I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether it is purposed to discontinue the construction of railways on the metre gauge; whether a proposal has been made to change existing metre-gauge lines throughout India into broad-gauge lines; whether the Secretary of State has recently received a Despatch on the subject from the Government of India; whether he has seen the estimate of General Trevor, C.S.I, Chairman of the Southern Mahratta Railway, that this reversal of policy will probably cost about £20,000,000, as the change alone will cost £3,500 a mile; and whether he will lay Papers upon the Table relating to that subject?

The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is, No. The answer to the second paragraph is, No. To the third paragraph the answer is, Yes. The Secretary of State has received a Despatch on the question of the gauges from the Government of India. The answer to the fourth paragraph is, No, and to the last paragraph, Yes, when the correspondence is complete.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he is not aware that the reversal of policy will entail an enormous loss, amounting to many millions sterling?

The hon. Member refers to the fourth paragraph of the question. My answer was, No. That means that the Secretary of State has not seen the estimates of General Trevor.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that under Section 9, Sub-section (2), of "The Lunacy Act, 1890,"there appears to be no provision for payment of the expenses incurred in the exercise of the jurisdiction therein conferred on the judicial authority; and, if so, upon whom the order for such payment should be made?

There appears to be nothing on the subject of expenses in the section referred to by my hon. Friend, except the words which give to the judicial authority the same powers has if he were acting in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, and which provides for the remuneration of his officers. I have no authority to give a legal opinion, but I apprehend that any expenses not covered by those words must fall upon the person presenting the petition.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether steam colliers are to accompany any of the divisions of the Manoeuvring Squadrons for the purpose of testing and ascertaining the possibility of coaling ships at sea, or is it intended that both the supposed hostile and defending forces are to be supplied with coal as though no experimental Naval War existed?

Steam colliers are assigned to each of the Manoeuvring Squadrons, and the arrangements have been devised so as to represent the actual conditions of war as far as peace manoeuvres render it possible. No special arrangements have been made for testing the coaling of ships at sea.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any control over the fares which may be charged by Tramway Companies having a monopoly of running their cars on the Queen's highway?

I have no control of any kind over the fares of stage carriages.

Can these companies make any charge they like?

They can make any charge they are authorised to make by Act of Parliament.

How can it be ascertained what charges they are entitled to make?

By referring to the Acts.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is in the right hon. Gentleman's Department, or in any other Department of the Executive, authority to require proprietors of tramcars and omnibuses to exhibit outside the vehicles in legible figures and letters every fare chargeable?

No such authority exists in 6 & 7 Vict., c. 86, which is the controlling Act.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the portions of the German sphere of influence in Africa, referred to in Article VIII. of the Anglo-German Agreement, within which the German Government engages under that Article to apply the Free Trade provisions of the Berlin Act of 1885?

The whole of the German sphere in East Africa, with the exception of the strip of territory on the coast, 10 miles deep, now belonging to Zanzibar.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when Great Britain is to assume the Protectorate over Zanzibar under the Anglo-German Agreement; and whether he will promise that when that Protectorate is assumed, slavery shall cease to be legal within the limits of the British Protectorate?

No date is fixed for the assumption of the Protectorate. As regards the second paragraph, it would be unjust and impolitic to demand the confiscation of domestic slaves in a Mohammedan country as soon as it is placed under British protection; but it will be our duty to guard by all means in our power against abuses, and provide for the effectual working of the Act of Brussels, which will ensure its gradual extinction.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps the Government propose to take, in assuming the Protectorate of Zanzibar, to bring gradually to an end the system of domestic slavery prevailing in the country?

The matter is occupying the attentive consideration of the Sultan and the Consul General.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that under Article VIII. of the Anglo-German Agreement, the two Powers engaged to apply the Berlin Act in all the portions of their respective spheres where the first five Articles are applicable "at the date of the present Agreement"; whether it was intended by these words to contract the two Governments, being signatories of the Berlin Act, out of that Act as regards territories which might come into possession or under the influence of either Power after the date of the signing of the Anglo-German Agreement; and whether under this arrangement the German Government can allow German goods to enter the mainland portion of the Zanzibar Sultanate duty free should the coast line be ceded by the Sultan, while maintaining duties which will then be differential against British trade?

That was certainly not the intention. Great Britain and Germany have neither the wish nor the power to contract themselves out of any of the obligations of the Berlin Act. No such arrangement as that referred to in the last paragraph is practicable, as has been fully explained in other answers.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, by Article VIII. of the Anglo-German Agreement regarding freedom of trade in East Africa, permission is given to the German Government, if and when it obtains that part of the present Zanzibar Sultanate which is situate on the mainland, to establish a protective tariff there; and whether this permission will in fact have the effect of evading and cancelling the provisions of the Berlin Act of 1885, under which Great Britain and Germany bound themselves, not only to apply the Free Trade system themselves, but to use their best endeavours to have it applied in the dominions of Native Sovereigns also?

No such permission is given by the Article. Either the Treaty with Zanzibar must be maintained, or the coast must be brought under the Free Trade provision of the Act of Berlin. In either case British trade is fully protected against excessive or differential treatment. The 4th Article of the Zanzibar Treaty, which provides for perfect freedom of commerce and navigation between the contracting parties, contains this provision:—

"The Sultan of Zanzibar binds himself not to allow or recognise the establishment of any kind of monopoly or exclusive privilege of trade within his dominions to any Government, Association, or individual."

Is it not the case that under Article VIII. of the Agreement it will be in the power of Germany, when she acquires a narrow strip of territory on the mainland, to establish a protective tariff?

Only within the limit settled by the Zanzibar Treaty or the Act of Brussels—that is, 5 per cent. in the one case, and 10 per cent. in the other.

Will not that permission have the effect of cancelling the provisions of the Berlin Act of 1885?

The hon. Member will, I think, perceive that that is superseded by the Act of Brussels.

Have Turkey and Holland yet given in their adhesion to the Brussels Act?

Turkey has adhered. Holland has not yet given her adhesion.

said: If I remember rightly, the United States took an exceptional position at the Conference.

May I ask whether, in the event of the mainland portion of the Sultanate of Zanzibar being ceded to Germany, the statement that "trade is protected from any differential treatment there" signifies that no heavier Customs Duties will be levied upon British than upon German goods?

That is certainly the interpretation.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that Honorary Colonels of regiments are not in any degree responsible for the discipline and efficiency of the regiments they are by a fiction supposed to command, and whence they draw their full pay, he will take into consideration the desirability of discontinuing this illusory title, and of granting those pensions, if at all, under some designation which shall not disguise their real significance?

The hon. Member ought to be well aware that these honorary appointments are immensely prized by general officers; and the connection of these officers with the regiments in which they have in most cases served not infrequently in the field, is very highly appreciated by the regiments themselves. The hon. Member is also doubtless aware that the paid Honorary Colonels are an expiring class.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the resolutions of the Brussels Conference, modifying the provisions of the Berlin Act regarding Free Trade in Africa, have come into force or will come into force at once, in the absence of an agreement of all the Powers parties to the Berlin Act?

The Act provides that it shall come into force after all the ratifications shall have been deposited at Brussels. This must take place within a year at the latest. It is, consequently, not at present in force.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any communication has been received from the ex-Sultan Abdullah of Perak, now detained in the Seychelles Islands, requesting that he may be allowed to visit England; and what objection the Colonial Office have to that course being adopted?

Such a communication has been received, but the Secretary of State considers that no advantage would be gained by a visit of the ex-Sultan to England; and that if he were permitted to do so, false hopes might be given to him as to any re-opening of his case.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in some 15 or 16 cases within a recent period Trade Unions, most of whom are registered under the Trade Union Acts, and all of whom have sick benefit, funeral allowance, and superannuation benefit, several of whom have accident benefit and out-of-work benefit, and some of whom have enjoyed, for from 20 to 26 years, the privilege of banking their moneys in the Post Office Savings Banks or in the, Trustee Savings Banks, have been revoked, cancelled, withdrawn, or refused; whether it is part of the settled policy of Her Majesty's Government to revoke or cancel a privilege existing without challenge for over a quarter of a century, and confirmed within the tenure of office of the present Government; and whether he will explain to the House the reason or reasons for this new departure from a practice which has conferred and is conferring so many benefits upon the members of Trade Unions throughout the country?

The question of the hon. Member raises a very important issue. Let me, in the first instance, state the law with reference to deposits by Friendly Societies. The unusual privilege of depositing funds without limit of amount has been conceded by Act of Parliament to Friendly Societies registered under the Friendly Societies Act, but not to Trade Unions. The Postmaster General only has the power under the Savings Bank Act to accept funds from Provident or Charitable Societies not "legally established Friendly Societies" with in the limits of £100 in one year, and £300 in all. Above these limits the consent of the National Debt Commissioners is required. Now, the question arises whether, by the insertion of rules which have sick or superannuation benefits, Trade Unions should be allowed to secure the privilege of depositing funds to an unlimited extent in the Government Savings Banks. Such an inclusion is, in my judgment, both contrary to law and to public policy; to law, because it is only to purely Provident or Charitable Societies that the privilege is extended; to public policy, because there is an illegitimate risk to the Public Exchequer in accepting as deposits an unlimited amount of strike money. The sudden withdrawal of such deposits might expose the State to the loss involved in selling stock at a time when the funds might be peculiarly depressed. While the number of applica- tions were few, the Post Office closed its eyes, and to a certain extent so did the National Debt Commissioners. The Post Office was ready to accept deposits-from any Society not flagrantly outside the legal definition. But as these applications multiplied, the matter came before me for decision, and I recognised the inexpediency of acting contrary to the letter and the spirit of the law. Hence, some applications have been refused. I believe the privilege has not been withdrawn from any branch of any Trade Union Society which has made deposits; but the acceptance of new-deposits has been refused, and I am glad that the matter should receive attention. I have before now communicated with the hon. Member for West Nottingham on the subject, and I will communicate with the hon. Member who has put the question to-day if he wishes it. I am quite ready to accept some compromise-by which a reasonable limit should be imposed, either of amount or by extending the period for notice of withdrawal, or by both. But I am not prepared to receive unlimited funds from the Trade Unions which might put the Exchequer in times of strike or commercial distress to any great disadvantage.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the special branches to which I have called attention were registered as Friendly Societies in 1883, and is he aware that the Amalgamated Society of Painters and Decorators-have more than 100 branches, and that they pay sick, funeral, accident, out of work, and other benefits? Does he not think that that fact brings it within the provisions of the, Friendly Societies Act? May I ask whether the Operative Bricklayers' Society is not also included in the list of these Friendly Societies; whether it has not, for more than 25 years, deposited money in the Post Office Savings Bank; and whether it has not branches all over the country? [Cries of"Order!"]

lam afraid that the hon. Member is exceeding the limits of a supplementary question. He had better put the question down on the Paper.

