I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that King George of Tonga has not carried out his promise to Her Majesty's Commissioner as to religious liberty and freedom of worship; and whether any steps are to be taken?

The reports we have received on the subject are unsatisfactory, and Sir J. Thurston started last May for Tonga in order to make representations to the King with a view of bringing about a better state of things. We have not yet received his Report, and have no confirmation of the telegrams which have appeared in the Press in the course of the last few days.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Judges in the High Court at Edinburgh on the 14th instant, in the case of an appeal from the Court of the Sheriff Substitute at Dundee, under "The Factory and Workshops Act, 1878," and to the opinion expressed thereon by the Lord Justice Clerk that the fact that the woman alleged to have been illegally employed in a workshop having remained at work of her own "free will" and without the knowledge of the occupier, exonerates the latter from responsibility for the offence; and whether he will take the necessary steps to obtain from the High Court at Edinburgh a declaration of the legal construction to be put upon Sections 83, 86, and 87 of "The Factory and Workshops Act, 1878?"

Yes, Sir; my attention has been drawn to the decision of the Justiciary Court of Appeal at Edinburgh in the case in question. I have consulted the Lord Advocate, and am advised that there is no procedure by which the decision in this particular case can be brought under review. In view, however, of the importance of the question at issue, I have given instructions to the Chief Inspector, in the event of a similar case recurring, to take steps to bring the point of law involved again before the High Court of Justiciary for further consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a new burial ground has been recently sanctioned at Wooler, which is to be held as an extension of the old church yard; and whether 18 & 19 Vic. s. 3, which enacts that this can only be done by a unanimous vote of the ratepayers, has been complied with in this case?

There has been at Wooler an extension of the old churchyard not provided under the Burial Acts or at the expense of the rates, but provided by private munificence and deed of gift under the 30 & 31 Vict., c. 133. No consent of ratepayers is required for the acquisition of a burial ground under that Statute, and neither Section 3 nor Section 10 of the 18 & 19 Vict., c. 128, is applicable to the case.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the case of "Jones v. George" which was tried before Mr. Burchell and a jury in the London Sheriffs Court on the 17th instant, in which the plaintiff was a boatman and a member of the lifeboat crew at Margate, and the defendant the captain of the steamship Balla which on 17th May last had stranded on the Goodwin Sands; whether, in view of the fact that the plaintiff testified on oath that when he went in the lifeboat to the rescue of the Balla and boarded her alone, the defendant struck him a violent blow and further caused or permitted the mate to cut through one of the ropes of the ship's ladder, so that the plaintiff's life was placed in danger as he was leaving the ship, he will cause such further inquiries as he may think desirable to be made into the facts of the case; and whether, if the evidence given on oath by the plaintiff in the case of "Jones v. George" be corroborated, he will consider the desirability of directing a Board of Trade inquiry to be held into the case with a view of considering the conduct of the captain and of the mate of the Balla

My attention has been called to this case, and I have ordered an investigation before a Local Marine Board into the conduct of the master and mate of the Balla.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is willing to encourage donations towards establishing butter making classes by grants of donations of a similar amount from his Department?

I am exceedingly anxious to promote dairy education in the country, in which direction there appears to be room for considerable improvement in many districts, so far as the funds at my disposal admit of it. But before the Board makes any grant, it is necessary they should have a specific scheme before them; and any such scheme, I can assure my hon. Friend, coming either from himself or any other quarter, will have my careful consideration.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to consider the matter with the view of facilitating dairy education in the country? Will not the Department over which he has control undertake to facilitate some such scheme?

I am considering the whole subject now; but the hon. Member will recollect that the sum at my disposal is extremely limited, and the Board is only able, under its existing powers, to act upon the principle of helping those who help themselves. I have done everything in my power to promote and stimulate interest in the subject, but I am afraid that the development of any general scheme upon the subject can only be very gradual in character.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that it is the custom at many of the railway stations in the North of Scotland to issue passenger tickets only two or three minutes before trains are due, thus putting passengers to great inconvenience, and some danger, when they have to cross the railway to catch trains; whether the law requires that ample time should be given for procuring passenger tickets; and whether Railway Companies incur any penalties for not issuing tickets to passengers in reasonable time before the departure of trains?

I have no official information on this subject. I have no reason to doubt that if too short a time is allowed for the issue of tickets at stations it would be productive of inconvenience, and might lead to some-danger. The matter is not one in which I have any statutory power to interfere. The issue of tickets is in the hands of the Railway Companies, who are not under any legal obligations in respect to the time allotted for the purchase.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to statements in "Further Correspondence-respecting the Affairs of Zululand," Parliamentary Paper 6,070, has the Chief Yamela, mentioned on page 44,. been, or will he be, rewarded with Usutu cattle for his exertions in putting down the disturbances; and at what time and place did Sir A. Havelock promise him a reward for his exertions?

The Secretary of State has no information on this point beyond the passage in the Blue Book, not having yet received the further Despatch from Mr. Osborn therein promised.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he can, explain to the House why the Postage Bates Bill, which was read the first time and ordered to be printed on 22nd May, and the Order for the Second Reading of which was read and discharged on Thursday last, has not been printed and distributed to Members?

It would, of course, have been necessary to print and distribute the Postage Rates Bill to which the hon. Member refers-before I could have asked the House to read it a second time. But as at this period of the Session there did not appear to be any reasonable prospect of bringing the Bill on at a time when it could be fairly discussed, it appeared to me the best course to move to discharge the Order.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the quality of the water supplied by the Grand Junction Water Company, which contained on 24th July 33 per cent, more organic ammonia than the sample taken on 23rd July, 1889, and nearly double the amount of that contained in the Chelsea Water Company's water, namely, 16·4, as against 9·2, per 100 mil.; also the solids, on heating, showed a marked blackening, and the colour was of a marked yellow colour; whether this all indicates bad filtration; and what penalty attaches to supplying water of such an inferior character?

My attontion had not been called to the subject before the question appeared. I will make inquiries.

I hope my right hon. Friend will recognise the urgency of this matter. There is now a large increase of enteric fever in the Metropolis, and this water is nothing but diluted sewage. I hope that a searching inquiry will be made without delay.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered a letter from the London County Council, of 26th April, showing cause for exempting the Fire Brigade Stations throughout London from liability to Inhabited House Duty; whether about 60 stations are maintained at a large annual outlay exclusively for public services; and whether, in order to increase the protection from fire thereby afforded to the population of the Metropolis, he will take any steps to meet their views?

Yes, Sir; and I have instructed the Board of Inland Revenue to do all that is legally possible in the direction of exempting the London Fire Brigade Stations, and I believe that the result will be satisfactory to the London County Council.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the land settlement which took place in British Bechuanaland after the extension to that country of the Queen's sovereignty, which received at the time the approval of the High Commissioner and of Her Majesty's Government, secured to the various tribes or clans of the Natives of the country certain tracts of land as an inalienable possession; whether the Administrator of British Bechuanaland has recently issued a legislative proclamation to determine the tenure of Native reserves, and to vest the title thereto in trustees, one of whom may be the Native Chief, thus more or less closely following the course recommended in the Cape Colony; whether this change has ever been requested by the Natives; whether they were consulted before the proclamation was issued; and whether it was made at the instance of Her Majesty's Secretary of State.

The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. Such a legislative proclamation as that mentioned in the second paragraph was issued 14 months ago. The land remains inalienable, except that provision is made for granting individual titles to natives in certain cases. There is nothing in the correspondence to show whether the natives requested that the proclamation might be issued, or were consulted about it previously. It was not issued at the instance of the Secretary of State, but has been approved by him.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether any reply has been received to the Despatch sent to the Government of India as to the Indigo ryots; and whether he can now consent to the Return asked for?

The Despatch was sent out on June 19th, and no reply has yet been received. The Secretary of State cannot tell whether the Return can be given till he is informed by the Government of India.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he has inquired into and can give any information regarding the statement of the Times correspondent at Rangoon, to the effect that a notorious Dacoit leader, having surrendered on a promise of pardon given him, has nevertheless been "sentenced to death after a trial conducted in an unsatisfactory manner?"

The statements of the Times correspondent at Rangoon do not generally commend themselves for accuracy to the Secretary of State, but in this case he has inquired by telegraph whether there is any truth in the statement.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether any engagement has been entered into by Her Majesty's Government, or by the Government of India, with the Ameer of Afghanistan, guaranteeing the integrity of his north-western frontier as delimited in accordance with the Protocol between Russia and this country of 10th September, 1885; and whether any farther undertaking has been added to that contained in a Letter delivered to the Ameer on 20th July, 1880, the terms of which were repeated to him by the Government of India on 22nd February and 16th June, 1883, whereby the British Government reserved to itself the right to be the sole judge as to the occasion, nature, and extent of any military aid which it might grant to him in repelling foreign invasion?

The engagements of the British Government with the present Ameer of Afghanistan will be found recorded at page 40 of the Return, Afghanistan No. 1, of 1881. They have not undergone any modification since that date.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the report in the Times of the practice with the new magazine rifle at Bisley:—

"Even in so short an exhibition the new service rifle was found wanting. Several men were obliged to fall out of the ranks because their rifles became jammed. I myself saw two men of the Royal Scots and one other man in this position. We have been shooting with Martinis for a fortnight, and there has been no jamming. We have seen the magazine rifle used for an afternoon, and there has been jamming;"

and whether this is due to defects in the rifle itself or in the cartridge?

My attention has been drawn to the statements in the Times to which my hon. Friend refers, and I have called for a Report on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to ascertain from the Clerk to the Magistrates at Southam, in Warwickshire, upon how many occasions, during the last five years, the business of the Bench has had to be adjourned in consequence of the non-attendance of a quorum of Magistrates; whether he is aware that, notwithstanding that the Lord Lieutenant of the county has done everything in his power to secure a sufficient attendance, serious inconvenience and loss of time have been caused to the public by these adjournments, and that attention has frequently been and is now being called to this in the public Press; and whether any steps can be taken to ensure in the future a proper attendance of Magistrates?

I have to-day written to the Clerk to the Justices to ask for information on this matter, and will in due course acquaint the hon. Member with the result of my inquiries.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, as there seems to be a misunderstanding on the subject, he will definitely state whether ordinary correspondence cards with a halfpenny stamp affixed can be used instead of official postcards?

My answer to the question of the hon. Member must be in the negative. No cards but postcards can bear communications of the nature of a letter without becoming liable to letter postage.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Duddon Elementary School, in the Parish of Tarvin, Cheshire, which was erected by a voluntary rate over the townships of Duddon, Burton, Clotton, and Stapleford, has had less than seven scholars in attendance at any time for the last two years; that the mistress and about 120 scholars, all except three, left the school in consequence of the action of the clergyman; that these 120 children are now being taught in a room which is so inadequate to the requirements of the Department that for two years it has declined to examine the school or to make any grant; and that the ratepayers generally wished the mistress to be retained, while the clergyman insisted on her dismissal; can he state what was the cause of the dismissal of the mistress; whether he will cause an inquiry to be made by the Department, with a view to the school being handed over to the ratepayers, who are willing to support it, or whether he will order a fresh election of school managers; and what steps he is prepared to take to see that the children of the township are taught in a school recognised by the Department?

I am informed that the facts of the case are, in the main, as stated in the first part of the question. The managers appear to have been dissatisfied with the teacher's manner, and the Department had no right to interfere with their discretion in dismissing her. I have no power to order an inquiry for the purpose suggested, nor to cause a fresh election of school managers, but I will see what can be done to bring the present unsatisfactory state of things to an end.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any instructions for guidance in the applica- tion of compositions have been drawn up by Commander Pitt; whether he will lay these upon the Table of the House; whether the experts on the late Committee, or the technical dockyard officers, have been consulted as to the efficacy of these instructions as applicable to the various compositions used upon the bottoms of Her Majesty's ships; whether any of those supplying compositions to the Admiralty have been consulted by Commander Pitt with reference to these instructions, and, if so, what firms or agents; and what are the names of "the more costly and less durable compositions" reported against by Commander Pitt?

