he will attain. I have heard it said by some educationalists that under a strict system of administration the collar might be kept almost as tight on the neck of the schools with respect to payment by results by the new Code as by the old. That is certainly an exaggerated expression, but we who are engaged in the work and wear the shoe know where the pinch is. With respect to what the hon. Member for Poplar said as to there being danger lest the advantages conferred on voluntary schools should be made use of for the purpose of saving the pockets of subscribers, I should answer in general terms that all such abuse is guarded against by the functions entrusted to Her Majesty's Inspectors. Everything will depend upon the Inspector's Report. He is bound to see that the bounty of the State is properly used. If the Report is unfavourable it will carry grave consequences to the school. Undoubtedly the system which is now inaugurated by my right hon. Friend does impose responsibilities on Inspectors, but they are thoroughly well able to bear that burden. I now approach the two subjects I wish to criticise. First, as to payment by results. The schools will be by the new Code divided into grades according to merit. In infant schools there will be two such grades. Even with the discipline grant there will be two grades. So with the 12s. 6d. and 14s. grants, there are virtually two grades of day schools for elementary subjects. This tends to individual examination to determine the grades, and this tendency is strengthened by paragraph 12 of the Instructions to Inspectors. Then paragraph 23 of the Instructions regarding arithmetic amounts to individual examination. There are to be separate grants for class subjects, needle work, and singing, but all the various grades and such grants must necessitate a great deal of individual examination. I do not think they will necessitate such examination all round, but they will cause a great deal of it, and, to a considerable extent, keep up the system of examination winch my right hon. Friend has very properly denounced this afternoon. I need not now labour this point, having recently (9th May) addressed the House fully on this subject. But, as regards examination, I desire it to be understood that there is no fear on the part of educationalists of examination as such. We quite understand that there must be examination occasionally and casually of scholars, according to circumstances. It is the individual examination all round, as a test for the grant, that we so strongly deprecate. We desire that the Inspector should see the teacher examine the scholars. We have no fear so long as they are examined in the subjects which they have been taught, and by a person who understands the teaching. Of course, any scholar is liable to be examined, and the knowledge of this liability has a wholesome effect. As regards this point, I need scarcely advert to Article 92, which says that a portion of the grant may be withheld. That has been admitted by my right hon. Friend to be open to objection. Why? It is open to this objection, that the grant may be withheld from the very school that needs it most, that an inefficient school will be rendered permanently inefficient by having its grant partially taken away. Such a school should receive the grant in full, so that it may have the financial means of rendering itself efficient; otherwise its inefficiency will be established. We wish to make schools efficient by giving them the means to render themselves so under the penalty of being extinguished if they fail. Secondly, I desire to offer a few remarks upon the question of freedom of classification. That is a subject upon which educationalists feel the gravest anxiety. I admit that very much has been done in this direction by the new Code, but not nearly enough. Article 101 of the new Code has two clauses, each one of which prescribes that every student must be advanced one standard per annum. That destroys all freedom of classification. There will be no such thing as freedom of classification so long as those two clauses remain in the Code. What is the cause of the commonly-observed phenomenon that in every class certain scholars are below the mark? It is because they were of necessity advanced into the standard. Children cannot earn the grant two years running in the same standard, and the consequence is, they are made to go on from standard to standard year by year. For the same reason every class has some scholars above the mark, who might have been pushed on had it not been for the one-standard-per-annum-system. This I submitted to the House in my speech of 9th May, showing that in every class one quarter is above and one quarter below the mark, leaving only the remaining half at the average level. The same tendency exists in the new Code. Such, also, is the effect of paragraph 5 of the Instructions. That paragraph relates to backward children being kept in the class where they are. If they are so kept grave reasons must be stated and recorded. That, of course, is a check upon the teacher. He has to show the reasons to the Inspectors, who may, or may not, approve, and the consequence is the teacher will hesitate to adopt the system. Again, paragraph 14 of the Instructions relates to separate classifications of scholars for examination in different subjects. It is stated that such cases must be very rare. That clearly indicates to the teachers that they are not to adopt this plan unreservedly. I understand my right hon. Friend will issue some Circular explaining the point. I suggest that the simplest and the shortest course would be to omit this objectionable paragraph. Whether my right hon. Friend is or is not able to modify the Code as regards the payment by results on examination, I earnestly entreat him to look favourably upon the suggestions we made with respect to the freedom of classification. If he will do something more in this Code in this respect he will earn additional gratitude. We hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to simplify the grants still further, to amalgamate the 12s. 6d. and the 14s. grants, and the disciplinary grant, and the grant for class subjects, needle work, and singing, all into one grant, and then entrust the rest to that most trustworthy class of men, Her Majesty's Inspectors. That is the goal at which we, who are engaged in educational work, aim, so that we shall not have individual examination all round in any subject except the specific subjects which are beyond the elementary subjects, beyond all class subjects, relating Only, as they do, to special branches of literature, languages, science, and art. But if that cannot be done I entreat my right hon. Friend to do what little he can, even at this eleventh hour, to make the boon of freedom of classification absolute, unconditional, and complete, and so earn the gratitude of all men who are doing the work of education in this country. I need not dwell on the desirability of the School Accounts being subject to public audit without being published. But I ought to say a few words upon the question of trained and untrained teachers. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that Articles 31 and 73 in the Code recognise a difference between these two classes of teachers. In the first place, Article 31 speaks of two categories, trained and untrained, and Article 73 makes a trained teacher count for 70 scholar?, and an untrained teacher for 60 scholars. This distinction is grievously felt by a very large and important and experienced class of teachers who are called untrained. Moreover, the retention of this nomenclature is felt to be most unfair to the untrained teachers. What does it really mean? One would suppose that there is some grave distinction between the two classes, but this is not the case. The distinction is of a very narrow and technical character. A trained teacher is one who has been through a training college, while an untrained teacher is one who has been trained outside the colleges. But the so-called untrained teacher has passed the same examinations and has obtained the same certificate, and perhaps has had larger and longer experience than the so called trained teacher. The reason for there being untrained teachers is that we have not had training colleges for all the candidates. We still have notenough. I reckon that about 2,500 teachers are required every year to fill up the gaps in our national service of education, but the training colleges-can only turn out 1,500 annually That leaves a residue of 1,000. The difficulty was far greater in former years-Considering that our untrained teachers are often untrained through no fault of their own, considering that they have the same qualifications, the same examinations, and as long, if not longer, experience, I say it is not quite fair to them to perpetuate this invidious distinction, especially as it is marked by words-which will carry an unfavourable impression outside. We ought to abolish the terms trained and untrained and substitute something else. But, at all events, it is very hard upon managers that a trained teacher, perhaps a young man fresh from college, should count for 70 scholars, while an untrained man, who perhaps has done yeoman educational work, should count for 60 only. I am extremely obliged to the Committee for having listened to the criticisms I have felt it my duty to make. There are some verbal Amendments standing in my name which would give full effect to the Resolution I had the honour to submit to the House the other day, and which, in general terms, my right hon. Friend accepted. Whether I really propose those Amendments depends upon whether I am able to obtain some concessions from my right hon. Friend. But as I resume my seat I ought to notice the allusions my right hon. Friend made to the school maintenance charges under the School Board for London. Of course, I, for one, quite admit that they are too high, and so I declared in my recent Financial Report to the Board. Nobody is better aware than I am of the great strides which have been made in educational progress, but when we recollect what Mr. Forster said as to the school rate I think we must consider the present expenditure as going beyond the limits which the ratepayers had a right to anticipate. How long this annual progress of educational taxation will be continued and tolerated I cannot say, for that is a question for those who elect the Board, but I must add that although the expenses are high the efficiency is high also. I can only express my admiration of the truly magnificent work which has been done as at least being a return in part for the expenses which are incurred.