I bow to your ruling, Sir; but it is a most important question, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give it his most careful consideration.

I quite appreciate the great difficulty in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be placed in being required, without notice, to answer in detail a number of questions of this kind, the particulars of which it is almost impossible he can be acquainted with at the moment. I entirely sympathise with the anxiety of my hon. Friend, but, at the same time, I think the spirit of the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to encourage us to believe that he will not grudge any amount of trouble which the careful consideration of the question will involve. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to say, either now or at some future time, whether he has ascertained that the actual or probable amounts of the deposits from Trades Unions are such as to afford a ground for the serious and solid opinion that the withdrawal of those deposits at the time of a strike would cause public inconvenience? Looking at the vast importance—and, happily, the vast importance—of the Post Office Savings Banks I am afraid that I am extremely sceptical as to whether such inconvenience would actually arise.

I do not say that any public inconvenience has arisen, although, no doubt, there has been a wide extension of the deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks and the Trustees Savings Banks, and there has, occasionally, been a loss to the Exchequer. But the question is whether, if the Trades Unions funds were included, more serious inconveniences might not arise. My attention has been drawn to the rapidity with which the extension of the deposits has been made, but I think I have offered to meet the difficulty fairly by undertaking to make arrangements with the representatives of Trades Unions in regard to the meeting of all ordinary claims. If such an arrangement were made, we might be able to accept these funds, but only to such a limited extent as I have suggested.

I beg to give notice that upon the Vote for the National Debt Office I will call attention to the subject.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Reports of the Friendly Societies Registrar show that the money utilised for purposes which seem to meet with his disapproval are in some cases kept separately? I refer to the distinguishment of Strike Fund from Benefit Fund.

I will inquire into that point. The only supplement I wish to make to the answer I have already given is, that there are £110,000,000 lying at call, and, although no insurmountable inconvenience might be occasioned by the Friendly Societies withdrawing the whole of their money in a time of pressure, there would, undoubtedly, be a certain amount of inconvenience; and that is why I suggest a limitation of the amount.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Post Office Savings Bank Department has refused to accept the transfer of moneys, deposited by the Trustees of the Camberwell Branch of the Amalgamated Society of Painters and Decorators with the Trustees of the Camberwell Savings Bank to the Post Office Savings Bank; and, if so, on what grounds the refusal is based; whether he is aware that the moneys aforesaid, amounting to £118 1s. 3d., were deposited in the Camberwell Savings Bank under the Friendly Societies' Clause, as a Friendly Society, and was entered as G 583 in the said Bank; whether the Amalgamated Society of Painters and Decorators is a Friendly Society within the meaning of the Act, and has been allowed, as such, to deposit its funds in Trustee or Post Office Savings Banks for many years, and has now deposited funds in the Post Office Savings Banks of the country; whether he is aware that this branch of the Amalgamated Society of Painters and Decorators is unable, by reason of the closing of the Camberwell Savings Bank and the refusal of the Post Office to accept the transfer of its funds, to make payments to its members for sickness, funeral, accident, out of work, and other benefits; and whether he will cause such transfer to be accepted without delay, in accordance with the existing law and practice in similar cases? The principal part of this question has already been announced, but I wish to have some further information in regard to the acceptance of the transfer of funds.

This is not a Society, as the question implies, registered under the Friendly Societies Act, but it is registered under the Trades Unions Act. With regard to the 4th paragraph of the question I will confer with the hon. Member and see whether an arrangement cannot be made to transfer this sum of £118. The hon. Member will see, however, that the Post Office Savings Banks Department is not the only Department that must be taken into consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with regard to the recommendation of the visitors of Her Majesty's Convict Prison at Chatham, contained in paragraph 149 of their Report, that Durbin, the compounder of medicines, should have his case re-considered when opportunity arises, whether Durbin had been degraded and removed to another prison on the Report of the Medical Officials of Chatham Prison; and, if he has been reinstated in his former position, is he now serving in Chatham Prison, and does he compound medicines for the treason-felony prisoners confined there; has the recommendation of the visitors, contained in paragraph 13 of the Report, in respect of the Scotch prisoners, been carried out, and have they been advised that they might have letters in lieu of visits when their friends could not visit them, by reason of the long distance they would be obliged to travel; and would he apply the suggestion of the visitors to other prisoners whose friends live in Ireland or America?

Yes, Sir. Compounder Durbin was reduced in rank and removed to Portsmouth Prison, but subsequent investigations having satisfied the Prison Directors that he was free from blame he has been re-instated, and will be employed as compounder at Dartmoor Prison, his place at Chatham being taken by the officer now employed at Dartmoor. The recommendation in paragraph 13 has been always the practice of the prison, and a special letter, in lieu of a visit, where relatives are distant, is always granted as a matter of course on application. The rule applies to prisoners whose relatives live in Ireland or America, as well as in Scotland.

Did not a further analysis prove that the original analysis was correct, and did it justify Durbin's re-instatement?

The medicine was compounded from a store bottle and supplied to Daly, and there was no suspicion at the time that the contents had been improperly prepared.

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 believe there is no doubt that there are large tracts of land suitable to the growth of sugar beet in England and Ireland. Experiments have been made from time to time in both countries, and there is ground for believing that where the climate is suitable, especially in the southern parts of England and Ireland, it can be grown with success, provided the price is sufficiently remunerative. I apprehend that capital in this country would be always forthcoming to promote the establishment of any industry which offered reliable security for a remunerative interest. I have no special information as to capital being forthcoming in this case, and whether such security would be offered by the ratification of the Sugar Convention I am really unable to say. That is a question, I think, which can only be settled by experience. It is, however, a subject of great interest. I am endeavouring to make myself more fully informed than I am at present as to the conditions required for the successful cultivation of sugar beet in the United Kingdom; and my hon. Friend may be assured that anything which promises a successful opening for British agriculture will at all times command my serious attention.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that when it was under consideration to cede the Gambia to France in 1870, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made specific reservation that no cession of that territory could be made without the consent of Parliament, and subsequently alluded to the introduction of a Bill necessary for that purpose; and whether these circumstances were considered by Her Majesty's Government when they introduced the Bill for the cession of Heligoland?

Yes, Sir; the answer to both questions is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to a Despatch from Lord Knutsford to Viscount Gormanston, then Governor of British Guiana, dated 4th September, 1889, which contained the following-statements—

"I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Despatch, No. 282, of the 29th July, enclosing a letter from Sir B. Chalmers on the subject of the Appeal of the late Mr. Be Souza to the Queen in Council. I consider that the payment of the fine of 500 dols, imposed on Mr. Be Souza ought not to he enforced against his estate, and that notice of the decision not to enforce it should be given to his executors,"

Sir D. Chalmers, the writer of the letter quoted, is the Chief Justice who sentenced Mr. De Souza. His letter was written after Mr. De Souza's death, and at a time when it was open to his executors to apply for leave to proceed with his appeal. The letter conveyed a request that if an order for revival of the appeal were granted, appearance might be entered for the Attorney General, as representing' the interest of the Crown in the appeal, as well as for the Judges, and gave reasons for this recommendation. No application was made, so far as the Secretary of State is aware, by Mr. De Souzt's executors to have the fine remitted. The Government have not interfered with the action of the Privy Council on the subject of the appeal. The Secretary of State is not prepared to make the inquiry suggested by the hon. Member.

I beg-to ask the Postmaster General whether among the 192 clerks employed at the Central Telegraph Office who are suspended from all benefits under the new scheme because they wore off duty at 4 p.m. on the day when an officer temporarily employed at that office was hooted at, are clerks of 20 years' service and upwards; whether these clerks have severally proved that they had nothing to do with the matter referred to; and whether, when the inquiry now proceeding is finished, he will compensate these clerks for the withholding from them of moneys earned under the new scheme, and which is now received by all their colleagues?

I have not yet received the Report of the result of the investigation which is being made, and I am not. therefore, in a position to announce what my decision will be when that investigation is concluded. I need not say that I shall be glad if the officers to whom the hon. Member refers are able to prove that they were not implicated in the occurrence. I have certainly no wish to withhold any of the benefits of the new scheme from any officer who was not concerned in the outrage to which the hon. Member refers.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Ecclesiastical Courts in Malta have been suppressed; and, if so, at what date and under what circumstances?

I do not know what Courts the hon. Members refers to without further inquiry in the island. That inquiry shall be made if the hon. Member desires it, but I really must ask him to give longer notice of questions of this nature.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is aware of any case of a mixed marriage celebrated in Malta under licences from the Governor or from the Bishop of Gibraltar being declared invalid by the Maltese or English Courts on the ground that it was not celebrated according to the form prescribed by the decrees of the Council of Trent?

I am not aware of any such case; but as far back as 1865, and since, the practice in case of mixed marriages was to have the marriage solemnised either by the Roman Catholic priest alone or by both the Roman Catholic priest and the Protestant minister, but the celebration of such marriages before the Roman Catholic priest has always been deemed indispensable to give validity to such marriages.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any law to restrain the occupation of the waterway of the Thames by advertisement boats, such as the one which is now moored opposite the terrace of this House?

The Thames Conservators are the Authority having charge of the river. I am not aware of any law on the subject referred to in the hon. Member's question, but I will communicate with the Conservators on the matter.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, for the accommodation of the legal profession and the public generally, he will consider the desirability of extending the limit of width of post letters from 9 to 12 inches?