My answer to the first two questions is in the affirmative. As regards the next two questions, I am unable, in the absence of Commander Pitt from London, to give the information required. As regards the last question, the least invidious and simplest method of answering it is to state that at the present moment the Admiralty have only standing contracts for four compositions, namely, Hay's, Peacock's, Crease's, and Rahetgin's.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how much of the annual sum of £965, about to be commuted and paid in full to the Master of the Hawks for his sole use, was set apart for the employment of servants who are not now employed, and for the keep of hawks which are not kept; when such payments ceased to be applied to the purposes for which they were so set apart; whether these payments have since been applied by the Master of the Hawks to his own use, and what is the total amount of these payments so appropriated; at what rate the salary of the Master of the Hawks is to be commuted; and at what rate the payments for servants not employed and birds not kept are to be commuted?

The emoluments attaching to the Mastership of the Hawks as granted by the original patent were given in the Appendix to the Report of the Select Committee of 1887, according to which they consisted of— salary of the master, £391 1s. 5d.; four falconers, at £50 per annum each, £200; allowance for hawks, &c, £782 10s.—total, £1,373 l1s. 5d. These payments were subject to deductions in respect of land tax and fees, reducing to £965 the total sum payable to the Duke of St. Albans. It is not precisely known how these deductions were made, and therefore it is only possible to assume that they were made rateably from the salary and the allowances. On this assumption, £275 would represent the salary of the master, and £690 allowances. It is not on record when the allowances ceased to be applied for the purposes for which they were originally intended. The Treasury have no cognisance of the application of these allowances, but they have been advised by the Law Officers on more than one occasion that the payment of the allowances as well as of the salary is binding on the State. The Treasury, in the offer which they have made to the Duke, had in mind the recommendation of the Select Committee, that payments to holders of hereditary offices where no service is rendered should cease with the life of the present holder.

DO I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Treasury have made no inquiry?

I did not say that the Treasury have made no inquiry. I said the Treasury have been unable to ascertain.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a statement made by Mr. Martin, Inspector of Mines for the Western Division, to the effect that although "The Mines Act, 1887," prohibits unskilled persons working at the working face of the mine unless they have worked two years at the working face of the mine under the supervision of a skilled workman, four unskilled workmen may so work at the working face of the mine without having worked two years under the supervision of a skilled workman; and, considering the effect such an interpretation (if correct) of this section of the Act may have upon managers of mines, what instructions he will give to the Mines Inspectors generally on a matter involving the safety of mines and the lives of the miners?

I am unable to trace in the Inspector's Report any passage bearing out the suggestion of the hon. Member, neither am I disposed to concur in the construction of General Rule 39 mentioned in the question. As I informed the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil in May last, I have no reason to believe that the Inspectors are unmindful of the rule or of the importance of enforcing it; and if any cases of a breach of the rule are brought to my notice I shall certainly take the necessary steps to secure its proper observance.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a verbatim copy of the shorthand notes taken at the Coroner's inquest on the 176 bodies killed by the explosion at the Llanerch Colliery, Monmouth, on 6th February, 1890; whether he will give instructions to prosecute the manager and firemen for having violated General Rules 4, 8, and 12 of "The Mines Act, 1887"; and whether, having regard to the safety and well-being of our miners generally, and the Llanerch miners in particular, he will institute a special inquiry into the cause or causes of the explosion at this colliery, as provided in Section 45 of "The Mines Act, 1887"?

I have no reason to believe that there is any widespread demand for these notes, which are voluminous, and I am therefore unwilling to sanction the expense of laying them upon the Table, which would be considerable; but I shall be happy to show them to any hon. Member who is interested in the subject. Having regard to the opinion expressed in page 12 of the Report of the learned counsel, I do not propose to give instructions that a prosecution shall be instituted. I consider that the able and exhaustive Report already made has rendered unnecessary a special inquiry under Section 45, which would not, in my opinion, be likely to tend to any further elucidation of the facts, or throw more light on the actual causes of the explosion.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, after reading the rules, admits that there was any violation of Rules 4, 8, and 12; and may I also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to lay on the Table the Minutes of the evidence taken at the inquiry?

If there is any general desire, I would have them printed. Generally speaking, there are not more than half a dozen Members who desire to see such Papers. On a former occasion I found extremely few copies were asked for. The able gentleman who conducted the inquiry was of opinion that there was not sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state to the House when the Home Office Vote will be taken?

My right hon. Friend the leader of the House informs me that he cannot yet fix the day when this Vote will be taken.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that in the Ottoman Empire it is the practice, as required by law, for the election of Bishops by the various Christian communities to be ratified by the Sultan, and Letters of Investiture (Berat) granted to the chosen Prelates by His Imperial Majesty; whether a request for this recognition by Her Majesty the Queen has already been made on behalf of the Cypriote Bishops by His Beatitude the Archbishop of Cyprus; and whether the Secretary of State will consider the advisability of recommending Her Majesty to grant to each of the Greek Orthodox Bishops of Kition, Kyrenia, and Paphos a Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual, confirming these dignitaries in the temporalities of their respective sees, to which they have been elected since the British occupation of Cyprus in July, 1878?

The answer to the first two paragraphs of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. With regard to the third, I would refer him to the concluding portion of the Secretary of State's Despatch of March 22 last (on pages 40 and 41 of Blue Book C. 6,003), in which it was explained that in the opinion of Her Majesty' Government the subject of episcopal dues was one which ought to be dealt with by the Local Legislature.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will grant the Return relating to the excessive mortality of the Cornish miners, which stands in his name upon the Orders of the Day?

Yes, Sir; I am prepared to grant this Return.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now give the House any fuller information as to the deplorable conflict which took place in the end of June at Erzeroum, in Armenia, due to the desecration of a church by the Local Turkish Authorities, a conflict in which a very large number of Christians are reported to have been slaughtered by a mob composed in large part of Turkish soldiers; and whether any Report, and of what date, has been received from Her Majesty's Consul at Erzeroum upon this subject?

Later Reports have been received up to July 5 from Her Majesty's Consul at Erzeroum, but not differing as to the occurrences of June 20 and following days from those to which I referred in my answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent. Those Reports do not warrant the view of those occurrences taken in this question, but there was a lamentable loss of life and subsequent rioting. Order is stated to have been restored. A Court was inquiring into the occurrences, and when the reinforcements, which were near at hand, should arrive it was expected that the apprehensions which were still felt would be allayed. As I have already stated, Papers will be presented, when they will afford a satisfactory account of what has taken place.

When will these Papers be presented?

These matters are still under inquiry, and it is impossible to say when the Papers will be ready.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received direct information to the effect that at the request of James Egan, a prisoner in the Convict Prison at Chat ham, a Member of this House had an interview with him yesterday (28th July,) when the prisoner wished to make a statement respecting a special grievance connected with his treatment in prison, that the warder who was present said he had special instructions not to allow any reference to prison treatment, or any allusion to be made to the recent inquiry held as to the treatment of certain prisoners in Chatham Prison; whether this action is in accordance with ordinary usage; and whether as the prisoner declares the question is one of life and death to him, he will grant a special visit to two Members of this House, at which the prisoner shall be permitted to make a statement on the subject?

Yes, Sir; I understand the facts to be as stated. The action of the officer present was in accordance with the ordinary usage. Ample provision is made by the standing orders that prisoners shall have opportunities of making complaints, or any application to superior authority, by means of interviews with the Governor or Deputy Governor, or Visiting Director, or by Memorial to the Board of Directors, or to the Secretary of State. They may also make any complaint to the Prison Visitors. I have before stated in this House that neither Members of Parliament nor any other persons can be allowed access to a prisoner for the purpose of investigating a matter of prison discipline.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember informing me across the floor of the House that Mr. Soames and Pigott had an interview with a prisoner in the interest of the Times, and why is the privilege accorded to them denied to Members of the House?

I do not think the hon. Member is accurately representing the point of my answer. The point of my present answer is that an interview for the purpose of investigating a matter of prison discipline has never been allowed. If the hon. Member wishes for further information he had better give notice of a question.

I will repeat it on Thursday.

It is a matter of life and death in this case, and I will therefore ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will not consent to allow this man to see two Members of the House so that he may make a statement as to his special grievance?

No, Sir; I cannot accede to that application. I am myself perfectly prepared to receive any complaints.

Did not the right hon. Gentleman allow a doctor from outside to visit Daly?

This case is entirely different from that of the prisoner Daly. I did allow a doctor to visit Daly, because fears were expressed that the prison doctor had not taken a right view of his case. That was a totally different matter to allowing any two Members of the House to visit a prisoner for the purpose of inquiring into prison discipline.

Some time ago I addressed two applications for leave to visit this man to the right hon. Gentleman, and both were refused in discourteous terms.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the draft classification of merchandise traffic with proposed maximum rates, just issued by the Board of Trade for the Great Western and London and North-Western Railway Companies, the rate of conveyance for milk, including station and service terminals, and charges for empty cans, averages about twice the rate which these companies now charge, and more than double the rates which the Midland and Great Eastern charge; what is the reason for this great rise in the rates for the carriage of milk over existing rates, when there has been a reduction in the rates for many other commodities; why the return of empty cans is liable to a charge varying from 4d. to 8d. when at at present the Great Western only charges 2d. and the London and North-Western charges nothing; and what opportunities the representatives of dairy farmers will have of objecting to these rates before they become law?

I cannot accept the statements contained in the first and third paragraphs of this question as either accurate or complete; but at the present time it would be premature to enter into the details of the subject, because the Statutory Report to Parliament has not yet been made. When that Report is made, the representatives of dairy farmers will see precisely how the matter stands; and in the event of a Provisional Order being brought before Parliament next Session containing rates which are not satisfactory to them, they would have full opportunity of opposing those rates in the House, or before the Committee to which the Bill would be referred. But I would point out to the hon. Member that any rates proposed will be maximum rates, and that their allowance by no means necessarily involves any increase in the rates at present actually charged.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the suitability of large tracts of land in Great Britain and Ireland to the growth of sugar beet; whether he is aware that the necessary capital for promoting the establishment of such an industry would be immediately forthcoming upon the ratification of the Sugar Convention, and the consequent abolition of bounties; and whether, in view of the existing agricultural depression and the fact that few crops would give so large a profit per acre, and open up such extensive employment to the agricultural population, as sugar beet, Her Majesty's Government would give the matter their serious consideration?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question until Thursday. It only appeared on the Paper this morning, and I have not had time to obtain information.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Corporation of London have raised the pay of the City Police Force, and if he proposes to take similar action, and to what extent with regard to the Metropolitan Force?

I have no information on the subject alluded to in the question beyond newspaper reports. The Corporation of London have resources which will enable them always to keep the pay of the City Police above that-of the Metropolitan Force. I cannot admit that this example should serve as a guide for the Metropolis, nor am I in a-position to state that I shall take any action of the kind indicated.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is correct, as stated by the military correspondent of the Times, that at the inspection on Saturday of four battalions of the Foot Guards the aggregate of all ranks was "considerably under 2,000;" and what is the establishment strength of these four battalions?

The total number of all ranks of the four battalions which paraded for inspection on the 26th inst. was 2,387, out of 3,172 effectives, including recruits, men in hospital, &c. The establishment of these four battalions is 3,362. The recruiting for the Brigade of Foot Guards compares favourably with former years. The waste this year has been abnormally large, as all the men enlisted under the old. rule of seven years with the colours go to the Reserve as well as the usual annual proportion of men enlisted for three years' service with the colours; but, in spite of this double drain, the Brigade is only slightly under its establishment.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he proposes to take steps to verify the statement recently made by the Agricultural Department of the United States that pleuro-pneumonia no longer exists in that country, with the view of determining whether cattle may now be freely imported from the United States?

I am not aware of any statement made by the Agricultural Department of the United States that pleuro-pneumonia no longer exists in that country, in any public document or otherwise. The hon. Member was good enough to send me a communication on the 10th of this month from the Agricultural Department of the United States addressed to himself, in which it is stated "that pleuro-pneumonia is not known to exist in the United States at the present time," which is a very different matter. I have not thought it necessary to endeavour to verify the statement, seeing that within a comparatively short time animals undoubtedly suffering from that disease, within the knowledge of the Board of Agriculture, have been landed at Liverpool from the United States.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reconsider the facts and arguments repeatedly laid before him by influentially supported Memorials from upwards of 200 public bodies under seal or resolution, in favour of contributing towards the establishment of additional night mail trains between London and Plymouth; whether the proposed trains would very materially improve the postal intercommunication between almost every town west of Basingstoke as far as Penzance and the Scilly Isles, as well as to and from London, and especially between the Naval Establishments of Portsmouth and Devonport; whether he will consider the advisability of improving the existing postal arrangements between many of the towns in the five south-western counties by utilising the railways now traversing them, the mails now being conveyed by mail carts during the night for many miles; whether the proposed improved service has been approved by Her Majesty's Postmaster General; and whether the expenditure asked is small for the services to be rendered?