I desire to express satisfaction and to thank the Vice President of the Council for having for the first time carried out some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Technical Education, on which I had the honour to serve, and I wish to assure the right hon. Gentleman that we welcome his proposals to give a grant for manual instruction. That does not appear in the Code, but we have learned with great satisfaction that the grant will be made for this most important new form of hand and eye training. I am also particularly pleased to find that the right hon. Gentleman has taken to heart the recommendation of the Commission that drawing and manual instruction should go together. We have now in this Code laid that foundation for technical instruction which many of us have been, for some time, hoping might be laid, and I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman most heartily on having accomplished so much. It appears that drawing is not to be made compulsory in all classes, but it is very important to know what are the instructions given to the Inspectors as to the exceptions to drawing in elementary schools. It is gratifying to find that already great progress has been made in the direction of technical instruction in the larger towns, and I am sure we may look forward with great hope to increased progress in this matter; Of the importance of the introduction of elementary science the Committee is well aware, and in the present Code the Vice President has done much to assist the teaching of elementary science, which at present may almost be said to be dead in the country, for, while many thousands of schools take up geographical subjects, I am ashamed to say that only a score of schools deal with elementary science. We, however, wish to see a step further in this direction, namely, that no school shall be considered efficient which does not provide in the three first standards for a graduated scheme of object lessons. This is not insisted upon in the Code, but we shall never lay a firm foundation for teaching technical subjects until we have made object lessons compulsory as a continuation of the Kindergarten instruction, which is given now and with which everybody is so well pleased. Such a course has been again and again urged by the Technical Commission as well as by the Royal Commission on Elementary Education, and there is no reason why it should not be insisted upon. But while acknowledging that much has been done and that much progress has been made, I am bound to say that some of the alternative courses proposed are not satisfactory. In my opinion, the specialisation of science subjects should not be made in the first four standards, for it, seems impossible that children even in the Third Standard can begin to study such subjects as light, heat, magnetism, or electricity. It would be much better to have a general course of object lessons, including simple facts and principles chosen from several branches of science. That would do more to instruct and amuse the children than specialisation at an earlier period. It is time enough to specialise when we get to the Fourth Standard. May we not ask for some alteration in the Schedule in this respect? Surely some alternative course might be provided? In the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Technical Education it is pointed out that science instruction may properly be encouraged by an additional grant. It is more expensive and more difficult to teach than ordinary subjects, and if some increased amount could be given in those schools in which elementary science is taught, we should see this most important subject established on a proper footing. With regard to science teaching, I see in Article 35 provision is made for as sistancs to the Inspectors in framing questions and marking the answers in examination, but no provision is made for assistance in oral examinations, which, in the earlier standards, are better than examination by paper. I do trust the right hon. Gentleman will consider the desirability of giving such assistance. As to the question of training teachers, we all welcome the proposal to permit the existence of day training colleges, and I think it would be well that they should be attached to institutions of repute, where the teachers may be brought into contact with men of high culture. A wise step is, it seems to me, about to be taken, but admittedly it is only an experiment, and I regret that it is so limited. And there is another important point with regard to the training of teachers. The third year is the year in which the most progress is usually made by the student, and yet I cannot find that any grant is to be made for that year.