I shall have no objection to consider whether the limit of width of post letters can properly be extended as suggested by the hon. Member, but I may say, generally, that bulky packets are not only inconvenient to deal with, but are much more liable to become damaged themselves, and to cause damage to other packets of moderate size, especially in mails, which are delivered from the trains by the Mail Bag Apparatus.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will consider the advisability of placing a quadriga or classical group upon the arch at Constitution Hill?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question will he say whether he is prepared to put the obstruction now at Temple Bar upon Constitution Hill?

I think it is very desirable that the arch at Constitution Hill should be surmounted by a quadriga, but any artistic group worthy of such a position would cost a great deal of money, and I am not prepared at present to make such a demand upon the Treasury.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the fact that, by an Order in Council, the Governor of Bechuanaland has been empowered to proclaim the Queen's jurisdiction over the territory lying to the north of Bechuanaland, west of the Transvaal and Matabeleland, east of the German Protectorate, and south of the Zambesi; whether this means the annexation of the Bechuana Protectorate; whether this territory is in future to be administered as a Crown Colony; and whether, in this event, the Crown will respect the rights of those who have obtained concessions from the Chiefs?

The answer to my hon. Friend's question is in the negative. If he will refer to the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts he will see that he has misapprehended the effect of the Order in Council. The Queen has certain powers and jurisdiction within the territories named, and the Order empowers the Governor of British Bechuanaland to give effect to those powers and jurisdiction by means of legislative proclamations. The primary object of this proceeding is to provide proper means of enforcing discipline in the Police Force.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps have been taken to give practical effect to the information gained by the experiments carried on against H.M.S. Resistance; and has information been obtained by Her Majesty's Government relative to the experiments carried on at Toulon on the same lines as the Resistance experiments?

The Admiralty have given full consideration to the valuable results of the experiments made upon the Resistance, and have taken such steps as appear desirable, more especially as regards the defence of gun crews and the improvement of ammunition. It is not, however, desirable in the public interests that I should give particulars.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether slavery is recognised as a legal status in any British Protectorate?

Assuming slavery to be lawful according to the law of the country over which the Protectorate is assumed, it would be recognised as a legal status. But British subjects would, of course, be prohibited from dealing or trading in, purchasing, selling, or transferring slaves.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Owen Quin, of Dorsey, County Armagh, who applied for compensation to the Castleblaney Board of Guardians, under the Animals Contagious Diseases Act, for the loss of a cow which had been shot by the police as infected with a contagious disease, and whose application was refused; and if the Authorities will consider the matter?

I am informed that the Veterinary Inspector for the Board of Guardians pronounced the cow to be affected with rabies and ordered it to be slaughtered, and that the slaughter was carried out by the owner in the presence of the constabulary. There is no legal power to award compensation for the loss of animals affected with rabies.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Executive is bound to furnish Government boats, free of charge, to the Sheriff when going to carry out evictions on islands of the Irish Coast?

No, Sir. The object of providing Government boats in connection with the duty in question is the conveyance of the police party requisitioned by the Sheriff for his protection, and the conveyance of the Sheriff and his bailiffs in such boats is only permitted in cases where that course is absolutely necessary for the carrying out of the law. When such a course arises the Sheriff has to pay for the subsistence of himself and his bailiffs.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that persons conveyed in Her Majesty's gunboats to the islands on the West Coast of Ireland have seized the boats belonging to the fishermen, which form their only means of obtaining a living? I wish to know whether that is not an illegal act, and what means will be taken to enable these poor people to pursue their ordinary avocations?

I am not acquainted with any such circumstance.

The right hon. Gentleman says that boats have only been supplied for the purpose of carrying a necessary police escort for the protection of persons engaged in executing the law. Is it not the fact that in some cases they have carried also emergency men, and agents of the landlords? I wish to know if this is legal, and whether such persons ought not to be required to furnish their own means of transit?

I believe that when Sheriffs' officers and bailiffs have been taken they have paid their own expenses.

I think it is important that the seizure of the fishermen's boats, if illegal, should not be repeated, and I should like to know from the Attorney General for Ireland if it is not provided by enactment that wearing apparel, bedding, tools, and implements of trade, if they do not exceed £5 in value, shall not be liable to seizure? These boats were the implements of the trade of the fishermen, and was it legal to seize them?

I am not acquainted with the section of the Act referred to, but if the hon. Member will put a question on the Paper I will obtain the information.

I will repeat the question on Monday.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether complaints have reached him that a postal order drawn in Edinburgh, No. 21,191, payable to Mary Ann M'Ilmurray, was intercepted in the Lurgan Post Office, County Armagh, and cashed with the signature of "Mary Ann M'Imurray"; and if the Lurgan postmaster made payment not- withstanding the different spelling in signature, will the Postal Authorities refund the amount to Mrs. M'Ilmurray?

A complaint reached the General Post Office some time ago that a postal order, which I have no-doubt is that referred to by the hon. Member, bad been lost in the post, and, although there was no blame whatever on the part of the postmaster at Lurgan in respect of the payment of the order, there were circumstances which seemed to justify the repayment of the amount to Mrs. M'Ilmurray as an act of grace, and it was so repaid some weeks ago.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the prosecution of Mr. James Maye before Messrs. Long-bourne and Hodder, Resident Magistrates, in Fermoy, on a charge of "having assaulted Constable Denis Lane in the execution of his duty, on 17th September,-1889;" and why was this prosecution brought after such a long time had elapsed?

I am informed that the proceedings were instituted on the 18th September, 1889, the day after the assault on the constable. The defendant was at the time under sentence of imprisonment on another charge Upon his release from prison in April last the proceedings were gone on with, but in consequence of the illness of the constable, and subsequently of the defendant, the case was not finally disposed of until 28th July.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that three applications have been made to the Board of National Education in Ireland for a grant in favour of the school at Ballygorianmore, near Hill-town, County Down; and if he will state the grounds for refusing same; whether his attention has been called to a resolution unanimously adopted by the committee under the presidency of Rev. H. H. Moore, M.A., the Presbyterian minister, on the 22nd July, in which it is stated that the school fulfils all the conditions required by the rules of the Board for making such a grant; and whether he will inquire into the matter, with the view of redressing the grievance of which the Presbyterians of the district complain?

The Commissioners of National Education report that this school had been in connection with the Board until the 31st December, 1886, from which date the grants were cancelled, the average attendance having fallen below the minimum required to warrant their continuance. Two applications appear to have been subsequently made for restoration of the grant, but, there being no evidence that the required attendance would be secured, and as it was strongly felt that there was no need for the school, there being within one mile of the place a school under a Presbyterian manager (the Rev. Dr. Wilson), with a Presbyterian teacher, and as the Commissioners' Inspector declined to recommend the aid, the Commissioners do not feel warranted in making a grant.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen the reports in the local papers that at Killeagh Fair, on 28th July, several Nationalist dealers were shadowed by police constables throughout the day, and also that Mr. Edward O'Brien, P.L.G., James O'Brien, and Charles O'Brien, were

"all day persistently followed by policemen, who pryed into their affairs, and rendered it difficult for those men to transact their business;"

I am informed by the Constabulary Authorities that on the occasion referred to three persons were watched by the police, but that not one of these persons was a dealer. They were James O'Brien, Charles O'Brien, and a man named Lynch, all of whom are known to the police to be employed in attempting to boycott the sale of cattle. Mr. Edward O'Brien, who, as a matter of fact, does not appear to have arrived until the fair was over, was not shadowed. The police did not in any way interfere so as to render difficult the transaction of any legitimate business.

In a recent case did not the right hon. Gentleman promise that the constabulary should not shadow men who had business at a fair. In this case the men shadowed had business which was seriously interfered with. Will the right hon. Gentleman issue stringent orders to that effect?

The police will not interfere with any men who are legitimately carrying on lawful business.

Unfortunately they do.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the last Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries, where it is shown, at page 11, that, of the 62,952 mease of herrings captured along the Irish Coast during the year 1889, there were landed at Ardglass, Annalong, and Kilkeel, on the County Down Coast, 29,732, or nearly one-half of the total number captured: whether he is aware that Newcastle is situated between Kilkeel and Ardglass, and, though well adapted for a good fishing station, it has now no harbour accommodation; whether he has seen the Report of the Divisional Officer of Coastguards (page 41), in which he states—

"At Newcastle there are the ruined remains of a harbour, at present almost useless, which might at a moderate expenditure be made useful for fishermen and others;"

I have seen the report referred to, but I think, as far as I can judge, it indicates that the line which it is proposed should be made to Ardglass will, perhaps, tap the traffic better than to any other point; but I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope as to the expenditure of money for the proposed Newcastle line.

The reply of the right hon. Gentleman does not touch the real point at all.

The hon. Member is aware that I visited Newcastle, and went into the whole question whether I ought to recommend any expenditure of the public money in connection with the harbour. I came to the conclusion that I could not, and I am afraid that I cannot depart from that decision.

Were there any local Representatives to meet the right hon. Gentleman?

I think I can depend upon my own power of seeing what was necessary in the case.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is true that Mr. James Walsh was arrested, in Queenstown, on the 20th Jun3 last, confined in the police cells for the greater part of the day, and then sent as a prisoner to Cork; whether it is true the prison officials refused to receive him from the police, who then set him at liberty; who is responsible for the arrest; and whether an inquiry will be made into the circumstances of the case?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the man was not confined in the police cells at all, and was only detained in the barracks about 10 minutes. He was then sent to Cork, and the prison officials refusing to receive him he was discharged. The ground of the refusal appears to have been that the warrant outstanding against him ill respect of a fine did not contain an alternative term of imprisonment. The arrest was made by Sergeant Shea in the belief that 'the warrant, as is usual in such cases, contained that alternative. The man absconded when the warrant was originally issued in December last.

How long was Mr. Walsh under arrest?

I cannot answer that question, but he was apparently detained only for a few minutes.

Was he not arrested in the morning and not taken before a Magistrate until the afternoon?

I gather from the information I have received that that is not correct. He was only detained for 10 minutes.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the County Limerick Grand Jury, at the last Assizes, rejected a presentment for laying down with ferrumite a footway to the Roman Catholic Church of Kilmallock, against the unanimous wish of the ratepayers of the barony, as ex-pressed at two Road Sessions; and whether, in view of the fact that the Grand Jury consists of 23 men, mostly landlords, nominated by the High Sheriff, who do not pay more than 5 per cent. of the county cess, the Government will consider the advisability of introducing a Bill to take away from the Grand Jury the power of stopping the construction of useful and necessary works?