I will consider what decision ought to be arrived at.

I beg to ask the Attorney General if he can state to the House whether any complaint has reached the Lord Chancellor with reference to language used towards witnesses by the County Court Judge of Ripon; and whether any inquiry will be made in the matter?

In answer to the question of the hon. Member, I am informed that a complaint of the kind referred to has reached the Lord Chancellor, and that inquiry is being made into the matter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Government will consider the advisability of entering into negotiations with the German Emperor, providing for the submission to arbitration of any question or dispute that may hereafter arise in connection with the Anglo-German Agreement; whether the Government will consider the advisability of inserting an arbitration clause in the proposed Anglo-French Agreement; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of inserting an arbitration clause in the proposed Anglo-Portuguese Agreement?

In answer to these questions, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government cannot undertake such general engagements. They have shown in recent instances their readiness to refer to arbitration special and defined cases, fit subjects for reference to arbitration. But there might be cases of difference in which our indefeasible rights might be challenged, and which we could not submit as open questions.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that 21 Bills appeared yesterday in the Government Orders of the Day, besides the Orders of Supply and a Committee of Ways and Means, he will consult the convenience of the House by placing on the Orders such a number of Bills as there is reasonable expectation may be dealt with during the sitting of the House?

I am afraid it would not be practicable, nor for the convenience of the House, that Orders should be postponed to a late day at this period of the Session, and no other course is open, according to practice, but to place them on the Paper, in order that they may be disposed of if they are reached.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether in past times the offices of Constable of Carnarvon Castle and Mayor of Carnarvon were vested in the same person; and if he can give any reason why the repeatedly expressed wish of the Town Council of Carnarvon was disregarded in making the recent appointment to the constableship?

I have no knowledge of the past history of the Constables of Carnarvon Castle, but I would suggest that if more information as to the present appointment is wanted, it would be desirable that future questions should be addressed to the Prime Minister in another place.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any news from Buenos Ayres?

The following telegram has been received from Buenos Ayres, dated 2.30 p.m., July 28:—

"Armistice prolonged till 2 this afternoon. President returned to capital. Government forces said to be strongly reinforced 6.5 p.m.—Hostilities not renewed. Negotiations for capitulation of insurgents proceeding. Terms of Government not yet accepted."

I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the Division on Monday, in which 56 Scotch Members took part, 14 voting in favourof the Government, and 42 in favour of the Amendment of the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Banner-man), the Government will re-consider before the Report whether they cannot apply the money available in consequence of the withdrawal of the proposals referring to licences in Scotland towards promoting free education in that country in accordance with the wishes of the Scotch Members?

Of course, the Government will seriously consider everything connected with the business of this House; but I cannot hold out any prospect of a change in the views of the Government, based as they are upon a full regard to all the circumstances of the case so far as Scotland is concerned, and as regards the legislation for next year.

I wish to know whether the Attorney General for Ireland has seen a paragraph in the newspapers of this morning stating that a force of marines have been embarked from a gunboat on one of the islands on the coast of Kerry for the purpose of aiding in carrying out evictions?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give notice of the question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if arrangements could be made to ship and land the mails and luggage at Holyhead and Kingstown by mechanical means, so as to avoid the delay that is occasioned by the present system?

I am not surprised that my hon. Friend should have called attention to this subject. The present system of shipping and landing the mails and baggage at Holyhead and Kingstown by hand must cause great delay, and is a terrible blot on a service which is, in all other respects, perhaps the best of its kind in the world. I have been in communication with the Post Office, the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, and the London and North-Western Railway Company, in the hope of effecting an improvement of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend. The City of Dublin Company were willing to incur considerable expense for this purpose, but I find the Post Office obstinately determined to adhere to the present system, and the Railway Company would do nothing to assist in a change. I am unable to do more, as it is not in my power to insist on an improvement in the matter. In reply to MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.),

said: I do not think that I can lay the correspondence between two Departments of the Government upon the Table of the House.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the correspondence between the Railway Company and the Steam Packet Company?

I will see what I can do.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether complaints have reached him that Mr. Haynes, Clerk of the Bandon (County Cork) Poor Law Union, resides five miles from the offices of the Union, with his brothers, who are under police protection, and that he there keeps, during several days of the week, the rate books and other books belonging to the Union, to the inconvenience of the ratepayers; and whether he will be compelled to attend at his office daily for the prescribed number of hours, as laid down by the Local Government Board?

The Clerk of the Bandon Union reports that it is the case that he resides about five miles from the workhouse, at his mother's house, with his brothers, who are not under police protection. He states that it is not the case that he has kept the rate books or any other books of the Union at his residence to the inconvenience of the ratepayers. The general regulations of the Local Government Board defining the duties of the clerk of a Union do not prescribe any hours during which he must attend at his office, but he is bound under Section 9 of 6 & 7 Vict., c. 92, to permit persons affected by any rate in the Union to have access to the valuation whereon it was based, at all times between 10 o'clock in the forenoon on every day except Sundays. No complaints have been made to the Local Government Board as to inconvenience resulting from the situation of the clerk's present residence.

The right hon. Gentleman says that no complaint has been made. I make a complaint now, and I ask him to ascertain whether it is not the fact that a number of ratepayers went to the office and requested to see the rate books, and that the Clerk declined to show them?

I have no doubt that if any new matter is brought before the Local Government Board it will be inquired into.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of Mr. Haynes, clerk of the Bandon (County Cork) Poor Law Union; whether he is aware that at a recent contest for the Guardianship of one of the Electoral Divisions, Mr. Haynes, acting as Returning Officer, refused to issue voting papers in connection with a number of claims appointing proxies by the nuns of the convent, though these were accurately signed and lodged in due course; also that he similarly refused to issue voting papers in the case of John Cummins & Sons, joint owners, though he issued them to Robinson & Sons, who are similarly circumstanced; and whether he will call upon Mr. Haynes for an explanation of the alleged circumstances?

The Returning Officer reports to the effect that, having doubts as to the ownership of the property out of which the nuns claim to vote, he took the steps required by the 26th Section of 6 and 7 Vict., c. 92, and the nuns, not having produced the necessary evidence, he was debarred from admitting them to vote. With regard to the case of John Cummins & Sons, they, as being a joint business company, were disqualified to vote themselves, and they had not qualified any officer on their behalf in the manner required by Section 86 of 1 & 2 Vict., c. 56. With respect to John and William Robinson, the Returning Officer states that he had no reason to doubt the legality of their claims.

Is it necessary to produce evidence, or is not the rate book sufficient evidence?

No, Sir; it is not necessary to produce evidence.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether two members of the Royal Irish Constabulary attended a meeting of tradesmen and labourers held in Drogheda, County Louth, Ireland, for trades union purposes on 9th July, and took notes of the proceedings; and, if so, by whose orders, on what authority, and with what object they did so?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the meeting referred to was a public one, held in the open air, and convened by placard. It was organised in connection with an existing strike among the employés of a local Steamship Company, and the Local Officer directed two policemen to attend and take notes, which was accordingly done.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that a man named Charles Mitchel, residing at Shantonagh, County Monaghan, recently obtained a temporary retail spirit licence for consumption on the premises; and if so, by whose authority, and on what grounds; whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mitchel's applications repeatedly made at Quarter Sessions for several years were always opposed by the landlord of the place, the clergy of all denominations, and the inhabitants generally, on the grounds that the place being a thinly populated country district, a public house was not required, and, if allowed, would be a source of demoralisation amongst the people, and that the Magistrates of the district, with the concurrence of the County Court Judge, unanimously refused the application on every occasion; but that on the 20th inst., at the Castle-blaney Quarter Sessions, when Mitchel again applied to have his temporary retail licence made permanent, of the 18 Magistrates on the Bench, three were Resident Magistrates, two of whom came from other counties, and three others of the number came from other districts to support Mitchel's claim; whether his attention has been called to the expression of opinion by the Chairman that the Bench was packed in Mitchel's interest; and to the fact that he ordered the application to stand over till October next; whether he can say by whose authority, and for what reason, Resident Magistrates from other counties attended the hearing of this case; and whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor will be called to the conduct of the other Justices who attended from other districts?

It is the case that Mr. Charles Mitchel was recently, on the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant, allowed by the Board of Inland Revenue to sell excisable liquors for consumption on his premises pending his application to Quarter Sessions on 20th June last, on which date this permission to sell expired. I am informed that the facts are not accurately represented in the second paragraph. The application was not opposed by the inhabitants generally. It was opposed by the landlord and two local clergymen of different denominations, but was favoured by another local clergyman. The place is a leading highway, and the applicant is a shopkeeper, doing a very large trade in the locality, which is represented to have a good average country population, and many of his customers were anxious that he should get the more extended licence. He holds already a spirit, grocer's, and beer retailer's licence. The application has not been refused on the previous occasions unanimously. On the contrary, it was carried by only very small majorities. Of the three Resident Magistrates present, one belonged to the district, the second had been recently in charge of it, and belonged to an adjoining district, and the third belonged to another adjoining district, in part of the police district of which the premises in question are situate. All the Magistrates who attend the Quarter Sessions were Magistrates for the County Longford, and had a right to do so. The Chairman is reported to have made use of no such expression as that attributed to him, but upon a point of law he decided that the licence could only be granted at the Annual (October) Licensing Sessions. The Resident Magistrates who attended are Magistrates for the County Monaghan, and therefore had a right to be present.

Is it usual for Resident Magistrates to attend Licensing Sessions?

Yes, Sir, it is usual.

Has not the Lord Chancellor laid down the dictum that it is wrong for a Resident Magistrate to attend a Licensing Session outside his own district?

The ordinary Magistrates are assigned to particular districts, but a Resident Magistrate may attend generally.

Did not two of these Magistrates come from a distance to ratify the decision of the Magistrates at the Sessions, and is he aware that the Lord Chancellor dismissed from the Commission of the Peace, Mr. James Byrne, because he went from Mallow to another district for the hearing of a case in which an appeal was granted. Why then, in this case, were two Resident Magistrates allowed to travel from one part of the county to another in order to decide a case in which the Crown was concerned?

The Resident Magistrates are all Magistrates for the whole of the county. There is no analogy between the position of an ordinary Magistrate and that of a Resident Magistrate. The latter can attend all Licensing Sessions in the county. In reply to a further Question by Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.),

said: I have given all the information in my possession.

Were not two Resident Magistrates imported into this county specially for the purpose?

Certainly not.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what period of leave is annually allowed to lightkeepers in Great Britain; whether the practice in Ireland is not to allow any leave; and if there is any sufficient reason why the Irish and British lightkeepers should not be treated alike in this respect?

The grant of annual leave to lightkeepers is essentially a question within the discretion of the Lighthouse Authorities, and one in which I cannot interfere. I have asked the English, Scotch, and Irish Boards for their regulations on the subject, and if he desires it I shall be ready to send the information to the hon. Member when I receive it.

I shall be glad if the right hon. Member will follow the matter up.

I am not at, present aware what the regulations are.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, in view of the fact that "The Summary. Jurisdiction Act, 1879," provides the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions to-any person who is adjudged by a conviction or order of a Summary Court of Jurisdiction in England to be imprisoned without the option of a fine, even in cases where the term of imprisonment is less than one month, whereas in Ireland there is no such appeal to Quarter Sessions from the Petty Sessions, unless-the term of imprisonment exceeds one month, the Government will extend to Irishmen the same right of appeal which is now afforded to persons in England?

The law in England is correctly stated in the question of the hon. Member, subject to certain exceptions, which are not material. I need scarcely say that it is quite beyond my province to express any opinion upon questions of legislation for Ireland.

said: A person sentenced in Ireland to less than a month's, imprisonment has no right of appeal. To issue instructions sanctioning an appeal would in the first case necessitate the-repeal of the Act.