That point is under consideration.

I desire to again offer my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman in this most important improvement which the Code introduces into elementary education. I believe it may be said to mark an era in the educational progress of the country. In view of the fact that an extra amount will have to be given to these schools, I would urge upon the Vice President the importance of their being made efficient, for that is the whole gist of the question, and I trust we may rely on his taking care that efficiency is secured.

I have devoted many years of my life to the subject of education, and I therefore feel bound to take part in this Debate. I desire, in the first place, to acknowledge in the fullest and most ample manner the consideration given by the Government to the suggestions made in connection with the Code of last year by those interested in voluntary schools. I believe that in consequence of these suggestions the Code has been greatly amended, and the cause of national education has been advanced in this as in many other particulars. It has been shown that the friends of voluntary schools were acting in accord with the true interest of national education. There is also a greater identity of sentiment and of feeling between the recommendations of the Royal Commission and the Code of this year than was to be found by comparison of last year's Code with these recommendations. With reference to what has been said by the hon. Member for Poplar as to the diminution of contributions to voluntary schools being in proportion to the increase of the grant, I last year quoted some figures on that point, which showed that, although for a short time there had been a diminution, yet it had been followed by an increase. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield dissents from that, but the real facts are as I have mentioned. To be perfectly frank, I am bound to admit that the voluntary contributions for the last year for which they are published do, as compared with the preceding Returns, show a diminution to the colossal and overpowering extent of £63. Therefore that accusation is, I think, not well founded.