I have no official information on the subject of this question, which does not come under the cognizance of the Irish Government, but the Secretary to the Grand Jury informs me that the presentment referred to was rejected by the Grand Jury, not because it led to the Roman Catholic Chapel at Kilmallock, but because the cost of a ferrumite footpath would mean a tax of 4½d. in the £1 on the valuation of the barony of Kilmallock. It was proposed by the cess payers at Road Sessions to levy half the expense on the county at large, and members of the Grand Jury from other baronies objected to have it so levied. The Grand Jury was quite willing to agree to a flagged footpath, and so intimated before rejecting the application for ferrumite.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, during the training of the 3rd battalion of the Royal Irish Fusiliers, at Holy-wood, two Catholic bandsmen were required every Sunday to play in the regimental band to and from the Protestant Episcopal Church, at the very time that the Catholic service for the soldiers was taking place, and were thus prevented from being present at their own place of worship; and whether, in view of the fact that the Catholics in the battalion outnumber any of the other religious denominations, and largely contribute to the profits of the canteen, which bears most of the expenses of the regimental band, it can be arranged that the Catholics of the regiment may have the band to their church on alternate Sundays?

I am unable to answer the question of the hon. Member at present. I must ask him to put it down for another day.

I will repeat it on this day week.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether ex-Constable Peter Brennan, late of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who was convicted by a Coroner's Jury of "wilful murder," has been allowed or encouraged to retire from the police, and granted a pension of £72 per annum; and whether Brennan, having failed in business as a publican in Kinsale, has been recently employed as a bailiff by the Sheriff for the County of Cork?

I only received notice of this question this morning. I must ask the hon. Member to defer it until Monday.

I will repeat it to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what was the proportion of local support to the total expenditure in Irish model schools for the year ending 31st March, 1889; what was the corresponding figure for all other Irish national schools; and can he state what objection the Government have to local support for national schools in Ireland?

The Commissioners of National Education report that, for the year ended March 31, 1889, their total expenditure in respect to model schools was £27,358, and the total local aid (including school fees and rates in contributory unions) in support of model schools was £6,766. Their total expenditure in respect to ordinary national schools was £701,220, and the total local aid in support of ordinary national schools was £188,218. The above figures do not include expenditure by Board of Public Works on ordinary national schools or model schools. The Commissioners, far from having an objection to local support for national schools, have laid down in their rules that applicants for a grant to build a school must satisfy the Board that they—

"Are prepared to raise by local contribution at least one-third of the whole sum which the Commissioners may deem necessary for the erection of the house, and providing furniture; and that when the school comes into operation, adequate local aid will be provided in augmentation of the teachers' emoluments from the Board."

said: A report was received from Her Majesty's Consul at Mozambique that an African Lakes Company's steamer had been seized, and the officers and crew sent under arrest to Quilimane. He immediately communicated the report to the Governor General, who assured him that any interference with British subjects north of the Ruo would be severely censured. Her Majesty's Minister at Lisbon has been instructed to make an urgent representation to the Portuguese Government, who have sent orders by telegraph to Mozambique to punish with severity those who have been guilty of infraction of orders. The officer who is said to have made the seizure had, previously to these events, been removed from command.

I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he intends to take for the appointment of the Select Committee on the financial relations of the three Kingdoms?

I have taken steps in the direction of finding persons who might have influence with gentlemen who have put down Amendments to withdraw them, and then the Committee could be appointed. But the Government cannot put off the discussion of Supply, even for so interesting a subject. Perhaps the hon. Member can use his influence to induce gentlemen to withdraw their Amendments.

I have no control over hon. Members.

Nor have I.

But the right hon. Gentleman has control over the time of the House.

said: If the business with regard to Nos. 1 and 2 on the Paper and the Report of Supply are concluded to-night, the substantial business to-morrow will be the Police Bill and the Police (Scotland) Bill.

I protest against taking the Police Bill on Saturday. It is a Bill which affects all the constituencies, a Bill which neither the House nor the country has had an opportunity of understanding—[Cries of" Agreed!"] —a Bill which, in my opinion, is of such a wide character, and involves the interests of so many constituencies, that it ought not to be taken at a Saturday Sitting.

The hon. Member is not in order in discussing a measure which is to be brought on upon another day.

May I ask whether we cannot shorten the rest of the Session. If the Government will only let the House clearly know what is the minimum with which they will be satisfied, so that Members may know precisely whore they are placed, the business would go on with considerable alacrity.

The House has already been informed on the subject. I said that it would be necessary to pass the Local Taxation Bill, the Police Bill, the Irish Census Bill—["No"]—I think Members from Ireland generally desire to see it passed, as well as the Census Bills for England and Scotland—the Public Works Loans Bill, and the Savings Banks Bill, which, I believe, there is only one Member opposed to in this House—[Mr. STOREY: That is not so]—I have endeavoured to ascertain, and I believe the hon. Member is the only opponent. It may require that we should sit a day or two longer, but the Government think it right to persevere with a measure which, as I stated yesterday, is for the protection of the working classes. These are the measures which the Government think it necessary to proceed with, and having stated that twice, three times, or four times already, I think I am not unreasonable in asking that we may be allowed to proceed with the business without undue delay.

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I know from personal contact with Gentlemen not only on this, but on the other side of the House, that there are very considerable objections to the Savings Banks Bill. ["No."] If instead of adding burdens to the Savings Banks the right hon. Gentleman would give additional powers for receiving money, he would have no difficulty in passing the Bill. As one connected with Savings Banks for 25 years, I can say that the Bill in its present shape is absolutely useless.

I should like to urge the claims of the Registration of Titles Bill and the Registration of Assurances Bill, which would be of the greatest value in connection with the Land Purchase Bill.

Great discussion may arise on the Registration of Titles Bill, and unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give ample time for such discussion it would be better to postpone the Bill.

Although the general principles of the Local Registration of Titles Bill, and the Bill dealing with the Registry of Deeds, have been accepted by Members on both sides of the House, I fully recognise that these measures raise important questions of detail. It would be unreasonable to expect that time should be given for them during the present Session, but I propose to introduce them at the very earliest period next Session.

said: The Report of the Select Committee on the Scotch Police Bill will be circulated immediately, but not with the documents which were to form appendices. These Will be circulated as soon as possible.

May I ask when Scotch Supply will be taken. A number of Members have been compelled to remain in town on account of it. If we could only get a pledge that Scotch Supply would not be considered while Scotch Members are away there would not be much trouble. The Irish Estimates have been taken some time ago, and Irish Members have not troubled the House since.

The question before the House is not Scotch Supply, but that the sitting to-morrow be subject to the rules regulating the sitting of the House on Wednesday.

May I ask for some explanation of the 2nd clause? I do think the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should make some explanatory statement, however brief. It appears to me ridiculous to enlist men, and then immediately transfer them to the Reserve without first giving them some suitable training.

I wish to ask whether the War Office Authorities have considered the legal effect of the Bill in respect of the men who, intending only to be Volunteers, have enlisted in the Army, and who are liable to be sent on foreign service or to be ordered out of their own districts?

The hon. Member for Mid Cork has evidently-forgotten that he made the same request before, and that I have explained the object of the Bill to him. It is desired in a case of emergency to have the services of certain telegraph, postal, and railway men, and it is found to be the cheapest way to draw them from the Volunteers. One object of the Bill is to enable these men to be employed abroad if necessary in case of emergency.

I wish a Motion had been made to re-commit the Bill in order that we might briefly discuss the entire re-construction of this Bill which is now going to take place on the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have no wish to delay the House by any unnecessary remarks, but I rise for the purpose of making a final, if an unavailing, protest against what I consider to be the disastrous finance which this clause will now give effect to as altered by the present Amendment. We are no doubt dealing with the last stage of the Bill, and I should like to call attention to the fact that this is the 25th night on which the House has been discussing the financial arrangements of the present year. There is no precedent for this in modern times —at any rate, since the repeal of the Corn Laws. The House has been sitting between 110 and 120 days up to this evening; and, therefore, one fourth of the time of the House of Commons has been consumed in discussing what now turn out to be practically abortive financial proposals. But much more important than this is the principle which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now asking the House of Commons to put its seal of approval upon, and this is the enormous additional subvention proposed to be given to the Local Authorities. I have been looking into the figures as they now stand regarding this question. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer has amended this Bill, there will be added for the purpose of local subvention£ 1,300,000; yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer, only two years ago, said that, so far as the Government were concerned, they had shown their whole hand, and they had no further proposals to make. But within two and a half years from the time the right hon. Gentleman made that statement he proposes to take £1,300,000 from what I may call essentially Imperial taxation in order to place it in the hands of the Local Authorities.

Order, order! I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the House is not now discussing the principle of the Bill. He is really delivering a Second Reading speech.

Of course, Sir, I at once bow to your ruling. I only wish to submit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now proposing to add £350,000 to the general subvention of the Local Authorities; and I object to that, because I consider that the Local Authorities have already too much. This £350,000 will make the total sum granted this year in aid of local taxation over £9,000,000. I have no wish to deal further with the general question, but I entertain a most strong opinion that these large local subventions are not justified by the state of local-finance; they are premiums upon mismanagement and extravagance; and they revive the old system of subventions in its worst form, because they make the Local Authorities practically reckless as to how the money is spent. In raising a, protest against this enormous additional subvention, I wish to say that arrangements of this kind cannot be regarded as binding, and we shall claim for ourselves the right to re-consider this question when the proper time arrives.