Does the right hon. Gentleman forget that there was a promise that there should be an appeal in all cases. Will he not give to an Irishman the same right that an English subject now enjoys?

If the hon. Member desires an alteration of the law he had better put a Question on the Paper.

If the Local Taxation Bill passes through Committee to-night what will be the first business to-morrow?

The Post Office Estimates. In reply to Mr. BRYCE,

said: It will be necessary to proceed with the English Police Bill first, and then to take the Scotch Bill.

When the Debate was adjourned last night I was venturing to suggest why these words should be omitted from the clause. In the first place I may point out that the clause is entirely inconsistent with the practice of the Scotch Educational Department, which has already sanctioned, in the case of 700 schools, relief from the payment of fees for the highest standard. In the Division which occurred last night the Government were supported only by 14 out of 56 Scotch Members, 42, or a majority of three to one, having voted against them. Last year the highest watermark against the Government was five to one. Are they going to tell the people of Scotland that they will yield to a majority of five to one, but not to a majority of three to one? It may be said that the Government cannot afford to give money to the Sixth Standard, because the Sixth Standard is not compulsory; but I meet that argument by the assertion that if it is made complete it will in every sense become compulsory. At present we are in this dilemma, that if we are to have a compulsory Sixth Standard we must have such an extension of grant as will bear the charge. I believe I am within the mark when I say that every School Board and everyone who has given attention to the question of education in Scotland are unanimous, or all but unanimous, in favour of the necessity of making the Sixth Standard compulsory. Children pass the Sixth Standard, some at the age of 10 years, nearly all at 11 years. Children in Scotland, who at 11 years of age are withdrawn from school and at once sent to work, labour under two disadvantages. In the first place the severity of their work makes it impossible for them to pursue in any serious degree their school studies, and in the second place, after they leave school at that tender age, they forget in no long time much of what they had learnt there. Anyone of experience who has studied the question will say that an additional year in the Sixth Standard would be precious beyond anything, both for making permanent the impressions a boy has already received and as a beginning of implanting in his mind a notion of the higher subjects which he may pursue in later life. As far as the educated opinion of Scotland is concerned, there are no two views as to the propriety of making the Sixth Standard compulsory. I believe that the working classes in Scotland are grateful for the boon conferred upon them last year, and if the House were to go further and make the Sixth Standard free, parents would be glad to make a sacrifice, and would accept with cheerfulness the extension of the compulsory standards so as to include the Sixth. That, I think, is a complete answer to the view which the Lord Advocate put forward. Why should not the Government accept this Motion? The opinion of Scotland has been manifested in the Division very clearly and distinctly, and I believe it is much stronger in Scotland itself than among the Representatives of Scotland in this House. Why not accept the view of Scotland on the point, which is a very small one? Before free education was introduced in Scotland, four out of five parts of the cost of education were borne by the State, and the difficulty of raising the remaining fifth by fees was so great that it was not thought worth while to stand out against its remission. At present the total amount raised by fees is about l–35th of the whole. We spend £1,320,000 on education, and are the Government to stand out now on account of a paltry £40,000? I believe the real reason which influences the Government is that they think if they were to yield it might tie their hands when they come next year to deal with the question of free education in England. I certainly am in favour of free education in the higher schools, by competition for a limited number of places. That is the system on which we have proceeded in Aberdeen for many years, and it has worked extremely well. But I wish to point out that Scotland needs a considerable sum of money, both to complete and perfect her university system, and for technical and secondary education, and I think it is hopeless to obtain popular support for spending money on higher education until you have completely freed the elementary schools, because money so spent would be absorbed mainly by the middle and wealthy classes.

Yesterday we were beaten—but not with very much slaughter—on an Amendment in which we took very deep interest. Now, the Lord Advocate has put what I may call a moral censure on us by not taking part in this Debate. I submit that the Amendment is a reasonable one, because it would bridge over what is felt to be an awkward gap in the education system of Scotland. At present, the education given to the Scotch people is a bare minimum; it is a rough framework with a thin veneer which rapidly wears off later in life. We know it is a great temptation to poor parents suffering from the agricultural depression not to keep their children at school when they have passed the compulsory standards, and I think we should do all we can to encourage children passing into the voluntary standards, in which they would take a more sincere interest in their educational work, I see no reason, also, why the Education Department of Scotland should not be trusted to allocate the money, as heretofore, for the benefit of the Scottish people. Children ought to be encouraged, by rewards of some kind, to enter the voluntary standards. This is done already in some cases by means of bursaries and other pecuniary assistance. The idea of compulsion is apt to raise a feeling of antagonism, whereas, in the case I have indicated, children would carry on their educational work with a feeling akin to enthusiasm, thus enabling them to continue their progress in the higher walks of education. I believe that it would be good policy on the part of the Government to yield on this point, and not to make two bites at a cherry.

I think that some hon. Members from Scotland have done scant justice to the feeling of the Scottish people in favour of education. I may point out that the arguments brought forward with reference to the attitude of the working classes in Scotland regarding education above the compulsory standards are not in accord with the history of the Scottish people as regards education generally. Though many hon. Members may find fault with the financial proposals I have submitted, it will not be denied that I, too, have some feeling in favour of education. I think that I may claim to have been what is called an educationalist for many years. Hon. Members have urged that this is but a small matter; but I think the decision whether or not the standards above the compulsory standards, as well as the compulsory standards themselves, shall be freed, is by no means a very small question. The argument has been put forward that the Government would be justified in freeing parents from the duty (which hon. Members now entirely discard), of educating or contributing to the education of their children. We have relieved parents from that duty where the State has enacted compulsion, but the Government are not prepared to sanction the principle that beyond the compulsory standards education must necessarily be free. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen has remarked that, with the views which I hold with regard to free education, I should not be able to show my face in any part of Scotland without being metaphorically torn to pieces. But I have appeared before Scottish audiences, and have spoken on this question of free education. In Edinburgh, during my first candidature, I dealt with this subject, and I asked my audience, which was largely composed of the working classes, whether it was or was not right that parents should be entirely freed from the duty of educating their children. I appealed to them for their votes, and though I had declared my opposition to this promiscuous free education, I was successful. I was able to secure the suffrages of an important section of the working classes of Edinburgh without having pronounced in favour of free education, but rather the reverse; and, therefore, I cannot refrain from asking myself whether hon. Members opposite so entirely represent the feeling of the bulk of the people of Scotland when they say that parents are not prepared to incur some sacrifice for the education of their children. The arguments of hon. Members, however, are not only in favour of the application of this system to Scotland, but they argue as if it were discouraging to education generally to place fees upon any of the higher standards in the school. The argument is that if a working man has been freed from the payment of fees in the lower standards, he will be certain to withdraw his children from school when they reach the upper standards, if he has to pay anything. But what is the amount of the fee as compared to the value of the child's labour? When the compulsory standards are passed, the child has arrived at an age when he can earn a few shillings a week, and if the parent values the child's labour, which represents a few shillings a week, is it to be believed he will withdraw because of the few pence he may have to pay? I do not think the argument holds water for a moment, especially as regards Scotland, and hon. Members from Scotland do injustice to their fellow-countrymen. The Government do not say this is a large matter, but a large principle is involved. If they could meet the views of hon. Members from Scotland they would be extremely glad, but they cannot do so without assenting to a principle to which they are opposed. The hon. Member from Aberdeen urged the claims of the working classes, but the hon. Member must bear in mind that while in England large sums have been employed for the "brutal and naked" relief of local taxation, in Scotland we have given £250,000 and now £40,000 more by this Bill to primary education, so that altogether no less than £290,000 is going to the benefit of the working classes and their children. No other members of the community have so far benefited by the application of any portion of this money.

That is not so, because in Scotland there is a very large proportion of what may be called the lower middle class, who habitually send their children to Board schools.

I think that rather expands the argument when Parliament is asked to give free education above the compulsory standards to the lower middle class as well as the working class at the expense of the State. Have those classes no duties to their children in the direction of education? I can fancy that there are many others representing what might be called the poorer middle class who have difficulty enough to scrape together the money paid for the education of their children, who do not go to elementary schools, yet that class is to be taxed, and not to be relieved of any portion of the rates, because the whole of the money is to go to one particular class of school. The Government, having dealt so largely with Scotch opinion in this matter, are scarcely open to the reproaches which hon. Members have levelled at them, that they are putting this money to an unfair use, or are checking education by the proposals they have made.

As a Scotchman, although not a Scotch Member, I should like to say a word or two in regard to this Amendment. I have not been convinced by the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I believe that if this matter were referred to the Scotch people, the vast majority would be found to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. The great defect in the educational system of Scotland, as of England, is that the average school age is far too short. In Germany the average school age is 14 in the day schools and 17 in the evening continuation schools; in Switzerland it is 15 and 17 or 18 respectively; but in England and Scotland the average age for leaving the day schools is only 12, and not more than 4 per cent, of the scholars pass into any kind of continuation schools. Yet from 12 to 16 years of age is the period at which a child's character is formed either for good or bad. I think that every encouragement should be offered to lengthen the school age, but the effect of the Government's proposal is to penalise the Sixth Standard. The Government have got the gratitude of the Scotch people by what they have already done for free education; let them do the thing thoroughly and completely. If the Government wish to stave off Scotch Home Rule they must pay heed to the wishes of the Parliamentary Representatives of the people, because in Scotland a strong feeling is growing up that those wishes do not receive sufficient attention in the British Parliament, and that the voices of the Scottish Representatives are too often voted down. I regret that feeling, and I hope the Government will do their best to lessen it.

I wish to know whether the insertion of the Amendment will have the effect of preventing School Boards abolishing fees in the Sixth Standard if they are so disposed.

No embargo will be laid on the proceeding of School Boards in the direction my hon. Friend points at. That will be just as free as they were before. These words are merely indicative of our wish, in making the grant, as to how the money shall be expended.

As an English Member, I claim to take an interest in this subject, because of the necessary effect of the education proposals with regard to Scotland when free schools are extended to England, as we hope they will be, next year. We have already stated that we object to the system of freeing education in Scotland by means of grants from the rates, which we hope will not be done in England, and we object also to the plan of freeing the lower and not the higher standards. I cannot conceive any system more anti-educationalist than that of freeing the lower standards in the Elementary Schools and charging fees in the higher standards. Our object ought to be to endeavour to keep the children at school as long as possible. It may be contended in opposition to the view urged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it will be a great temptation to the parent to withdraw his children from school at an earlier age when, by keeping them at school, he will have to begin to pay fees. No doubt the parent has the inducement of the child's wages to withdraw the child from school, but it is the duty of Parliament not to add to that temptation by charging a fee after children have passed the Fifth Standard. Personally, I would rather see the higher than the lower standards free. It seems to me that the very reason that the higher standards are not compulsory is the greatest argument for making them free, because if you cannot force a parent to send his child of 12 or 13 years to school, you ought to do your best to encourage him to keep his child at school. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that this is a matter of principle; that it is not a small matter at all. But I think he forgets that already this principle has been admitted, inasmuch as already in Scotland there are something like 730 schools in which no fees are charged in the higher standards, in the non-compulsory standards. As far as I know, no evil results have ensued. What we propose is that the parents of the children in the other 2,000 and odd schools should have the same advantages as the parents whose children go to the 730 schools. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated very truly that the Scotch have always been great educationalists, and it is most satisfactory to know there are no less than 30,000 children in the higher standards in the Scottish schools. This is a small matter as regards money. The Government have already spent a very large sum indeed in freeing schools, and it certainly is very regrettable that for the last ha'porth of tar the system should be spoiled. I, as an English Member, very sincerely hope the Government may see their way to accept this Amendment, because when the system of free education is extended to England we, at all events, shall insist that everyone of the standards in our elementary schools shall be free, and we are afraid that unless the principle is accepted in Scotland, we may have greater difficulty in introducing it in England.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that there is a very large principle involved in paying the fees of a child beyond the compulsory standard. What will the right hon. Gentleman do when he comes to deal with free education in England, where the compulsory standard varies from the third to the sixth, according to the will of the Educational Authorities in the locality? The standard in Scotland was fixed 20 years ago, and it was fixed as a minimum standard to which every child must attain before it can accept any employment; it was fixed to give the child the minimum of an elementary education. What the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do is to stereotype that minimum, and, practically, in a vast number of cases, make it the maximum of education. The complaint of the Scotch Education Department has been: for years that the number of children who pass the Fifth Standard at the age of 10 to 12 is. increasing every year, in consequence of improved teaching, better methods, and better average attendance. Every year a larger number of children are passing out of school at these early ages. If the right hon. Gentleman acquaints himself with the practice in other countries he will find that the standard is not one of class, but of age. It is a standard varying from 13 to 16 years of age. But in Scotland there are numbers of children who are passing the Fifth Standard at as low an age as 10 and 11. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that a poor working man who wants to keep his child at school until it is 12 or 13 years of age must be fined 6d. a week if he does so?