The Returns of the Education Department show that the contributions per head are substantially less than they were 10 years ago.

I am speaking now of the absolute figures, and I am perfectly sure that I am accurate in my statement. Allusion has been made to a speech by Lord Cranbrook on this subject in the course of last year. Well, I do not think that that speech increased the reputation of the noble Lord as a statesman; but I am certain that it caused very great pain to the friends of the Government and to the friends of voluntary schools. Now, I feel a very great obligation to the Government for the changes they have made in this Code; but I may be allowed to express regret that while the 17s. 6d. limit has been modified with reference to country schools, it still remains as regards town schools. In the borough which I have the honour to represent I find that in the schools in the poorer districts the grant from the under 17s. 6d. limit extends to £40, £45, or £50 a school. And I am not, on this point, appealing merely on behalf of Church of England schools; the poorer schools of all denominations are, as I say, disadvantageously affected by this limit. Now, as a Lancashire man, and as a Member for a Lancashire constituency, I am bound to say that, in my opinion, the Roman Catholic schools have done very good work in that county, and I hold we ought to remove every possible hindrance to the successful continuation of their labours. But I find that the fine upon voluntary schools, which amounted to £32,000 in 1888–9, amounted to £36,000 in 1889–90, and I hope that the Government will see their way to removing this grievous burden from these schools. Its existence is an injury to the cause of education. We have for many years impressed upon the Government the importance of laying before the House simultaneously with the Code the instructions to Inspectors. This year they have done so, and the result has been the discovery that what the Government are giving with one hand in the Code they are proposing to take away with the other hand by means of their instructions. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has promised to amend this, and I trust that on future occasions we shall always be allowed to see the instructions before the House is asked to sanction the Code. In connection with the subject of technical education, I am glad the Department are inaugurating a system by which technical colleges will be established for the higher teaching, and that only elementary teaching in technical subjects will be attempted in the lower schools. We have heard a great deal on the question of payment by results. I am glad that the obsolete system of payment by results has been abolished, but I am sure that Parliament will never grant £3,500,000 a year for educational purposes unless it is assured that the schools are efficient. What says the Report of the Royal Commission on this point? I will read it to the Committee—

"We are convinced that the distribution of the Parliamentary Grant cannot be wholly freed from its present dependence on the results of examination without the risk of incurring graver evils than those which it is sought to cure. Nor can we believe that Parliament will long continue to make so large an annual grant as that which now appears in the Education Estimates without in some way satisfying itself that the quality of the education given justifies the expenditure."