I do not know whether we are to expect any answer from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer) but I do submit that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman deserve some notice. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has refrained from answering the speech of my right hon. Friend. We had some discussion on these words when they were proposed to be inserted by the right hon. Gentleman in the clause applicable to Scotland. What is meant by inserting these words? The Chancellor of the Exchequer must have some special object in introducing them. What is it? Do the words apply to the additional duty on beer, or do they not? The other day the right hon. Gentleman told us the object was to impart a flavour of uncertainty. But the whole financial policy of the right hon. Gentleman this year has had such a flavour of uncertainty, that I think it is a work of supererogation to introduce these words. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me credit for having sufficient acuteness to understand the meaning, but I confess I am not entitled to that credit, for I have unsuccessfully endeavoured to define the meaning of introducing the words. In his original Budget the right hon. Gentleman held out a curious hope to the brewers. He said he had half promised to take off the additional tax on beer, and he would fulfil that promise, but he intended to put it on again, and give them the benefit of the proceeds. He did so, but now he has struck out the clause which was to secure the benefit to the brewers. Now, I again ask, do those words apply to the Beer Duty or the extra Spirit Duty? I think we are entitled to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the uncertainty which these words point to—in short, what is the intention of inserting them?

The right hon. Gentleman began his observations with a complaint that I had not answered the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. I am free to be criticised in many things, but I am seldom criticised for not being ready to take up a challenge that is thrown down. I did not rise to answer the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, because I understood I could not do so without offending against order. The whole of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be directed against the Bill generally, and I could not reply to them without being out of order, otherwise I should have longed to be able to comment on the astounding charge against the Government that this Bill has been discussed for 25 days. I should have liked to refer to some of the minute points which were discussed for hours and hours with a most fearful waste of the time of the House. I shall be called to order by the Speaker if I pursue that topic. In reply to the right hon. Member for Derby I have to say that I have twice dealt with this matter—once in the case of Scotland, and once in the case of Ireland. In the case of Scotland the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me, and in the case of Ireland he did not hear me at all. The right hon. Gentleman asks, Why are the words introduced here? The answer is that the residue is in a different position now from what it was, and my anxiety has been that Parliament shall not give an absolutely permanent character to the sum which has become available through the dropping of the licensing clauses. The right hon. Gentleman made merry over the phrase used by me, "the flavour of uncertainty"; what I meant was that the Local Authorities should have notice that there is, in the language of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, a prospect of revision as regards that particular sum. It seems to me right that the question should be left open whether there shall be any revision of the additional taxes imposed in consequence of the dropping of a portion of the scheme. That is the object with which the words have been inserted, and I think it more candid to the Local Authorities and to the House generally that such notice should be given.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the word "unless" instead of "until"?

Yes; I do not think it much matters.

In moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I will endeavour to be as brief as possible. The right hon. Gentleman has put down an Amendment which meets the wishes of the people of Wales, and he has done the same for Ireland. The Members for Scotland have to some extent fought out their case. In the case of England, if the Bill passes in its present form it will not contain a word about the definite appropriation of the money for educational purposes. There is nothing beyond the right hon. Gentleman's intimation that by and by some new charges may be thrown on the County Councils in connection with intermediate and technical education. I wish to get rid of some of that uncertainty. While Scotland and Ireland get each a large share of the money set free by the dropping of the licensing proposals, England, if the Bill stand as now, will secure nothing at all, whereas, supposing that England gets the same share as Scotland, she will have nearly £2,000,000, if the same share as Ireland nearly £1,000,000, and if the same share as Wales will assuredly get about £750,000. I think we are putting the cart before the horse. We ought to get free education, but first we must have our District Councils; we ought to have uniform School Boards, and we ought to have a well organised elementary system. Scotland, no doubt, has gone the right way to put the horse before the cart by securing free education first, and when we get our money out of the Exchequer for free education for England, Scotland will put in a claim for another £250,000. It will be impossible to withhold it, and then she can complete her system of secondary and intermediate education. I think the adoption of my Amendment will be a step in the right direction. The local Universities of England have been pleading for grants of money for many years; the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met them with £15,000. The agricultural interest has again and again cried out for assistance towards dairy schools and agricultural teaching; the amount the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to give has been £5,000, although Prussia, the population of which is not so great as the United Kingdom, gives ten times that amount for agricultural education alone. But these sums are perfectly trifling as compared with the amount which the House is compelled to deal with by a kind of side-wind, and which it is now proposed shall disappear into the great river of rates, never perhaps to appear on the surface again. I propose that the money shall be applied under the Technical Instruction Act of last year, and though the machinery of that Act is not the best for the purpose, it is better than none at all. Already some of our large towns have made grants in aid of this education. Manchester has given £4,000 and Bolton £2,000, and nobody can doubt that assistance from the Government would be greatly valued. I have added to my Amendment that the remainder of the moiety, which is not applied, may be an educational endowment within the meaning of the Endowed Schools Act, because I believe that technical education is no good unless based upon a sound general education, and we shall not get a good general secondary education in England until we set to work, as we are now doing in Wales, and establish a network of good, cheap, secondary schools throughout the whole country. The Endowed Schools Commissioners 20 years ago said that even after they had dealt with the whole re-organisation of endowments the work was only begun, and that what was necessary was a systematic provision for secondary instruction. Since then, however, we have never taken a step towards re-organising our secondary education. I may be told that under the Endowed Schools Act this cannot be done at all, but I hold that our experience in Wales shows that it can be done. Our Committees in Wales are largely composed of members of County Councils, and I imagine that the Vice President of the Council and the Chairman of the Endowed Schools Commissioners will not deny that under the existing Endowed Schools Act schemes could be worked out which would develop secondary education in a very excellent way in England. I know it is said that the Charity Commissioners are unpopular, but in my experience they have acted in a cordial, spirit of cooperation with popular bodies like our Committees. The reason they have been unpopular is because they have interfered with local endowments, but when they are following popular bodies, and not leading, but trying; to assist and help, there is no reason why they should not occupy the position of friendly advisers. I lay stress upon that part of my Amendment which has reference to the complete organisation of intermediate education, because I know the admirable work which has been done in Wales. It will be a great misfortune if the opportunity that now presents itself is not taken advantage of; for if the question is not taken in hand, other business in future Sessions may postpone its settlement indefinitely. Scotland and Wales and Ireland are far better off than England in respect of secondary education, and the consequence is, that this country is being invaded by clever Scotchmen, Welshmen, and Irishmen, in ever-increasing numbers. The hon. Member for Roxburghshire the other day made an allusion to the moderate invasion of English Members into Scotland. Well, I imagine that if we in this country were to raise a cry of. England for the English, and drive out all the Scotchmen who hold important positions of all kinds here, we should return on the hands of the hon. Member and his friends a great many men whom they do not wish to see back again, but who are doing extremely valuable work. As to the question of shifting the burden of the rates and so forth—as if it were the alpha and omega of the progress of the working classes—no doubt a great deal has been done; but if all the dogmas of the Radicals were realised, there would still remain a great deal to be done in the way of elevating the working classes after they have received all the advantages which can be received from elementary education. That the great dock strike last year was conducted so quietly and successfully was mainly due to the fact that the leaders were educated men, capable of studying and understanding economical and industrial questions. It would be well to have thousands more such men. Let the House, therefore, make provision for their education. In England we are in this position: that the wealthy people, who are largely represented in this House, and who are able to send their sens to the great public schools, do not care much about middle-class education. Then we have the elemen- tary schools, which carry on a useful work; but there is a large middle region which we do not hear much about, which is of the utmost importance, untouched, and it is for the purpose of helping to fill up that gap that I move my Amendment. I admit that the machinery I suggest— namely, some scheme under the Endowed Schools Act and the Technical Instruction Act—is not the best I could desire, but, at the same time, I believe that by these means much good may be done to the working and the middle classes.

The hon. Member rested his case upon two grounds, one the desirableness of spending this money on intermediate education, as compared with relieving the rates, and the other a contrast between the educational advantages of this country and those of Scotland and Ireland and Wales. Well, I would point out that if, in educational matters, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland are, in some respects, better off than England, this country certainly has the advantage of having greater endowments. In the course of the proceedings on this Bill the hon. Gentleman proposed a somewhat similar Amendment to this. He was anxious that a sum should be absolutely set aside and spent in all cases upon technical education; but he proposes now an Amendment of a much more moderate nature. If the County Councils choose to employ a moiety of the increased resources which are placed at their disposal towards technical, including agri- cultural and commercial education, within, the meaning of the Technical Instruction Act of 1889, the Government certainly will not wish to place any fetters whatever on their taking such action, and accordingly we shall be prepared to accept the first portion of the Amendment—namely, that the County Councils or the County Boroughs may contribute in respect of the moiety of the residue towards technical, agricultural, or commercial education. The Government are quite as much aware as hon. Members opposite of the desire which is springing up in the country with regard both to technical and agricultural education. The hon. Member speaks of the desirability of assisting agricultural schools. Many hon. Friends of my own behind me have pleaded in the same direction, and have been anxious that the sum placed at the disposal of the authorities for establishing agricultural schools should be increased. Then the hon. Member suggested that a portion of the money should be devoted to inter-mediata education, and he drew a contrast between intermediate and technical education, suggesting that much progress could not be made with technical education without intermediate education. The Technical Instruction Act defines technical instruction as including instruction in the branches of science and art, in respect of which grants are, for the time being, made by the Department of Science and Art, and any other form of instruction, including modern languages and commercial and agricultural subjects, which may, from time to time, be sanctioned by that Department. But we have not got schools organised for the purpose, and that is why I object to the other part of the Amendment. We have an Intermediate Education Act for Wales which, I believe, is operating very beneficially, but we have not worked out such an Act for this country, nor is there any organised system of intermediate education in England. How can the County Councils, with these optional powers, some of them working on one principle and some on another, bring forward an organised system of intermediate education for the country? By passing the first part of the Amendment we do not preclude subsequent consideration of a portion of this money going to intermediate education, and the hon. Gentleman need not fear that funds for that purpose will be found when an organised plan is established. I should have no objection, on principle, to the second part of the Amendment; but. having carefully considered the way in which this money will be employed, under the terms of the Amendment, without any general organised system, I cannot undertake to accept that portion of the Amendment. I would ask that we should treat the two parts of the Amendment separately, unless the hon. Member, after the readiness I have shown to adopt his views as regards the first part, feels disposed to withdraw the second. The first part runs on all fours with the Amendment I have myself put on the Paper with regard to Wales, and I should be glad if we had a uniform-system, as far as possible, in England and Wales as regards technical education.