I did not say that at all.

That is the practical effect of the proposal.

The right hon. Gentleman wishes to put it into my mouth that this is a fine upon parents. That a fee should be called a fine is most extraordinary.

The right hon. Gentleman may call it by any name he pleases, but that is the practical result. In England it will be regarded as a fine. In nearly all of our colonies, in every country in Europe where there is a good system of education, the education of a child is continued until he has passed completely through the school, and if he does not pass through the school before a certain age—14 or 15 years—he must compulsorily attend a night school until he has passed through the whole of the school curriculum. Why are we dealing with the fee question at all? Because the payment of fees has been a great hindrance to the attendance of children at school. The first effect in Scotland of making education free to the extent it has been made free, was a large increase in the attendance of children at school. Children have been kept back, on one pretext or another, but the hindrance was generally poverty. When the fees were abolished, the children who had been kept back were at once sent to school, children were sent at an earlier age than they had ever been sent before, and there were demands for increased accommodation. The wages children can earn are a great temptation to parents to withdraw their children from school, but what is now proposed is that a parent, in addition to forfeiting the wages of his children if he keeps them at school until they are 12 or 13, shall put his hand in his pocket and pay, say 6d. a week. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has hardly considered how important sixpences are to rural labourers, and poor working men.

I know it well. In Sussex, where I live, the labourers are quite as poor as those in Scotland.

In Sussex, where the right hon. Gentleman lives, the children do not attend school after they have passed the Fourth Standard. In Sussex, and, indeed, throughout the whole of the rural districts of England, the working man has to pay heavy school fees, with the result that he is obliged to withdraw his children from school as early as he can; he has often to put one in the field to pay the fees for the education of the others-Now, a precocious child can pass Standard V. at tan or ten-and-a-half. If the parent keeps the child at school until he is 13, he must pay fees for the three years. Some children cannot pass Standard V. until they are 13, and in their cases there will be no fines. There is no inducement to withdraw backward children from school, the inducement is to withdraw the clever children. That is not in harmony with the traditions of Scotland, although I am sorry the Scotch people are beginning to keep their children at school for too short a time, as the hon. Member who preceded me said this has an important bearing on the English question. There are towns in England where no child is allowed to leave school until he has passed the Sixth Standard. Under the right hon. Gentleman's system the children in such towns will have their fees paid up to the Sixth Standard, because that is the compulsory standard; but there are rural districts where the third or the fourth is the compulsory standard. Where-there is the most need of help, the least help will be given in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman's plan.

The right hon. Gentleman must not anticipate the Government's plan.

I am not anticipating the right hon. Gentleman's plan, but I am fixing him to his principle, and his principle is that we must not go beyond the compulsory requirements of the State. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer lays that down in regard to Scotland, there will be a very poor chance of going beyond it in England. It will be a burning shame if, in this House, the will of the Scotch Members does not prevail with respect to the education of Scottish children. It will be discreditable to us English Members, on whatever side of the House we sit, if we do not allow the Scotch people to distribute this money in the way they wish. The right hon. Gentleman opposite referred to his having been elected for Edinburgh. He was so elected when under the aegis of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, but he was not so successful when he deserted that right hon. Gentleman's standard. There has been a great march forward in this question of education, and every one interested in education is thankful for the movement. If the right hon. hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to enunciate today in Scotland the principles he has enunciated in this House, I am quite sure that no constituency in Scotland would elect him. I appeal to English County Members not to be tied down in this matter to the compulsory standards, and I would remind English Members generally that the principle of this proposal will affect England as well as Scotland, and I maintain that it is a very pernicious one.

I will not stand between the Committee and a Division many moments, but I should like to put to the Government one proposal. Will it be denied that public opinion throughout Scotland is universally in favour of freeing the high standards rather than the lower ones? If anything came out of the discussion last year, and has come out this year, it is that the educationalist in Scotland would rather free the higher standards than the lower. It is no great burden to the parent to keep a child in the early standards. Its food and clothes cost less, and there is no temptation to send it to labour, but when a parent has a clever child of 10 or 11, the temptation to take it away from school is very great. We did not want this extra 6d. on whisky. We opposed it; but now that we have to pay the money, we ask the Scotch Representatives in this House to say to what the money is to be applied. The Government desire to tie us down so that the County Councils can only apply it to a limited number of taxes. They make a suggestion—and I admit it is no more than a suggestion—that parents should only be relieved of school fees up to the Fifth Standard, but will anyone deny that this will be a hint to every School Board not to relieve parents above the Fifth Standard, and a rebuke to those School Boards who hitherto have been giving relief up to the Sixth Standard? In all common sense I ask, Are we Scotch Members of Parliament to be expected to come here and give such votes as those we have recorded only to be voted down by the brute force of numbers? Are we to be expected to pay these taxes without a voice in their distribution? I hope the Government will re-consider this matter. Nothing more disappointed me than the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate last night. He is going against the strong sentiment of the people of Scotland, and against three to one of the Scotch Representatives. He is discouraging the poor man from conferring a high-class education on his children. At present the nobleman's son pays the same price for the education of his son at the University as the poor man. Is there any degradation in that? Not at all; and it is because we want to see the poor man's son stand side by side with the children of the upper classes without there being degradation anywhere that we urge the Government to re-consider this matter. It is a pernicious doctrine that the son of the poor man should have his fees paid for him by the State, while the son of the rich man should pay his own fees. To tie us down to the Fifth Standard is to put a disparity or degradation on State-aided education which ought to be removed.

I shall go to a Division on this Amendment; but before we divide, I desire to say that the omission of these words will simply put the clause on the same footing as last year's Act. The Government are granting a further sum of money, and all we ask is that it should be voted on precisely the same conditions as the money last year. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have obscured that issue. They have spoken of it as a sacred principle that we should not go beyond the compulsory standards. Where did they get that principle? Last year their declarations were all the other way, for they contested the principle that the compulsory standards. should be freed, holding that relief should only be given in the case of the first five standards. The Lord Advocate addresses us in three capacities—first, as Minister for Education, in which rÔle he is at his weakest; secondly, as a partisan, in which character he is undeniably a success, making a brilliant attack, and, for a Minister in charge, setting an entirely new precedent of liveliness in an educational Debate; but he comes to us in a third capacity, namely, as an interpreter of law. We ask him in that capacity what is the reason for this Bill, and he tells us that these words will practically not have the effect of excluding the higher standards after the compulsory standards have first been provided for. He says that money is already contributed to the higher standards under the Act of last year, and that the Bill only contains a friendly invitation. Then, if that is so, why not take out these words and put the clause exactly on the footing of last year's Act? Why not vote the money on precisely the same conditions, subject, of course, to the discretion of the Education Department? We should expect to hear from the Lord Advocate how that discretion would be used. I hold that the omission of these words will make the issue perfectly clear.

I have listened with great attention to the Debate, and I do not think I ever heard in the House of Commons a discussion so absolutely one-sided—on which no answer, or nothing deserving the name of an answer, has been given to the case presented. This is not to be solely a Scotch Debate. We have received clear warning that the principles laid down here are to be the principles to govern education in England. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid down as a principle, from which there is to be no deviation, that in Scotland and in England education is not to be assisted above the compulsory standards. The right hon. Gentleman appeals to his Edinburgh experience; but we are a long way from the year 1885. The right hon. Gentleman has advanced since then—he has advanced to the other side of the House. But what was the position taken by him then? We all remember his fervid orations against free educational together. His great antagonist was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham—whom we do not see here to day—and it was against the "un-authorised programme" that these Edinburgh speeches were made. Well, unfortunately, we have the antagonist of free education here to-night, but not its great advocate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been forced by degrees, unwillingly, in the direction of free education. First, he was against it altogether. He thought it a bad principle and resisted it in 1885. Now, circumstances have changed, and he is compelled more or less to accept it—less rather than more always. What attempt has there been made to answer the powerful argument of my right hon. Friend, who understands this subject better than any man in this House? I dare say that to make this distinction as to the compulsory standards is to discourage keeping the children at school. Every body knows that is the shame of this country. I have heard it over and over again observed that a country like Switzerland can keep children at school two or three years longer than we do here, and with very great advantage to the condition of the Swiss people. You are passing children at an early age through the compulsory standards, and you are discouraging keeping them at school till a more advanced age. How is the Chancellor of the Exchequer treating the subject? It is the minimum that can be given, and it is to be given as though it were a pauper dole, and to be treated as the limit of our contributions, beyond which the bounty of the State shall not go. I think that is a very narrow view. It is a very un-Scotch view; and when we are as advanced in this country, and the subject is thoroughly understood, it will be a very un-English view of the question. Now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been obliged to leave his anchorage, he had better set sail and go into the port of complete free education. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has money at his disposal. What do sensible people do? They try to distribute in the manner most agreeable and consonant to the wishes of the people who are to receive it. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer believe that what he is doing now is most consonant to the wishes of the people of Scotland? He knows that it is in no Party spirit that the enormous majority of Scotch Members vote for this. It is no mere Party cry at all. He knows perfectly well that if he had consulted the Scotch Members or the Scotch people, they would have told him that he has not given enough. What they want is a liberal treatment of the whole question of education. Why, then, these pedantic views with reference to the fixed standards, and refusing to give the Scotch people what they wish? You will, of course, carry this by the majority you control. It will not be the majority of the Scotch people. I consider it most unfair and unjust to Scotland that you should call in the aid of the English majority on such a question. I do not think it is a thing which will redound to your advantage or to your popularity in Scotland. However, the Lord Advocate must be the judge of that. He has no doubt advised that this course will suit your book best. I do not dispute his judgment upon that subject. We shall see. But I rest the matter upon this point. It is contrary to the expressed wish of the Representatives of Scotland, and to the reason of the thing, and you have attempted no answer whatever to the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, or to the overwhelming arguments of the Scotch Members. While I admit the rhetoric of the Lord Advocate, even he has not attempted to meet the arguments. Whatever may be the result of this Division, I am quite certain that the result will be to convince everyone that in their decision the Government are wrong, and that the majority of Scotch Members are right in their demands.