The friends of education must satisfy the country that they are doing good work and that the money is being well earned, or the grant of £4,000,000 will shrink to a much smaller sum, and great injury will be done to the cause of education. With regard to voluntary schools I wish to say a word. At present each voluntary school, to a large extent, stands by itself, and is dependent on its own mode of action and its own finance; but I hope that the absolute necessity for grouping voluntary schools together, so that they may co-operate in finance and give each other mutual assistance, will be seen. I also wish to allude to the question of day training colleges. I have the honour of being a member of the councils of five of these colleges, one of which is the Yorkshire College. One of the first subjects the council of that college had to consider was whether they should or should not become connected with the Department as a day training college. They desired, so far as their means would allow, to co-operate with the Government, but the question of expense came in, and they found that they would have to expend £200 a year to carry out their proportion of their duties, and that, being straitened in finance, they would have great difficulty in finding the money. Many of the principals of the training colleges made representations to the right hon. Gentleman, who, in his usual courteous way, replied somewhat in the following sense:—That it was quite useless for him to approach the Treasury with a view to increase the sum of £10 under Article 127, and that, looking to the assistance already granted to local colleges out of public funds and to the important position of the colleges, it was hardly too much to expect of their patriotism that they should make some special contribution to the scheme now before Parliament for the better training of elementary teachers. That was the answer of the right hon. Gentleman. I am not quarrelling with it. The Treasury gave considerable grants for the purpose of carrying out higher education. The Yorkshire College received £1,400; and I feel regret that, having adjusted our finances to do our work according to the new conditions, the training colleges should be called upon to devote to elementary education money originally given for the purposes of higher education. This controversy between the Treasury and the Education Department is somewhat unfortunate, and I hope that if larger duties are imposed on these institutions, the Treasury will review the situation and enlarge the grants. Under the Code the colleges will have the examination of students, and for the first time the examinations for certificates will be conducted by a department not Governmental. In Scotland, I am informed, the training colleges are connected with the Universities, but the examinations are conducted by the professors with the aid of Inspectors. To have the examination of students at these colleges without Government superintendence is an entirely new departure on which I make no observation; but I venture to say so much as this, that it is an experiment which requires to be watched with great care, so that the examinations may be conducted in such a way as that the test for educational purposes is effectual. As to the religious teaching of the students, at present they are taught in colleges connected with some religious denomination. It is so in Scotland. I am not sure whether in all of these new colleges they will be entirely free to teach religion, but it will be an unhappy thing indeed, and a retrogression and not an advance, if religion is entirely banished from the training of those who will become, in the course of a short time, teachers of the young. My right hon. Friend has made promises which I have no doubt he will entirely fulfil, with a view to the amendment of the Code, in deference to the suggestions made. I do hope, when he considers the Amendments which he has promised, that he will have full regard to the position of the existing teachers, and that through the whole of the Code, from first to last, he will place the new burdens on those who are not yet fully qualified as teachers, and will exempt men and women of experience and knowledge who may yet not have the technical equipment rendered necessary under the new arrangements. I have already spoken of drawing, and I shall say nothing more about it. I believe myself that, in all the schools of the country, drawing ought to be taught to every student. When you deal with those who have to earn their livelihood, I believe progress cannot be made without drawing, and that with drawing, you have before you a brilliant career. With regard to classification, my right hon. Friend has frankly acknowledged the discrepancy between the Code and the instruction. I do not share the opinion of the hon. Member for Evesham with regard to the entire abandonment of classification. On the contrary, I believe that the Report of the Royal Commission is sound in so far as it points out that there should be freedom of classification as a general principle, but that precautions should at the same time be taken in the Code that this freedom should not be abused. I believe that if we gave teachers freedom of classification without restraint and without superintendence, the schools would fall into confusion, and that it would be necessary for the Government in a short time to apply a stringent remedy to the evils that might arise. Great complaint has been made about the maintenance of the 8th clause. I certainly fully agree with the policy of the Government in insisting, as a general rule, on what is known as the First Standard. I believe that, except you have some standard for the young children, you will make your infant schools mere places of amusement, and you will find that, when they come to the schools where a later stage of education is entered upon, the whole work of tuition is to be begun again, to the great embarrassment and hindrance of the future progress of the children. I must make some reference to that which is known as the fixed grant. Now, I wish that the Code had been a little less inconsistent in its text as to the fixed grant, and I cannot help thinking that it bears on the face of it some marks of revision. When I come to read Article 101, with the gloss of the other Article referred to upon it, it reads thus—

"A fixed grant of 12s. 6d. is a fixed grant which may not be reduced except the Department pay a portion only, and may not be withdrawn unless it is withdrawn."