We have all heard with satisfaction of the readiness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept a part of the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to accept the whole, and I do not think there are those difficulties with respect to organisation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to foreshadow. Why should it not be possible for the Endowed School Commissioners, upon application from the County Councils, to prepare a scheme for intermediate education as well as for any other subject? In a former Debate on the subject two years ago the Leader of the House promised that what was done for Scotland in respect of intermediate-education, and every branch of education, should he done for England. In Scotland the ordinary schools are not called elementary, but public, schools, and the Government make grants in all these schools for Latin, Greek, Mathematics, and other subjects, which are in themselves part of the curriculum of intermediate education, for which no corresponding grant is made in England. It is the fact that large numbers of the youth of Scotland go from the parochial and public schools direct to the Universities. I am rejoiced that that is so. But why should England be deprived of these advantages? The whole of the higher schools of Scotland are under the control of the School Board, and they receive grants from the rates for what they call the common fund. I do not say the intermediate education of Scotland is all that Scotchmen desire. They are anxious to have it improved, and they are improving it at an enormous rate, and, as compared with England, they are at an enormous advantage. I doubt whether, according to its population, England has as many endowments as Scotland. The Universities of England have great endowments, but not for intermediate education. Under the Endowed Schools Commission Act of 1883 all the endowments of Scotland have undergone revision, and on the governing bodies of the endowed schools in Scotland there is some public representation. We have nothing corresponding to that in England. Why is it that England should be placed in this disadvantageous position as compared with Scotland? I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury when will he fulfil his promise, made more than two years ago, with respect to intermediate education. The whole of the intermediate and endowed schools in Scotland are examined by examiners appointed by the Scotch Educational Department, and attached to every school there are "leaving certificates," which admit the scholars to a great variety of educational advantages. We have nothing corresponding to that in England. We have no public examinations at the expense of the State, as in Scotland. Now, supposing the first part of the Resolution is to be accepted there are certain words which should be omitted—I mean the words "not exceeding a certain moiety of the residue." These words must undoubtedly come out, so that it would apply to technical, commercial, and agricultural education.

The hon. Member says that if not the whole of the moiety then that a portion of it shall be used.

If you take the second proposal, and strike out these words, then you could apply the whole of it to technical, commercial, and agricultural schools. I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the importance of adopting the second part of the Resolution. Nobody knows better than the First Lord of the Treasury the great inequality of endowments in this country. He knows that there are some localities which are positively enriched by endowments, and others in which they have no endowments whatever. But suppose the County Council had power to apply part of the residue to intermediate education, how largely they might extend it. In our large towns, with their rapid growth, it would be an enormous boon if they could have some aid, some beginning of intermediate education. And my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham has pointed out that small State aid is an enormous stimulus for the Local Authority. It always evokes and develops a large amount of local effort. It has already done so in Wales in respect to technical education. With respect to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we have no organised intermediate education in England, I must take exception to that. There is scarcely a town in England where the Charity Commissioners have not framed schemes of intermediate education. Why, if there are a thousand or two a year to be devoted to intermediate education, should not the Charity Commissioners enlarge these schemes, and place some members of the County Councils on the governing bodies, and so give increased utility and increased representation at the same time? I do hope that the Government will not, in this respect, place us in a worse position than Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. At present we do not get a farthing grant; but here is the first opportunity the Government have had of rendering some service, and helping forward the work of intermediate education, the great desideratum of the present time. The Government have accepted the first part of my hon. Friend's proposal. I do trust that they will accept the remainder, and that we shall be able to make a start in the way of helping ourselves with intermediate education.

I would like to say one or two words in no contentious spirit. I am perfectly ready to admit that in England we are somewhat at a disadvantage with respect to intermediate education. The greater portion of the speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham was directed, and fairly, to showing that there was such a deficiency, and it was essentially a speech in favour of an Intermediate Education Act for England. I wish to mention one or two reasons which ought to make the House satisfied with the way in which Her Majesty's Government have met this Amendment. Here is a sum of money to be disposed of. At first the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would be used for education, and then the hon. Member for Rotherham suggests that it may be applied to technical and intermediate education. Now, I am anxious that we should not accept the second portion of this Amendment, because there is a distinction between it and the first. About the first proposal there is this excellent characteristic, that the machinery is ready to hand. Considering how slow people are to move in matters of education, it is obviously of great advantage to have the machinery ready to hand. What is happening with regard to our Technical Instruction Act? It is at work, and it has been taken up warmly in most of our large industrial centres, Manchester, Sheffield, Burnley, Rochdale, Stockport, Macclesfield, Maidstone, Rotherham, Wakefield, Bingley, Bolton, Nottingham, Leeds, Newcastle, Blackburn, Reading, and many other places, where Committees have been at work some time to bring it into active operation. I am now merely pleading for the best use that can be made to-day of this money. All this is going on already with regard to secondary education and technical instruction, and why, therefore, should we not have this money applied swiftly? What is the initial difficulty? The initial difficulty is getting a lump sum for building purposes. Most of these localities will face the rate necessary for the maintenance of an institution, but they will not undertake the initial expenditure which is required to obtain a building. Now, this sum of money will precisely fit into the groove, precisely fill up the gap, and furnish to these localities the amount of the initial expenditure which I think can be most usefully and beneficially applied. I am willing to concede that it is possible to frame an Intermediate Education Act for England, as has been done in Wales, and no man in this House would be more ready to avail himself of time and opportunity to do so than myself. But if this money were to be applied as suggested by the second portion of the Amendment, and if it were handed over to the County Councils, there would be absolutely no machinery whatever. In the case of the Welsh Act, Committees were appointed, composed of three representatives of the County Council, and two members nominated by the Lord President of the Council—gentlemen connected with the county selected for their educational standing and position. But, in the present instance, I do not think it would be fair to hand this money to the County Councils without their having that machinery which the Welsh Education Act supplied. It is because there is this want of machinery, that I am unable, without further consideration, to assent to what would be virtually the introduction by a side wind of an Intermediate Education Act for England.

I am afraid there is some misunderstanding. What is the difference between the machinery for the first part of the Amendment, and the machinery for the second?

The County Council has no machinery, except under the Technical Instruction Act in connection with the Science and Art Department.

Mr. Speaker, a short time ago the House appointed a Select Committee upon endowed schools, and I had the honour to be Chairman of that Committee, and my right hon. Friend was a Member of it. He will remember the great difficulty we had in examining how endowed schools could be made of greater use to the public, because these endowed schools had no means of getting properly equipped. They were proceeding very much on the old lines—Latin and Greek and general education, but they had no support for scientific education. Now, I am very grateful to the Government for having adopted the first part of the Amendment, but the second part is also of very great importance, and if my right hon. Friend will only recollect the recommendations as to the endowed schools he must himself admit what important measures might be brought under this Amendment. In the first place you have taken great trouble to establish endowed schools throughout the country, but you leave them entirely unconnected with any Local Authority, except Local Boards, to manage them, and without any knowledge on the part of this House as to whether they are failures or successes. Now, this Amendment offers you an organisation. The County Council may move the Charity Commissioners, with the funds at their disposal, to equip these schools and make them suitable for scientific instruction. It may enable them to provide funds out of which the teachers of science might be paid, and it might, in this way, re-organise the schools throughout the country, and produce the greatest results upon secondary education throughout the country, in the way of meeting modern requirements for scientific teaching. Without money they cannot do this. They have no funds to equip laboratories and workshops, and it is better to leave science alone if it is to be mere book-learning. Here you have an admirable opportunity for authorising the County Councils to act along with the Charity Commissioners, with a view to satisfying the strong wishes in the country for scientific teaching. There is nothing in this proposal that would prejudice the Government in the future in bringing in a Bill for intermediate education. The Government have gone half way very liberally, and I thank them very much for adopting the first half of the Amendment. But they will confer a benefit on the country if they adopt also the second half. They would enable the Charity Commissioners, with the assistance of the County Councils, to equip those schools, and they would make a large stride towards intermediate education.

I am sure all who sit on this side of the House must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham on the success which has attended his efforts in the direction of education, and especially for having given the right hon. Gentleman, who professes to be the friend of the agriculturist, the opportunity of sweeping away the shame of having given only £5,000 towards agricultural education, while smaller countries, like Sweden, have been able to devote a much larger sum to that object. I regret that the Government have not found it possible to accept the second part of my hon. Friend's Amendment. It has been said that it is impossible to carry out the idea; but the two right hon. Gentlemen below me, who both have been Vice President of the Council, say that it is quite possible to carry out this scheme. I rise for the purpose of asking my right hon. Friend to leave out the words "not exceeding the moiety of the residue, or any part of that moiety," so that the whole of the residue might be taken for this very desirable object. That course has already been adopted in Wales, where the residue has been practically devoted to technical education. For my part, I do not see why the whole of this sum should not be utilised.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the first part of the Amendment, because I believe that nothing is required more than technical education in this country. We have been lamentably behind many other countries with regard to that. We give a good education in our schools, but at the same time we ought to impart that which will enable the boy to get his living in the future. One word more before I speak of the second portion of the Amendment. I think anyone who knows the country districts well, will recognise the difficulty of getting children living at long distances to attend in all weathers. I must say I was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield condemn my county, and I think he most unfairly and unjustly overstated the case when he said it was one of the most backward counties in England, and that it was a perfect disgrace.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to say that what I said was that in a large portion of the rural districts Standard IV. was the standard of full time, and I complained that, whether in Sussex or elsewhere, it was a discredit.

I do not want, after what the right hon. Gentleman has said, to go into that matter more fully, but it was said in regard to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer living in Sussex. We have got so good an education in our rural schools that a large number of the farmers are sending their children to them, because there are scarcely any good intermediate schools. I think it is a discredit that we have not better intermediate schools, and I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to see his way to having intermediate education extended throughout the country.

I think we ought to acknowledge the manner in which the Government have met the Amendment of my hon. Friend. If the Government do not wish to accept the whole of it, I do not think he could, after the discussion which has taken place, carry the controversy any further. I will show what can be done under the first part of the Amendment. In the Technical Instruction Act, the interpretation clause states that technical instruction shall mean instruction in science and art, applicable to industries, including modern languages, and commercial and agricultural subjects, which may for the time being be sanctioned by the Department. That, really, covers a great part of what we mean by technical education. I hope that intermediate education will not be neglected in the future. I gather, from what the Vice President has said, that was a subject the Government viewed with favour, and were willing at an early period to make provision for. That being so, if my hon. Friend takes my advice he will be content with the acceptance of the first part of this Amendment.