I should like to submit one consideration which I do not think has yet been brought forward, that is, the relations which the proposals of the Government bear to the professional and personal interests of the schoolmasters. Two or three months ago I had the honour of meeting a deputation representative of the public schoolmasters of the East of Scotland. They said that in the present transition state of things the fee system cannot last. They said that the people of Scotland, having tasted blood in the matter of free education, will not be content to pay fees any more. They added that it would affect their pockets very seriously, because the Local Au- thorities would give free education without increasing the rates, and they would begin by lowering the salaries of the schoolmasters. My hon. Friend mentioned yesterday that in the parochial schools if a promising lad desired higher education his poverty was no bar to his acquiring it, and he was educated, if necessary, at the expense of the schoolmaster. Knowing that, I recognise the reasonableness and force of the representation made by the schoolmasters of the East of Scotland. I think they are right in saying that the people of Scotland will not be content to pay fees at all, seeing that five-sixths of the school children are already provided for free. Scotland has not treated generously the men who promoted her public school system, and who rendered her such a splendid service. The point taken by the representatives of the schoolmasters, I think, touches the kernel of the question. At present the Lord Advocate is in the half way house. The half-way house is a very convenient thing, but people do not like to stay there all their lives. But that, apparently, is what is proposed with regard to public education in Scotland. Now, the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night was an example of his very worst style of Parliamentary manner. He made the complaint that all the money has been given to one class, the working or poorer class; and when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen relieved his ignorance by reminding him that the public education system of Scotland was never confined to the poorest class, instead of meeting that objection, he merely founded upon it a new objection, and said it deepened the difficulty. That is a rhetorical artifice, a trick of debate, and we do not want these fireworks in a serious Debate. How does this money come? Simply because Providence in its wisdom and kindness has bestowed upon us what we scarcely expected, a blundering Chancellor of the Exchequer. He comes with a sum of money, the result of his miscalculated schemes. He begins by setting aside a portion of this money for the use of the Scotch people; and when it comes to a question of what they are to do with that money, he denies to the Representatives of Scotland the right to say what use they shall make of it. It seems to me that the refusal of the Government to entertain this Amendment is in direct contradiction to the ear-marking of this money for national purposes which stands on the face of their Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken of the duty of parents to provide education for their children, and the Debate has proceeded very much on that basis. So far as the educational opinion of Scotland is concerned, that is an entirely false basis. We look upon it not as a parents', but a citizens', question. We consider it is the duty of citizens to provide the best education possible for the children of the community. We do not narrowly inquire into the parents' duty in the matter. We say that the remnant of the fee system which is still remaining under the law is deleterious and harmful. I do not think the explanation of the Lord Advocate makes the case any better. The words introduced are most awkward and embarrassing; and if they stand, we shall, no doubt, two or three years' hence, have to take the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman when he occupies another and more dignified position, from which he will be entitled to speak with authority as to the meaning of these words. At present he is no more an authority on the meaning of these words than any other Member of this House, lay or legal. The words do limit this gift to the compulsory standards, and it is against that limitation that the whole body of Scotch Members have entered their strong and unanimous protest.

After what we have heard with regard to the universal view of Scotland, I may, perhaps, be permitted to say that free education in Scotland has not at all proved so satisfactory as was expected. It is not only my experience as the chairman of a large school, but the experience of other chairmen of School Boards in the two southern counties of Scotland, that there is difficulty in getting the children to go to school. I think the Government are perfectly right in taking up their present attitude. You cannot dissociate the parents' duty from their children; and I object to the parents being put aside. I maintain that Scotland is thoroughly satisfied with the £40,000, and we ought not to rush into the matter of free education in the belief that that opinion is such as hon. Members opposite have represented. It is not. There is a strong body of opinion as favourable to the Government on this question as hon. Members opposite can possibly claim for themselves.

I think it is most desirable that the House should understand what the Government really mean by this clause. By the Returns we have 674 schools, in all of which fees are abolished not only in the compulsory, but all the standards. I wish to know whether any portion of the money will go to these schools?

I think that very fairly raises the question. It will.

If this money is given to the Board Schools it must necessarily be given in addition to the school fees, and, therefore, is not in aid of the rate. If you limit the application, I do not see how you can, consistently with law, give money to that class of schools. If you do, then the argument of principle falls to the ground. You are going to aid a large number of schools in Scotland. There are 2,267 schools in which the compulsory standards are free. According to the latest figures which the Lord Advocate gave, there are only 98 schools in the whole of Scotland which fall short of entire freedom in the higher standards. What I want to know is, how this £40,000 is to apply to the 98 schools? It is obvious that these words are a mere blind, because, in point of fact, you are not going to confine this money to the compulsory standards; you are going to give it to schools generally for all purposes. It is necessary that we should clearly understand the meaning of the clause.

There seems to be a great deal of feeling about what I said last night; but hon. Members do not realise the method of the distribution of the money under last year's Act. We prescribed certain conditions, and stated that free places were to be provided in certain standards. We said, "If you like to take the responsibility of paying the fees, we shall give you a grant." In many cases where they accepted the condition, they interpreted it imprudently, and they were not able to meet out of our grants the deficit which they created. The consequence was, that they had to impose rates. We have never taken any responsibility for that; and so far as the higher standards were concerned, we said it was entirely a matter of domestic economy. We simply gave the money according to the average attendance at the school, and in some cases the Local Authority made a good bargain and in others a bad bargain. The hon. Gentleman said I might state my opinion of the law; but the Courts would determine otherwise, and I could not enforce my opinion. I am willing to back my opinion; and I will undertake, on the part of the Government, that the Minute under which the money is to be allocated shall be on the same footing as that of last year.

I would point out, in reply to the hon. Member (Mr. M. Stewart), that if there be any reason for the difficulty in obtaining the attendance of children in the counties of which he speaks, it arises from the fact that competition for existence is becoming keener and keener, and that poor parents rely on the small sums, the odd sixpences, earned by their children. It is unfair, therefore, to lay the entire blame upon the parents, when we know that it is the state of society which compels them to send their children to work.

After the speech we have heard from the Lord Advocate, it is hardly worth while for the Government to continue to adhere to the conclusion at which they have arrived. We are still absolutely at a loss to understand why these words have been inserted in the Bill this year. Of the £190,000 given for the payment of school fees, £150,000 we thought was available for payment of fees in the old standards, and £40,000 only is for payment of fees in Standard V. Apparently, that is not the case; and according to the statement of the Lord Advocate, it is to be made available in whatever standard the fees are remitted. Is it worth while to stand out for the insertion of these words, which will only prove a great difficulty to School Boards, and to all Educational Authorities in Scotland? We have heard that the Minute which is to be issued by the Scotch Education Department is to be in accordance with the terms of the Minute of last year. The money was given for the remission of fees in all the standards according to the discretion of the School Boards, yet you assume that the money this year shall only be available for the abolition of fees in the compulsory standards. It is a most pernicious system to introduce, and will, if carried out, do a great deal of damage to the cause of free elementary education in Scotland.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Edinburgh has just asked what possible reason the Government can have for retaining these words after the avowal of the Lord Advocate. I think the reason must be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking forward to, and preparing to deal with, the case of England. Since last year the Government have made up their minds to introduce free education into England, and, therefore, they are anxious not to lay down a precedent which shall be appealed to in the case of England next year. The Lord Advocate has said that the Minute of the Scotch Education Department will be the same as that of last year. If that is so, what reason can there be, so far as Scotland alone is concerned, for putting a clause into the Bill now which was not in the Bill last year? We protest against determining purely Scottish questions by reference to English questions which have not yet arisen.

I think it is very much to be regretted that the First Lord of the Treasury should have left just at the very moment when we are appealing to him, with a view to avoiding a Division. The Lord Advocate has just told us, in so many words, that, in defiance of these very words which are pressed into the Bill, the Minute to be issued will be the same as that of last year. The simple solution of the matter would be for the Lord Advocate to vote for the Amendment. I am sure the First Lord of the Treasury does not know what has happened, or he would have been here. The Lord Advocate has made an aggressive and offensive speech, which will certainly do harm to the Party of the First Lord, who, having thrown up the sponge, desires the Session to be brought to a speedy close. I think it most imprudent and unfortunate that the First Lord should have withdrawn without taking the matter out of the hands of the imprudent Lord Advocate. My hon. Friend suggests that we should move to report Progress. It may be possible that the First Lord has withdrawn to consider this matter in coolness, and that he will shortly re-appear. The Lord Advocate, having delivered an aggressive and imprudent speech on the previous Amendment, declines to give any answer whatever to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth. I beg to move, Mr. Courtney, that you report Progress.

I make one appeal before we go to a Division. I think, now that the discussion has taken place, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must feel that he is tying his hands with regard to England, and making a precedent which is perfectly inapplicable to the education of England as well as to Scotland, and that will injure the consideration of the question when he comes to deal with free education in England. By the Act of 1872, Scotch education is a complete exception to that of England. It was not, according to the Preamble of the Act, for the workmen or the poor of Scotland, but for the people of Scotland. In other words, it meant that the higher subjects were to be a part of the education given in the parish school, according to old usage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might, as he has done with regard to Wales and Ireland, in which the money is given to intermediary education, have left the question open in Scotland; but what has he done? He has set the precedent that the money shall only be applied to the compulsory standards in Scotland. How will that work in the case of England? It will hamper the Chancellor of the Exchequer most thoroughly. Take the town of Bradford, for instance, where the compulsory standard was until recently only Standard II. Is he going to make the minimum down to such a miserable standard as two, or is he going to make it up to Standard V., as in Scotland? If he does either one or the other he puts himself into most serious difficulties in the agricultural districts, where the higher standards will be resisted, and in the towns, where the lower standards will be resisted. He will find it perfectly impossible to apply this principle introduced into a Scotch Bill to England. The whole of the Scotch Members on this side are against it, and his own supporters are only lukewarm. I have some experience in educational subjects, and I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is making infinite difficulty for himself when he comes to consider the English question. He will do a most gracious act by allowing the people of Scotland to educate their children in the way they wish. By insisting on this provision he is offending them and creating a difficulty for himself, which he will not get over when he comes to deal with the question in England.

The justification of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy, in moving to report Progress, was that we desire to appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who really are the financial masters of this question, as to the statement of the Lord Advocate made in their absence. That statement must have struck everyone as having a most serious bearing upon this Amendment. Hitherto, the discussion has been on the principle of the question. When the Lord Advocate says that principle will not be enforced at all, what becomes of these words? Why are they put in? The Lord Advocate says he leaves the practice with regard to the compulsory and non-compulsory standards exactly as it was last year. The Minute is to be the same. Then, why in the name of common sense is the legislation not to be the same? I do not wish to be offensive, and I will not use the word obstinacy, but why this persistence?

The right hon. Gentle- man has appealed to me and my Colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as if these words were introduced on the Motion of my right hon. Friend and the First Lord of the Treasury. They are the words of the Government. They express the view of the Government that, as far as Imperial funds are concerned, it is not desirable that Parliament should pledge itself to free those standards beyond the present compulsory standards. The Lord Advocate has explained clearly enough that the Minute of the Scotch Education Department provides that the funds should be applied to freeing the compulsory standards, and he has undertaken that the words of the Minute for the application of the further sum to be granted under the Bill shall be substantially the same as the words of the previous Minute. No restriction will be placed upon School Boards in the application of the fees. I trust there will not be a prolonged Debate, and that the House will understand that we are not pressing the matter in a spirit of obstinacy, but because we regard the principle as one of some importance in the application of Imperial funds.

I am very sorry to find that the amiable reply the right hon. Gentleman has made—amiable because to be brought back to the House on a Motion to report Progress is scarcely a proceeding to pass without leaving some trace of resentment on the mind of the right hon. Gentleman—is unsatisfactory. We must go over the facts again. The words confining the benefit of the money to the compulsory standards mean that the money is not to be expended for the relief of fees in the voluntary standards. The First Lord of the Treasury laid down the principle that if fees are abolished in the voluntary standards, it must not be done with Imperial funds, but out of the rates. But under the Bill of last year fees have been abolished altogether in 700 or 800 schools in Scotland. Where, then, is the principle of the right hon. Gentleman? I can only see two possible motives for the Government's tenacity to the words. Either the words possess some secret virtue, as affecting the proposals which may be made next year with regard to England; or else the Government, in their desire to snub the Scotch Members, have actually put in words which they admit to be unnecessary, in order to emphasise the fact that they do not intend' to go beyond the compulsory standards. Really, I do not believe that can be the motive, but it is difficult upon any other interpretation than this to explain the introduction of the words now that the hollowness of the whole position has been exposed. But even now, after—or rather in consequence of—this long Debate, the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to yield.

I wish to put this clearly before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the northern counties of Scotland we have got absolutely free education in every standard, compulsory and non-compulsory. More than that; we have reduced the rates. What I want to know from the Lord Advocate is whether we will be in a position in the northern counties to apply this money to all the standards? In some cases we have increased the salaries of the schoolmasters, and taken 6d. in the £1 off the rates. With this money and the grants earned, the probability is we shall be able to reduce the education rate by one-half. Notwithstanding the words inserted here, I am glad to learn that we are going to get the money; still, if they insist upon these words, they will not command the confidence of the Scotch people nor of business men, as practical statesmen.