Now, I think that that is a very poor security. But we have discussed this matter more than once, and I trust that the Article will be so amended before the Code is finally settled that no doubt can possibly exist on the subject, because we feel it to be a great hardship that in view of the promise of a fixed grant qualifications are to be found here and there in it, and that powers are given enabling the Government to reduce the grant. I venture to call the attention of my right hon. Friend and the Committee to this as a matter of actual experience, and I assort that it is utterly and absolutely impossible for every Vice President to watch the administration of all these details. They must necessarily be left to the administration of the subordinate officials. What I desire to see in this Code is that some security should be provided so that no fault of mismanagement on the part of subordinates in the administration of the system shall have the effect of taking away from the schools that boon which I feel assured the Government intend to confer. Well, I wish to make one observation in reference to sample examinations. I think that great care is necessary to make this kind of examination real, and I also think there is much justice in the claim made on behalf of the teachers that they should have the power of reducing the number of scholars by naming one-half, so that they may call together a number of scholars who are most fitted to do justice to the school. The instruction given in paragraph 13, page 6, directs the Inspector to invite the teacher to add to those selected a few of his most forward scholars, so that no accident may deprive the best work of the school of its due recognition. I think if this instruction is carefully obeyed the alarm of the teachers might prove to be unfounded, and the examination be made a fair and legitimate test. I may add that I greatly rejoice to find that recitation is to be retained as a part of our system. I find, as I go from school to school inquiring into their management and conduct, that there is no subject more popular with the scholars than recitation, and I know of nothing that is likely in the future to be of greater service to them in elevating their minds and improving their taste. If I may be allowed to make one concluding remark it is that we must not regard education by itself. Elementary education is only part of the general movement for the progress of the working classes of this country. We are doing much to improve their health by sanitary laws, and we are making great endeavours to improve their social condition by creation of public parks, and the making of regulations of a wholesome and beneficial character. Therefore, while I welcome the progress of education, I would point out that that is, after all, but one of the many indications of our national progress, and one of the many means now being taken to advance and improve the condition of our neighbouring population by exertions which I believe to be well worth the efforts made, and by expenditure which, as long as it is wisely directed, will be amply rewarded by the success it will achieve.