The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The hon. Member in his Amendment only speaks of one moiety, but I understand he suggests that if the whole moiety is not applied to the first part of his Amendment, then that a portion of it should be applied to the second portion of his Amendment.

This clause is permissive, and I do not see what is the use of the retention of these words. The County Council would be able to judge whether less or more—probably it would be less—than the moiety was required, and, therefore, I do not see the necessity of introducing these words at all. You can leave absolute freedom to the County Council to use as much or as little as they please of the moiety. The only disadvantage that we may expect by not taking the second part of the Amendment is, that the County Council may appropriate all the rest of the money in a manner that would exclude intermediate education in the future, when the machinery was created. I hope that may not be so, and that the County Council, especially in boroughs where the larger demand for this kind of school would arise, would keep their hands upon a sufficient sum of money to be used in future when the machinery was devised.

I beg to withdraw the second part of the Amendment, and I beg to suggest that with regard to the moiety, the second part might be made to read the same as the Welsh Clause.

The Vice President has mentioned the difficulty with regard to the initial expense of instituting technical instruction. His remark was well founded, and suggests a reason for not limiting too strictly the powers of the County Council. It might well be that more than the moiety was spent on these initial expenses, and, therefore, there seems to be ground for letting the County Councils, in some cases, spend more than the moiety.

I am not indisposed to assent to the omission of the words as to the moiety, as the matter rests entirely with the County Council.

A little alteration is wanted. If these words were struck out, power would be given to the County Council to contribute only the moiety of the residue. You will have to insert the words "or any part thereof."

Any sum going to a borough might impair the authority of that borough, and so cause jealousy because of the interference of the County Council.

I have an Amendment to add to the present Amendment which will meet that objection.

I am anxious to say how gratified I am at the acceptance by the Government of the first part of my hon. Friend's Amendment. To the great centres of industries, where the work of technical education is already in progress, it will be of great importance. The money will be available in large centres of industry, not only for assisting existing institutions, but for aiding the establishment of new ones. Where the Act is not already in operation the Amendment will be of great benefit by placing money at the disposal of the County Councils, by giving a start to the adoption of the Act. The Committee, which was presided over by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Wells Division, pointed out how important it was that in the rural districts money should be available for this purpose. We all know that farmers are inclined to complain, but it is a new thing that they should attribute a great deal of what may be called their misfortune to their having had no technical education. Therefore, both in large industrial centres and in agricultural districts, we may look forward to the money now to be applied being productive of a great deal of good. I regret, with most Members interested in education, that the second part of the Amendment has not been accepted by the Government, although I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby that really the scope of the technical instruction which can be given under the Act includes a great deal of what is classified as intermediate education. In the City of London the subject, which has not yet come under the County Council, is one of vast importance, and we may hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London, who is Chairman of the County Council, and who takes a deep interest in all educational matters, will see that this great Metropolis takes advantage of the Act, as our great provincial industrial centres certainly will.

I understand that hon. Gentlemen who represent boroughs in counties are very anxious that power should be conferred upon the County Council to pay any money which they may contribute towards technical education to the governing authority of a town or urban district instead of to the schools in those areas. Therefore, I propose—

"That the County Council may make any such contribution by giving the amount thereof to any Council or Urban Sanitary Authority in their county for the purpose of the same being applied by such Council or Authority under the Technical Instruction Act, 1889, over and above any sum raised by rate by such Council or Authority."

I think those words would only enable the County Council to make one contribution to one authority.

I was going to point out that the words appear to mean that the contribution shall be made only where a rate has been raised.

I think it will meet the objection of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) if I insert the words "the amount, or any part of the amount."

The point I put was that the contribution might be regarded as necessarily one in aid.

I do not think that would be so. This is "over and above" the amount raised by rate. It does not imply that they must raise a rate.

I confess it seems to me that is so. I do not know whether it is the intention of the Government.

No.

That is the meaning of the words "may (contribute in addition to the sum which the Council give." You can only give when a sum has been already raised. I am afraid that has been already done under the first part of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. I read it that there must be a sum raised by the rate; and, unless something had been raised by the rate, there could be nothing "over and above" that.

It can be altered in another place.

It is important that it should not be made to depend on the raising of a rate. I know-some places where the Local Authorities would be extremely slow to levy a rate, perhaps not for many years, and I hope the County Council will be enabled to make the grant without that condition.

I hope the House will allow the Amendment to be put in this form—

"The County Council may make any such contribution by giving such amount or any part of that amount to any Council or Urban Sanitary Authority in that county for the purpose of the sum being applied by such Council or Authority under the Technical Instruction Act, 1889, over and above any sum which can be raised by rate by such Council or Authority."

I am afraid that my objection still applies to the first part, that as the words now run they confine the contribution to one contribution.

I will take care to see that it is set right.

As already has been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Intermediate Education Act has worked exceedingly well in Wales, though in the poorer districts difficulty has been experienced in obtaining the necessary funds. That difficulty will now be got over now this money is to be provided. But I would point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in connection with the Beer and Spirit Duty, that Wales does not get her fair proportion. The population of England is 27,000,000, and of Wales and Monmouth 1,700,000. The sum which England gets is £709,000, and Wales £34,000—or England gets 6¼d. and Wales 4¾d.—a very considerable difference, considering the smallness of the sum. Wales really ought to get £44,000.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help expressing a sanguine hope and expectation that the Government, having treated in so conciliatory a spirit the claims of England and Wales, will now proceed to regard our claims in the same favourable light. We have to bear in mind the very extraordinary indications of Scotch political and parliamentary feeling which the divisions taken in Committee disclosed. On two main propositions in opposition to the scheme of the Government we find, in one case, the Amendment supported by 42 to 14 of Scotch Members, and in the other by 44 to 11. We can hardly, therefore, he supposed unduly obstinate or persistent if we take this opportunity of inviting the House and the Government to reconsider the situation. The hon. Member for Roxburghshire scouted the idea that the vote of the majority of Scotch Members ought to be regarded, and I am not saying for one moment that Irish and English Members ought to bow to that majority. That would be simply absurd, but I do think that some deference ought to be paid to such a remarkable expression of opinion. Now, the Amendment which I am going to move places the issue between us in a very straight way. On the one hand it is relief of the rates, and on the other free education. I will content myself by saying, in regard to the relief of the rates, that there are four objections to which that disposition of this money is open. In the first place, the money will be handed over to the authorities as a vague kind of subsidy with no guarantee for its economical administration. Then, the relief of rates has not been asked for by the people of Scotland. My hon. Friend brought forward again the other day his old friend the blacksmith, and he said that the abolition of fees in primary schools would be a good thing in large towns, but was there nothing to be done for the relief of small ratepayers? What I would point out to my hon. Friend is this, that he greatly exaggerates the benefit to be conferred on the blacksmiths. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen showed that the money to be given, if divided, would only be 3d. in the year in the greater part of the constituencies, and 6d. in others, and the amount of money given in the counties would be larger than in the boroughs. But I suppose the blacksmith is subject to the ordinary incidents of human life, and that he has his share of children, and in that respect there is no comparison between the benefit conferred by the proposal of the Government and the one I support by my Amendment. My last objection to the propesal is that the great bulk of the money will go in all probability to the owners of the soil, and not to the occupiers. We must recognise the undoubted feeling of the Scotch people in favour of education. They are not possessed, as some others are, with any dread of over-education. They are not afraid of the children of the humbler classes being educated, as it is called, above their station. That, I believe, is at the bottom of a great deal of the resistance to the policy of free education which exists in England. But there is no trace of any such feeling among the great body of the Scotch people. We claim that primary education shall be free all along the line. The Chancellor of the Exchequer with some plausibility taunted us with lack of faith in the love of our countrymen for education. He says it is a poor compliment to pay them to say they will be deterred by the imposition of a fee from having their children educated in the higher standards. If it is said that the Scotch people, since they value education so highly, will not be deterred from continuing their children at school by the imposition of a fee, I reply that that is no argument for adding to the temptation by imposing a fee. We ought, I say, to encourage the idea that the same moral obligation rests upon the parent to send his children to school in the voluntary as in the compulsory standards. The latter standards represent merely the minimum of education which is regarded as necessary in the interests of society. But the best answer to that argument is to be found in the Report of the Scotch Education Department for this year, which complains of the very evil which the Scotch Members wish to remedy, namely, that the attendance becomes irregular the moment the voluntary or higher standards are reached. In 1888 there were 61,612 scholars in Standard V., but in 1889 there were only 28,939 in the higher standards. Now, the Scotch Members wish to remove the discouragement to parents against keeping their children at school when they reach the higher standards, by getting rid of the fees now charged. I have in my hand a letter received by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, which puts our case very clearly. The writer, Mr. W. Alexander, headmaster of Leith Walk Public School, the largest Board school in Edinburgh, says that, during the past two years, the average attendance in that school has been 1,472, and the grants earned £1,543 in one year and £1,545 in the other. He continues—

"The Board do not pay us on result, but give all the teachers a fixed salary. I mention this to show that there is no self-interest in our wishing to have the upper standards made free. In my school I have 120 pupils in Standard V., and 80 in Examination 6. My experience this year has been that these standards have melted away, and will continue to disintegrate, in the course of the year, much more than in former years, and solely because no sooner do the children pass out of Standard V. than a fee is charged. Freeing the compulsory standards, a good thing in itself, has, indirectly, done harm. It has created in the minds of most parents the idea that their children have got a complete education in those standards, whereas they have only got the barest necessaries of the elements of education. The Sixth Standard and Examination 6 are the crowning of the whole. The freeing of the compulsory standards has created a gap which did not exist before, but which the freeing of the voluntary standards would have filled up and restored to the former statu quo. The people are greatly governed by habit, and in money matters more than in most things, and this habit of paying nothing until the Sixth Standard is reached has made them indifferent to keeping the child any longer at school. The argument that the Scotch people have always valued education so much that they are willing to pay for it, is not to the point here. The conditions have been altered, and with the new condition of things', new habits are formed. Will it not be possible, even yet, to carry this proposal on Report? This is the critical year. If the Government can be got to yield, the tendency to withdraw scholars from the higher standards will be checked in time, but if it goes on the difficulty will be all the greater when the concession is made afterwards."