I wish to put a case which is absolutely unanswerable according to the principle laid down by the Lord Advocate. It is true that the fees of all standards have been abolished in a large number of schools. But there is a much more serious state of things. There are 2,300 schools in Scotland in which the money paid from Imperial funds hitherto had been just enough to abolish fees in the compulsory standards. If any use is to be made of the £40,000 now to be given, it must be for the abolition of fees in the non compulsory standards. It is clear to me that under the present Bill the Scotch Education Department is legally prohibited from giving any of the money for the purpose of abolishing fees in the non-compulsory standards. What is the case in the great City of Glasgow, which represents a very large part of Scotch urban life? In that city all the Schools except 10 have abolished fees in the compulsory Standards. Out of this £40,000 Glasgow gets £7,000. What is she to do with the £7,000? I maintain that if these words have any meaning whatsoever Glasgow will be unable to apply that money to freeing the Sixth Standard in any of her elementary schools. I think we ought to have a clear answer from the Lord Advocate. It is absolutely certain that in a school where the compulsory standards are already free, these Imperial funds may be used to free the non-compulsory standards.

The answer is quite simple. I showed last night that the amount we are going to give to the managers of schools in Scotland amounted to £250,000 last year and £40,000 this year—in the aggregate £290,000, while the total amount of fees paid in the compulsory standards might be estimated at £283,000. The result is, that the money to be given a little more than meets the necessities for freeing the compulsory standards. The right hon. Gentleman would be perfectly right in saying that there are cases in which the ratepayers would have a good bargain, but not in saying that the bargain is good for the non-compulsory standards. It is a good bargain for the ratepayers. The result in cases where there is an excessive sum will be that the excess will go to reduce the amount of the rates. If the ratepayers like to extend the freedom, that is their affair, and we take no responsibility in the matter.

I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that the words have only a general signification as regards the whole of Scotland, but are not in any way legally binding on the Department or on the use to which the money is put. In that case the words are absolutely and perfectly useless, because they only repeat what is laid down by the fact that only enough money is given to free the compulsory standards over the whole of Scotland. I understand the right hon. Gentleman says that in the case of the Glasgow School Board, for instance, the money will be paid over, though it can only be used for the purpose of freeing the non compulsory standards. Is that the right hon. Gentleman's opinion?

The right hon. Gentleman seems to be under a misapprehension as to the mode in which we deal with the fund. We do not pay the money over to a particular class or standard. We simply say, "Free the five standards; here is the money." The right hon. Gentleman omits to notice that in all the cases he puts there are rates.

I do not approve of the proposal of the Government to include these words and intend to vote against it; but I can quite see that, from their point of view, they are reasonable in wishing that the funds provided should be limited to the compulsory standards.

I wish to put one question in the case of a school where at present the grants just free the compulsory standards: Will or will not any more money be given under this Bill? If such a school is to get anything under the Bill, what is it to do with it? Is it, or is it not, to be allowed to apply the money it will get under the Bill to the standards above those which are compulsory?

I am sorry to intrude on the Committee again, because I have already answered that question over and over again. I will answer it again out of respect for the right hon. Gentleman. In the case he puts, where the fees have been abolished and there is no deficit, the School Board will still receive the grant. The money will go to those who manage the school for the ratepayers, and, accordingly, the ratepayers will take the benefit.

There is a flaw in the Lord Advocate's explanation. He says if a school receives more money than is required for freeing the compulsory standards it will go to the relief of the rates, and then he says if the ratepayers choose to be generous they are at liberty, if they please, to free the non-compulsory standards. I would point out that under the law of the land the managers are not entitled to have free schools at all except so far as that has been restricted by the grants made last year, and consequently if the managers are in future to be able to free the non-compulsory standards the word "compulsory" is not in accord with the facts of the case.

The situation becomes more and more unintelligible. The Lord Advocate says, "We propose to give money to the School Boards for a certain purpose, but if the School Boards choose to set the law at defiance and apply it to other purposes we will not ask any questions." That simply means that the Government give up the substance as far as Scotland is concerned, but they do not want the English to understand that they have done so, and, therefore, they put in words that mean nothing at all. I wish to apologise to the First Lord of the Treasury. I am quite sure his absence was accidental, and I only moved the adjournment in order that he might know what was being done by the Lord Advocate.

Last year I impressed on the Scotch Members the importance of their standing firm and doing all they could to complete the system of free education in Scotland, and I gave as my reason that ere long we should be called on in England to deal with the question, and the better and simpler the Scotch measure was the more likely it would be that the English measure would be framed on reasonable lines. The English Members, for the same reason, have a great interest in the way in which this measure is drawn. There is, no doubt, an underlying motive for the action of the Government in this matter. The fact is that the Government is tied by the leg to the least progressive Party on the other side of the House in educational matters, namely, the clerical section of the Church of England. All Scotland ought to know it. The Scotch education system is being injured at this final stage, in order that some paltry and some nominal satisfaction may be given to the Church of England Party. I believe the words we are now seeking to expunge will have no practical legislative effect whatever, and, indeed, the Lord Advocate has given us to understand that Scotland will get what she wants by a side-wind. I think it is a melancholy thing that England cannot fight her own battles, and that, in order to secure some advantage for an English Party, an educational system in which Scotland alone is interested should be interfered with.

I hardly think even now that the Government and hon. Gentlemen behind them realise the position in which we are placed. The history of this Bill has been a long and melancholy series of blunders and surprises, but I do not think the Government have ever, even on this Bill, placed themselves in such a position of paradoxical and gratuitous folly as on the present occasion. The question about to be put is whether the money to be given by Parliament is to be applied in relief of the compulsory standards. The Lord Advocate knows that there are many schools in Scotland in which the whole of the compulsory standards are free, and yet the managers of those schools will receive part of the fund which, according to the Bill, is to be applied to the freeing of the compulsory standards. What is to be done with the money in such cases? The Lord Advocate says it is to be applied either in reducing the rates or in freeing the higher standards. [The LORD ADVOCATE dissented.] In whichever of these ways it is applied, if these words stand part of the clause it will be used in violation of the Act. The Government actually invite us to vote for the retention of certain words in the clause, with the express and declared intention that those words are to be rendered of no effect in the practical carrying out of the Act. I invite them once more, in the interest of common sense, to recede from a position which is so grotesquely untenable and absurd.

I rise to move an Amendment which, though not directly suggested by the Debate that has just taken place, is immensely affected by the considerations that have come to the surface in that Debate. The Amendment, or rather the series of Amendments, that I propose to move, strike at the remaining portion of this clause. The Committee will see that the last three or four lines of the sub- Section are really the operative portion. It is provided that the sum which is to be appropriated for the payment of fees in the compulsory standards of the Scotch Code shall be distributed in such a manner and in accordance with such conditions as may be set forth in the Minute of the Scotch Education Department, to be forthwith laid before Parliament. These words are important enough in themselves, but they become immensely more important in consequence of the statements which have come from the Treasury Bench, in particular from the Lord Advocate. To show the full significance of these words I will revert to the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of the last words in question. Those words were objected to by us as being ambiguous and open to an interpretation against which we on this side of the House strenuously protested. We were assured by the Lord Advocate that, in his opinion, the words were not open to the interpretation. Again, it was objected that in this question the Lord Advocate did not speak with judicial authority, or any more authority than that possessed by ordinary Members of the House, but the right hon. Gentleman said—

"I can do no more than say that this is my opinion, for, speaking as a Member of the Government, I promise that the meaning which I now put upon these words shall he carried out in the Minute of the Scotch Education Department referred to in the last portion of this Clause."

The effect of all that is this. This Minute will define the words about which there has been so much controversy in the House; therefore the importance of the Minute, great as it would be on other grounds, is enormously greater now that it is to have the legislative effect of carrying out the meaning that the Lord Advocate, on the part of the Government, has placed upon the ambiguous words with which we have been dealing. This is a matter the House ought not to trust to the hands of the Department which draws the Minute. The Minute is to be laid before Parliament. How much opportunity Parliament will have to discuss the Minute, after it has been laid before the House, at this period of the Session, any Member may ascertain for himself. Evidently we shall have no opportunity of discussing the terms of the Minute, and that means that on this most important question the meaning and construction to be placed on these disputed words is to be left entirely with the Lord Advocate and the Gentlemen constituting the Scotch Education Department. I most emphatically object to entrust the definition of so important a phrase as this, involving so many questions as this does, to a body outside this House, whose work cannot be effectively criticised in this' House. We know that if we let the question slip now it will never come back to us, and all we can rely on is a promise, not enforcible, made by the Lord Advocate across the floor of this House, the execution of which will be entrusted to others over whom we have no control. This is nothing more or less than an important question of definition, The Lord Advocate has agreed that the words are to bear a certain meaning, and we are entitled to have that assurance made good. On the faith of that assurance he won the victory in the last Division, and the House collectively is entitled to call on him to make good the assurance on the faith of which the Division went in his favour. That cannot be done if you leave the definition to be framed by a number of gentlemen who-do not, however well they are acquainted with the educational system, know the opinion of this House. The Amendment I propose to move will be to this effect-I propose to strike out the words "Minute of the Scotch Education Department to be forthwith laid before Parliament," and to substitute the words-"the Schedule annexed to the Act. "A Schedule will then be drafted and brought under the review of this Committee. This proposed Minute will not be an ordinary Minute; it will carry out this most important pledge of the Lord Advocate, and this is a subject the House itself should deal with. We have had in this Session, and in connection with this Bill, too much of legislation by reference. We are referred from one Act to another, and, lastly, we are referred to a Member of the Education Department, and these repeated references are most objectionable. Let us take the legislative decision into our own hands. I have every confidence in the Department in reference to matters; of educational administration, but I have no confidence in their legislative capacity. I have no confidence in their power or desire to carry into effect the wishes of this House, more particularly of Scotch Members of this House. What is called the Scotch Education Department, the body which will have the framing of this Minute, is really an English excrescence, owning no allegiance to Scottish opinion, and which is not in touch with Scotch Members, and it is better, where great legislative principles are concerned, for the House to take the business into its own hands, and state its own wishes in its own words.

The course which we have indicated is precisely that which was followed in a parallel, but more important and more novel, case last year. In the Local Government Act, when the proposition was for the first time made that money should be distributed for the purpose, and before the Bill was carefully considered in Committee, the Government were, in course of discussion, asked to indicate the nature of the rules which would be put into the Minute. This was done, and the Minute was issued, and upon it I have never heard any adverse criticism. We have, accordingly, followed that satisfactory precedent. The effect of inserting a Schedule will be to carry this matter out of the region of annual discussion when the Code is laid upon the Table, and this is an objectionable principle to those who desire a discussion of the, proceedings of the Department. It is one of those things upon which experience is desirable, and the opportunity should be left open for modification, should such be thought desirable. I hope the Committee will decide in favour of the Government proposal.

It was all very well at first, when the matter was taken up for the first time, to relegate it to the Education Department. It was a novelty in regard to the first £250,000, but now we are dealing with a supple mental £40,000, and there is no reason why we should not deal with it in the ordinary and legitimate manner in the Bill. We are not now determining how these £40,000 are to be applied. Then, with regard to taking this matter out of the region of annual discussion, I may say, speaking from recollection, that in the Local Government Act there was to be a Minute of the Education Department first, and then it was to take its place annually in the Code hereafter, and so it appears this year; but if you look at this clause, you will find no reference whatever to the Code for the future, and this is significant. There is a provision in reference to these £40,000 as set forth in the Minute of the Scotch Education Department, to be forthwith laid before Parliament. There is no reference to an insertion in the Code, which, if it is intended this should be subject to annual revision, there should be. I cannot see any reason why Parliament should not fix the terms in the Bill, and I support the Amendment.

I do not think there is much force in the objection to the Amendment, that we ought to follow the precedent in the last Act, from which we have already departed. There is force in the argument, in favour of a Minute rather than a Schedule, inasmuch as the first can be made the subject of annual. revision, while an alteration in the Schedule would require the introduction of an amending Bill. Further, I think, if we may judge from the speech of the Lord Advocate on the last Amendment, the Department is likely to be more liberal in the interpretation of the clause than the House of Commons. The Lord Advocate said that, although the words "compulsory standards" appear, practically the Department would not pay much attention to this point, and the money might be applied to compulsory and non-compulsory standards. I think there is likely to be a more liberal interpretation by the Department than if a Schedule were drawn up under the construction of the Lord Advocate and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The Lord Advocate is not correct in stating that the circumstances under which the present proposition is made are the same as when the Act of last year was passed. The Act of last year provided that the balance should be applied towards relieving the payment of school fees in State-aided schools, distributed in such manner and under such conditions as were set forth in a Minute of the Scotch Education Department, to be forthwith issued and to be annually submitted to Parliament. There is risk in entrusting to the Department the interpretation of the intention of Parliament. In the first instance, there was not the difficulty and ambiguity of language that there now is; there was not the limitation there is in the present Bill.