It is unfortunate that the Debate has been crowded into so short a space of time to-night. The Vice President of the Council has given us a very able and exhaustive statement with regard to this Code—a statement which was worthy of a much larger audience. It was characterised by a complete mastery of the subject, and was full of good educational matter from beginning to end. I should not have risen at so late an hour but for the fact that only two Members on this side of the House have had an opportunity of speaking. It is evident that the Debate cannot close to-night, as many Members on both sides desire to discuss the question. I will glance in the briefest manner at the main features of the Code. There can be no doubt that one of its main features is the help which it is intended to give to rural schools. We do not grudge any expenditure on behalf of education, but we wish to point out that a very large sum will be added to the Education Estimates by this Code. I believe we shall be adding 5s. 6d. or 6s. a head to all schools in the country where the population is under 500, and that we shall be giving to the poor town schools an increased grant of at least 1s. 6d. a head, whereas in the case of the better class schools, which are now earning £1 or £1 1s. a head, I do not believe one farthing will be added to their receipts, whether they are Board schools or voluntary schools. The addition will go to a class of schools which the right hon. Gentleman himself admits to be, to a very large extent, hardly creditable. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman admits that, unless they improve, a great many of them must be wiped off the annual grant. I wish to call attention to two or three points to which the right hon. Gentleman referred with respect to the extra subjects he proposes to teach in the schools. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the curriculum in our rural schools is altogether too narrow, and said there must be some extended curriculum to make the school life of the children more attractive. In all that I entirely agree. From the Returns I have before me I find that the whole number of the children so taught would hardly cover half a dozen rural parishes. The right hon. Gentleman said we ought also to extend the teaching of cooking. What are the numbers at present undergoing instruction in cookery? Why, only 60,000 girls are taught out of some 2,000,000 girls in average attendance, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider where that teaching takes place. Has he ever inquired in what schools these girls who are receiving this instruction are to be found? The right hon. Gentleman glories in the 4s. grant, and no doubt it is a very handsome one, and it pays well to teach this branch of education; why, then, is it that there are not more girls taught? I will tell the right hon. Gentleman. I am not going to make any invidious comparison between Board and voluntary schools, but that there is a lack of combination and organisation among the latter is evident from the fact that out of the 60,000 girls now receiving this instruction, 50,000 receive it in Board schools. Last year there were 57,589 girls receiving grants for cookery; and of this number 47,000 and odd were taught in Board schools, and the whole of the balance was spread over the National, Wesleyan, Roman Catholic, and other denominational schools. It is, I think, very much to be regretted that in our large towns, where cookery teaching is given in Board schools, more attention is not paid to it in the voluntary schools, and it seems to me that there ought to be some organisation amongst the managers of voluntary schools by means of which it would be possible to have this kind of instruction and other extra instruction in all of them. As to what the right hon. Gentleman is doing for the small schools, we do not grudge it, nor do we grudge what he is doing for some of the larger ones; but what we say is, that we must have efficient teaching and a wider curriculum, in order that we may have value received for these grants. It is not a question of paying so much money to the managers of voluntary schools in order that they may be recouped the amount of their subsciptions—not that I wish to raise a controversy on this matter, but it is a fact that the amount of subscriptions to the voluntary schools is actually less now than it was 10 years ago. Nearly one-third more children are now being educated in the voluntary schools than were taught 10 years ago, and yet the amount of subscriptions is no larger. In 1875, before the 7s. 6d. limit was extended, 9s. 6d. per head was spent by means of voluntary subscriptions; but last year the amount was only 6s. 11d., the difference being made up by grants and additional fees charged to the children. What we want to impress on the right hon. Gentleman is that the increased munificence of the State should not go to relieve the managers of voluntary schools of their personal liability. What we want is that the children shall have good teaching, and we are entitled to expect it. We deprive the parents of the labour of their children up to a certain age, and as we compel the children to go to school, we ought to take care and secure that they shall be well taught. It is hardly creditable in us, when we compare English schools with Scotch schools, to find at what a disadvantage English children are, though the grants in both cases come from the Public Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman expressed a belief that the charges made in respect of evening schools would, practically, cover the whole ground of education, but I do not think that what the right hon. Gentleman is doing will make these schools continuation schools where our youth can complete the education supplied in the day schools. With respect to train- ing schools attention has been drawn to a rather invidious distinction made in the Code between what are called "trained" and "untrained" teachers. I think it is rather an unfortunate distinction to make, and I think that something ought to be done to relieve teachers who are classed as "untrained" from the disabilities attaching to their class. By the Code of 1882 young men who trained in the Universities and young women obtaining certificates in the higher local examinations were invited to teach in the schools; but these teachers, however efficient, however able, will in future receive lower salaries than teachers who come from training colleges. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will try to devise some means of removing that which is rather a disability in this respect. Then, the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the question of our training colleges, and this is where, I think, the Code errs on the side of illiberality. Two hundred students in all the great training colleges in England and Wales are altogether inadequate for the purpose of forming classes. At the great university colleges, such as those of Leeds, Sheffield, and Birmingham, to which grants were paid last year, you could not get classes for the teachers if you were to limit the number to 200. The waste of teachers requires that you should have nearer 2,000 than 200. I do not wish to take up the time of the House any longer, as I know there are other hon. Members who desire to speak—although the discussion will have to be continued over another evening. We are now discussing the New Code, and we have before us the Estimates of the year, and we have a Bill to carry out the provisions of the Code. What I regret is that in bringing in this Bill the right hon. Gentleman has not extended its provisions somewhat further. The right hon. Gentleman has to a limited extent adopted the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Elementary Education, and he has also met some of the recommendations of the Technical Education Commissioners; but why has he not gone somewhat further with respect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, as to raising the standard of age and extending the school life of the child? We may discuss these educational questions as often as we like; your grants may be lavish, your Codes excellent, and your teachers may be as excellent as you please; you may make the best and most liberal arrangements for education, but if the child's school life is to end at 10 years of age you are wasting your money. In large towns there are thousands of children who go to full-time labour after the fourth standard. I see the Under Secretary for India (Sir J. Gorst) in his place. The hon. Member took part in the Berlin Conference, and when we see the Papers I expect we shall find that the hon. Gentleman advocated the raising of the age of half-timers, and extending the school life of the child. In many rural districts, especially in the West, the second standard is the half-time standard, and two years ago that was the case in Bradford. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman screw up his courage and adopt the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and do for England what is done in Scotland? We should have a minimum standard for half-time. I have only risen to express my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the liberal provisions of the Code he has launched to-night. We hope that it will have a prosperous voyage. It will not pass without a good deal of criticism when it comes into operation, and a good many people will be disappointed. There will always be payment by results until the localities manage their own schools and their own money. I hope that later on the right hon. Gentleman will be able to announce that he has made some provision for meeting the suggestions which have been made with regard to raising the age at which the school life of the child should end, and raising the full and half-time standards.