I took but little part in the discussion when the education question was being debated in Committee, because I thought the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate had very fully answered the objections made to the Government proposals on this side of the House. But now, Sir, that the question has been again raised, I crave the indulgence of the House while I endeavour to state as briefly as possible the reasons why I prefer the Government proposal and why I cannot support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs. We have heard very frequently in this Debate that the people of Scotland are very much in favour of education. I entirely agree with that sentiment. We are also told that they are very much in favour, not only of freeing compulsory education, but that they think the burden of education, instead of devolving to some extent on the parents as hitherto, should be entirely paid for out of taxation, either local or Imperial. Some Members have gone so far as to say that the people of Scotland are hostile to the idea of fees being paid by wealthy parents able and willing to pay. I do not profess to speak for the people of Scotland, but I may be allowed to indicate my views on the state of public opinion in that country. I have not seen in the public prints reports of meetings and discussions such as justify the statements of some hon. Members as to what public opinion there is. I think the people of Scotland are prepared to accept the principle that the fees for education in the compulsory standards should be paid out of taxation, but I do not think they are prepared to accept without further discussion and consideration the principle that the fees in the High Schools of Scotland and in the Universities should also be paid out of taxation, either local or Imperial. That is the view which I understood the Member for Stirling Burghs enunciated.

I never said anything of the kind, nor did I say anything that could bear that interpretation.

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he and his Party were in favour of the widest diffusion of knowledge at the expense of the rates.

No, not at the expense of the rates.

Then the right hon. Gentleman was merely stating a platitude which hon. Members on both sides of the House are prepared to support. All the Members for Scotland are in favour of the widest diffusion of knowledge. The question which is at issue is whether that knowledge is to be paid for by the parents of the children, or whether it is to be paid for out of taxation, either local or Imperial. If the right hon. Gentleman will say he did not mean that it should be paid for out of taxation, I do not think there is any difference between us on the point.

I said nothing as to the payment out of the public money of fees, or of any other expenses in Universities, or in the case of middle-class education. I was dealing only with the fees for primary education, and I referred in my speech to the extraordinary zeal always shown by the Scotch people for the widest diffusion of knowledge, as showing that they would have no jealousy of the extension of primary education to any length we chose to go.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say at the public expense?

For primary education, certainly.

Now, there are 21 schools in my county giving primary education to the fullest extent without payment of fees, and with the additional grant proposed to be handed over, I fully believe that the whole of the schools in that county will be able to give free education. I will now deal with the proposal of the Government. During last Session a sum of £250,000 was voted for the reduction of school fees in Scotland, the method of distribution being left to be decided by the Scotch Education Department. That Department came to the conclusion that the money should be divided by means of a uniform Capitation Grant on the average school attendance. I do not see how it could have been proceeded with on different lines without inflicting great injustice on many districts. My hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen, who has devoted so much valuable attention to this question, asserts that the high fees which are charged in some districts are due to the action of the School Boards in saving the rates; and that those bodies, instead of levying a fair amount of rates upon the ratepayers, have chosen to exact very high school fees, and thus saved the rates. I believe the mode of distribution adopted by the Department was universally approved in Scotland and by this House. What is the new proposal the Government is now making? They find that the sum of £283,000 would, taking Scotland as a whole, pay the fees in all the compulsory standards. That is about £40,000 beyond what was previously voted, and they now propose to make this further grant of £40,000 to provide for the payment of fees in the compulsory standards. They have also undertaken to lay on the Table of the House a Minute of the Scotch Education Department providing that the money shall be distributed in the same way as the previous grant. What will be the result? In my own constituency I find that in the School Board schools there are 21 schools in which no fees whatever are charged. Our portion of the additional grant of £40,000 will be sufficient to increase the Capitation Grant to about 11s. per head, and that sum I believe will be adaquate to abolish school fees in all the schools. Therefore, we have no more to ask to have free education in Forfarshire. In addition to that, my constituency will now receive a share of the £50,000 which is to be applied in reduction of the rates. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling Burghs that the people of Scotland are very tolerant of taxation, that they are willing to pay when they see there is good reason for the payment, and that the money is economically and judiciously expended. But it has always been the characteristic of the people of Scotland that they have strong ideas of economy. I cannot believe that they have now lost those ideas, and that they will not avail themselves with satisfaction of this assistance which it is proposed to give in aid of local taxation. Turning now to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs, my right hon. Friend has referred to the Education Statistics, and has found that the total amount paid in school fees in Scotland is between£330,000 and £340,000. He says that if the Government, instead of giving the £50,000 in relief of local taxation, will hand it over for educational purposes it will be ample to give free education to Scotland, and to abolish fees altogether. But if the right hon. Gentleman is going to abolish school fees with this sum he must do it on a different principle from that which has been adopted in the distribution of money by the Education Department. He cannot abolish school fees and distribute this money in the form of a uniform Capitation Grant. He must distribute it amongst the School Boards in proportion to the fees previously exacted. The sum at his disposition would be equal to an average Capitation Grant of 13s. But 13s. would not suffice to pay the high fees exacted in some places, such as in Glasgow, for example, where they amount to 17s. 6d. or 18s. per head. The right hon. Gentleman would have to reverse the policy of the Education Department, or the sum he would want to entirely abolish fees would amount to £450,000, instead of £340,000. He has to level up School Boards from almost nothing per scholar to 18s. He must distribute a sum of money equal to this to poor schools, before he can abolish school fees in Scotland on the principle adopted by the Education Department. In my own constituency there are 21 schools which are already without any fees, and I fully expect the additional £40,000 now voted will raise the Capitation Grant to 11s., and will enable the whole of the fees in my constituency to be abolished. But, according to the right hon. Gentleman, my constituency would receive no further amount of money; it would all go to the large constituencies, such as Glasgow and Edinburgh. The problem to solve is, how the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) is going to abolish school fees throughout Scotland with this money, on the principle which has been adopted by the Education Department. I know, in my own constituency, the result would be we should get no portion of this £50,000, but it would be devoted to other parts of Scotland, in order that high school fees might be abolished. So far as my own constituency is concerned, it would deprive them of any share of this £50,000, giving it to Glasgow and Edinburgh. For these reasons I do submit that any proposal, to divide the money according to fees exacted by School Boards, which is the only way it appears to me the right hon. Gentleman can carry out his object of abolishing school fees, would be a great injustice to those parts of the country which have levied high rates and kept down fees. These are some of the reasons which induce me to prefer the proposal of the Government. My constituents, under this proposal, will have full payment of school fees, and they will have, in addition, a share in the reduction of local rates out of this £50,000. If the right hon. Gentleman can continue these benefits, and, at the same time, abolish payment of fees in Glasgow and Edinburgh, I have no objection. I shall have much pleasure in supporting the proposal of the Government.

Certainly, the last Division shows that the House is not unfavourably inclined to the views of Scotch Members, and I cannot help hoping that even yet, at the last moment, the Government will not persist in the disastrous course of treating Scotland in a way altogether different from the other parts of the United Kingdom, paying no regard to the advice of her Representatives as regards the application of her share of the funds. The Government have, I think, given Scotch Members some reason to complain that after the careful speech, no one can say it was a Party speech, in which my right hon. Friend went into the educational part of the question, the Government sat in silence and allowed a Division to be taken. My right hon. Friend dealt ably with practical details, quoting opinions of experts, and I do think, under the circumstances, for the Front Bench to treat his arguments with absolute silence and contempt is—well, a course of conduct it is not easy properly to describe. I shall detain the House but a few minutes with the Amendment I now have to propose. It is perfectly simple, and I wish the House to understand how the case lies. Last year we voted £240,000 for application in Scotland to the reduction of fees, and there was a difference in two respects from the arrangement of this year; one was that School Boards were left in the position of being residuary legatees instead of being left a definite sum. The other difference is, there was no attempt made, in either the Act of Parliament or the Minute of the Education Department, which applied that Act, to run counter to the feeling in Scotland by drawing a mischievous distinction between compulsory standards and voluntary standards in the same school. It is not much to ask that we should have our £40,000 not clogged with a condition which we say, on educational grounds, is mischievous in Scotland. I hope the House will agree to omit the words, and leave the money in the same position as the money voted last year. It is the less concession because, upon the Lord Advocate's own showing, there are only 98 schools in all Scotland where the compulsory standards are not now free. Therefore, there is this sum of £40,000 going to Scotland, and going to be distributed, as it was last year, throughout all the districts, including 3,000 schools, in which compulsory standard fees no longer exist. And yet we are to say it is only fur the compulsory standards. It is most illusory that an Act of Parliament should be passed for devoting £40,000 to the compulsory standard fees, and yet we are told there are only 98 schools where the abolition has not been carried out. If the money were to go to these 98 schools, it would be an extravagant grant of £400 or more to each. But that is not what is proposed, the distribution is to be made in proportion to average attendance. For instance, in For far, to which the last speaker has referred, the effect will simply be that the money will go to the schools according to the number of children, and be applied as the managers think fit in improving the educational arrangements, in raising the masters' salaries, or in reducing the school rate. We are told, indeed, that these words are, in fact, inoperative. With these words in, or leaving them out, we are told, on the high authority of the legal adviser of the Government for Scotland, it will be perfectly competent and legal for a School Board to take their full share nominally for the compulsory standards, and so pass on the money they derive from the Probate Duty and from the rates to relieve the voluntary standards. Therefore, it is not a question of substance; it is a question of form, but it is misleading to the people of Scotland to put such words into the Bill, and it is the more vexatious as there are no such words in the Act of last year. I hope the Government will have the grace to make this small concession to us.

I rise, not to argue this question, because the Government are not here to argue the question at all. During all the time that I have been in Parliament I have never seen a piece of more unexampled insolence. ["Order, order!"] unexampled insolence—

I rise to order, Sir. I ask you, Sir, whether the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to use that term in this House?

Insolence is a word which I do not think should be employed. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not insist on the use of the word.