The first amount of money was distributed in accordance with the Minute. I have no objection to insert words to provide that the distribution shall be in accordance with terms from time to time set forth in a Minute of the Department, to be laid before Parliament.

That gets over one difficulty of the position, but not the more important difficulty which troubles me, the difficulty of the authority to which we are to entrust the practical interpretation of the mind of Parliament in this matter. In a case such as in the Bill of last year, we might with perfect safety entrust the interpretation of our interests to the Education Authority, simply because there was no ambiguity or difficulty connected with them, but there is the utmost difficulty on the present occasion, because the language of the Bill, looked at in the light of the commentaries of its authors, amounts practically to this: we are made to say to the Education Department, "You must not employ Imperial Funds to the freeing of non-compulsory standards, but you may." That practically as the resolution we have come to. It would not be orderly for me to say that is foolish, absurd, and contradictory, but I am at liberty to say it is a difficult proposition to set forth as the practical direction for other people, and I do not think the Scotch Education Department will be equal to the task, because they are not here, they do not understand or appeciate the mind of the House, and the subtle distinctions in our meaning. The Lord Advocate, no doubt, is a prominent Member of the Department, and he has promised to procure to be concocted a Minute to express this very difficult proposition, that a thing which must not be done yet may be done. The Lord Advocate, no doubt, will make his own view clear, but I am inclined to think that the gentlemen of the Education Department, conversant with educational matters, and accustomed to think in the ordinary channels of legal sequence, will regard this proposition submitted to them as a problem which can only be solved by those who concocted it. It is only for Parliament itself to effect the practical interpretation of the resolution to which we have come, and I do not think it is fair to leave this strange and paradoxical proposition to the minds of others. I do not see that there is any objection to the Amendment of my hon. Friend, which I, therefore, shall support.

The proposal of the Lord Advocate, I think, affords the opportunity of arriving at a compromise that will be satisfactory. The present distribution of the money will be upon a principle that will be submitted to the criticism, and require the sanction, of Parliament, and flexibility will be secured by leaving the method open to annual revision.

It will be necessary that the first distribution shall be in accordance with the Minute.

That affords the grounds for compromise. I think if the Lord Advocate will make it clear what are the terms of the Minute, and explain how it differs, if it does differ, from the Minute on the last occasion, there is the basis for a satisfactory compromise.

Yes; I suppose there is the basis of a compromise which might meet the views of hon. Members. Without pledging myself to precise phraseology, I may say that, mutatis mutandis, the Minute will be the same as that issued last year.

But the right hon. Gentleman has not told us how he proposes to carry into effect the meaning placed upon the doubtful words by himself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—a meaning which did not present itself to the minds of other Members of the House. It was on the faith of his promise that the last Division was decided—his promise that he would carry out the view he placed upon the clause, and I ask him how he proposes to do that?

I stated the meaning we attributed to the words, and whatever change there is from the form of last year is due to the exigencies of drafting.

Will the Minute be laid before us this Session? It is important that School Boards should know what money to expect.

Certainly. Just as on the last occasion, as soon as the Act receives the Royal assent, the Minute will be laid before Parliament.

But that does not enable us to dicuss it. It is of no use simply laying it upon the Table. I entirely disagree with the Lord Advocate that last year afforded a precedent to be followed; rather it is one to be avoided. It is utterly wrong in principle on a matter of this kind to hand over the interpretation which Parliament should settle for itself. Last year, when the Government introduced a similar proposal, we readily consented to their proposal, because they did not then know how they stood in regard to this money, and could not precisely say what they would recommend to Parliament. They issued a series of questions to School Boards, in order to feel their way to some kind of decision. We, under the circumstances, did not stand upon an objection founded upon a technicality, and insist upon the insertion of a Schedule. But the reasons applicable last year are wholly inapplicable now, for there is no doubt of the amount of money available, and which the Minute will refer to. Then why not put in a Schedule, and give us an opportunity of discussing it and dealing with it? My fear is that words may be introduced suggesting to School Boards that any surplus they may get from the Imperial Exchequer should not be applied to free education in the higher standards, but in relief of the rates.

No such words will be introduced.

That is consolatory, and, so far, we get on our way. But still, what is more reasonable than to insert the words in a Schedule, for I presume they are ready? It is said that the words may be more easily altered if they come up for discussion with the Code, but we do not want to alter them. I see no occasion for it. There ought to be no such distribution as will require alteration, and I cannot see why the Government should not accept the Amendment.

The only point in dispute appears to me to be whether the conditions to be laid down should be inserted in the Schedule of the Bill, or set forth in a Minute of the Scotch Education Department. In the latter case there would be practically little or no opportunity afforded to the House of discussing the matter.

The matter has been reduced to a very small point. In my opinion it would be better that the conditions should be inserted in the Bill itself in the form of a Schedule, because that would afford a more convenient method for dealing with the questions that might arise.

I confess that the statement which has been made by the Lord Advocate to some extent relieves my mind, but I still think that there would be a temptation to Local Government Boards, who are very much interested in economising the rates, to vote themselves more for the reduction of the rates than for the promotion of education in their several districts. I think it would be far better if, instead of giving money in this way for the purpose of reducing the rates, the Government give it for the purpose of encouraging higher education. At present the application of the grant for educational purposes does not go beyond the Fifth Standard, but I am hopeful that, at any rate, in the course of another year this restriction will be removed. It is, however, for my hon. Friend to say whether he thinks he ought to divide on this question of the Schedule. Should he divide the Committee upon his Amendment, I shall feel obliged to vote with him, but I would suggest to him to consider whether, after what has been said, he ought not to be content with putting the Government upon their honour upon this question.

I am sorry I am unable to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee. My reason for this is that I think the whole matter has been placed on a somewhat anomalous position. We have already admitted words limiting the application of the grant to the compulsory standards, but we have been told that, practically, those words will not limit the application of the money to those standards, but that the provision will be applied in an elastic way, the responsibility being thrown upon the School Boards. Practically, that would reduce the words we have adopted to a mere Preamble rather than an enacting portion of the Bill. We are, therefore, in this anomalous position, that those words are not to be within the terms of the Enactment, but are to be carried out with the elasticity attaching to the form of the Preamble, leaving the responsibility on the Government to carry out the provision according to the interpretation they have given. That is a somewhat paradoxical way of dealing with this question, but the compromise offered by the Lord Advocate is perhaps as much as we could expect under the circumstances. I would much rather it should be left to the Government to carry out this paradox, than that the House itself should attempt to do so by inserting conditions in the Schedule.

My object is to secure full legislative authority by means of words in the Bill itself, rather than that we should rely upon the dubious language used by the Lord Advocate. It is one thing to carry out a proposal such as this by means of a Schedule, which will form part of the Act of Parliament, and a totally different thing to leave it to be carried out through the action of the Executive, who would have no real legislative authority, and whose definition of the language used could not control the provisions of the Act itself. If the words were put into the Schedule they would be of equal validity with the clauses of the Act itself, and the purpose we have in view would necessarily be carried out. Under these circumstances, I am afraid I must insist on dividing the Committee upon the Amendment of which I have given notice.

I would remind the Committee that, by the existing law, the School Boards are bound to charge fees. This question has already been raised, and it has been decided that they are bound to charge fees, and this remains the law upon the subject, except in so far as it may have been altered by the legislation of last year. The question has been raised as to the meaning of the words the Committee have decided to accept, and the Lord Advocate has practically said that those words are not necessarily operative, but that, in spite of them, the School Boards will have the power of affording relief in the case of the non-compulsory standards. For my part, however, I think the Amendment is one which the Committee ought to adopt, and I shall, therefore, give it my support.

I have now to move an Amendment which stands on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), and which is to insert after the word "Parliament," in line 17, the words—

"Provided always that no portion of such sum shall be paid to any School Board, or to the managers of any State-aided school in which fees are charged for the teaching of any standard of the Education Code for Scotland, the passing of which may be compulsory under the provisions of the Education Acts operative from time to time."

Last year the hon. Member for the College Division made a Motion in similar terms to those which now stand on the Paper. I attempted to dissuade him from proceeding with that Amendment on that occasion, and, if I recollect aright, he did not take my advice, the result being that I then voted against him; but the circumstances are now altogether changed. We know exactly how far the grant given by Parliament last year will go in freeing education under the compulsory standards in Scotland, and we have this fact before us, that, after all, it has not been found necessary to charge fees in the majority of the schools, and that where they have been charged it has only been under financial pressure, the local payments not having been found sufficient to enable the School Board to make the remission. In some cases, indeed, they have made charges in excess of those which prevail elsewhere. Now, however, the Government have provided that relief may be given, at all events, up to the Fifth. Standard, but that on the average we are not to go beyond that. But surely we ought to be able to require that in the distribution of the grant, especially in the case of the larger towns, the money should not be given unless the Local Authorities are willing to abolish fees in respect of the higher standards. One important point to be remembered is this, that in Scotland the custom has always been to have a large admixture of the children of parents of different classes in the schools, a much larger admixture than is known in England. This must necessarily occur in the rural districts, because there are no other schools but the parochial schools. These schools are, both from an architectural, sanitary, and teaching point of view, of a superior character. The School Board of Aberdeen, not having received a sufficient sum from the Exchequer to enable them to dispense with fees in all the schools, have selected three of the finest schools in the city, and put upon them the embargo of fees. The result is that in the most recently constructed of these schools, while there are places for over 1,000 children, there are no more than 600 children on the rolls. Owing to the charging of fees there is not a proper number of children in attendance, not that there is any want of children in the neighbourhood to fill the schools, but because those parents who are capable of paying fees are not sufficiently numerous to supply the number to fill the school places. From a mere economical point of view that is a considerable loss; there is a great loss in setting up what may be called genteel schools, or schools for genteel people, maintained out of the rates and taxes, the sum contributed by the parents being ridiculously small in comparison with the cost of the education. Substantially and truly the three schools are paid for by the Government and local ratepayers, to the extent of four - fifths and five - sixths of the whole cost. No one has any right to object to parents who think it is not desirable their children should be exposed to constant intercourse with children of the working classes. A man is perfectly right in bringing up his children in the way he thinks fit; but I contend that if a man adopts the view I have hinted at he ought to do so at his own expense. From the point of view of public policy it would be impossible to teach a worse lesson than is taught by the unfortunate distinction between a fee school and a free school, because it necessarily introduces a class distinction in schools where no class distinction has hitherto been known. Is it not obvious that the physical separation between the rich and the poor leads to mutual ignorance, that mutual ignorance leads to mutual misunderstanding, leads to jealousy and envy on the one side, and ill-founded contempt on the other side? Nothing can be better for taking down the conceit of a young gentleman, whose father can afford to buy him fine clothes, than to put him on the same form with, a boy whose clothes have been patched and patched a dozen times, and let him find, probably, that the boy with the patched trousers can easily beat, him in the educational race. On the other hand, children of the working men gain much by associating with the children of the upper classes, because they necessarily imbibe some of the refinement which the children of the upper classes are able to acquire at home. In the Scotch people there is a strong feeling in favour of equality. Distinctions of the kind I have described are invidious, they are bitterly hated and resented, and they tend to create that indescribable mental unrest and discontent upon which all the quack doctors of social science practise their nervous remedies. Not only so, but the working men in certain parts of Aberdeen entertain the very practical reason for the abolition of fees, that these schools happen to be in a district where there is a considerable number of the working classes, whose children are not allowed to go to the nearest or the best schools; they are obliged to go to more distant schools, to schools not so good sanitarily, not so fine architecturally, and not having the same distinguished class of teachers. That is a great grievance. What is the total amount that will be reserved to get rid of fees up to the Fifth Standard in all these schools? The Lord Advocate will find it is not large, and this is one of the questions which I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will deal with in an effective manner in the proposed Minute. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.