I must express my regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have inserted the provision in Sub-section 5 of Article 106, which makes it obligatory for any child to have passed Standard V. before he can be presented for examination in the special subjects alone or in less than three elementary subjects in connection with an evening school. I cannot see the object of that provision, as it will prevent a child from getting the advantage of some education who may have been prevented from proper attendance at a day school. If the right hon. Gentleman will not consent to remove this disqualification altogether, I hope that he will reduce it to Standard IV. It would be very hard for our children who have been passing the Standards under the present Regulations that they should be shut out from studying special subjects, which they could go in for in the evening schools. Some of these special subjects, such as cookery, laundry work, gardening, and wood-working, would produce much happiness in cottage homes, and I think that it ought to be made as easy as possible to take advantage of these studies.

I desire very briefly to call attention to matters in which representations have been made to Members of this House by numerous deputations of teachers. The first question raised is as to the method of examination in reading lessons, and I think that the Code the right hon. Gentleman has brought in is a very marked advance on anything we have hitherto had in that respect. As Chairman of the School Board of Leicester, and as being concerned in the management of an industrial school at some distance from Leicester, I have had some experience in this matter. The examinations in reading and dictation are better in the industrial than in the Board schools, for, so far as the latter are concerned, the children have been reading from the same book for a long time, and are almost able to repeat the lessons by heart when they come to be examined. It would be an advantage if the children were examined in some other book than that with which they have become familiar. I make these remarks because they have a bearing upon the whole question of new examinations. I approve of the new method of examination, which I believe will lead to an improvement in education. As I understand it, the Inspector is now empowered to see how far general intelligence has spread in a school. That, I believe, is the intention of the Department, and it is the desire of those who are interested in education, and I mention this specially because I think there has been a misapprehension with regard to it on the part of the teachers. The examination is likely to be more interesting for the teachers and better for the scholars, and we shall in future require more highly, rather than less highly, educated men than before. With regard to denominational schools, I am much interested in them, but they ought to be efficient. What we fear is that the increased grants to them will lessen the subscriptions. That was the case when a new scheme for the free school at Bosworth was introduced by the Charity Commissioners. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the immense improvement which this Code presents to anything that has preceded it, and I believe it will lead to a better education being given.

I beg to move to report Progress.

I would ask whether, before the Debate comes on again, the right hon. Baronet will let us have the Circulars to which he refers? There are two Circulars of considerable importance, one respecting half-timers.

I can promise that the Circulars to which I referred shall be laid upon the Table of the House.

I trust that before the Debate is resumed full notice will be given to the House of the day on which it will be taken, as several members on both sides of the House wish to speak on the Education Question.

Notice shall, of course, be given, but I trust that short notice will suffice, as it would be a pity to lose any opportunity of going on with the discussion.

I have satisfied the hon. Gentlemen opposite who had some objection to this Bill, and I now ask that it may be read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee.

I object.

May I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his objection. It is proposed by the hon. Member opposite to refer the Bill to the Select Committee to which another Bill of a similar character has already teen referred. It is a good Bill. It proposes to remove a substantial grievance with regard to rating, and it would be a distinct advantage if the Bill were read a second time and referred to the Committee upstairs. That Committee might be able to put the two Bills together, and thus bring about a substantial improvement in the law.