I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if there is any foundation for the statement, made by Major General C. E. Webber, R.E., in a pamphlet which has been sent to Members of Parliament—

"That Her Majesty's Government has given practical encouragement to the project called the South Kensington and Paddington Subway Tramway."

The statement referred to in the question does not accurately represent the course taken by the Government with regard to the South Kensington and Paddington Tramway Bill—now withdrawn. The scheme had, I think, some good points, especially in so far as it aimed at providing better communication between the South Kensingtom Railway Station and the Albert Hall, and other public buildings in that neighbourhood, and no doubt the promoters believed that it would minister greatly to the wants of the public; but so far a it affected Kensington Gardens the view I took was that the making of the tramway would cause considerable inconvenience to the public during the time of its construction, and must involve the immediate loss of some fine trees, and serious risk to others, and that it would require a very strong case of public advantage to be made out on their side in order to overcome these objections. I was in correspondence in this sense with the promoters when the Bill was withdrawn; and I had not at any time undertaken to withhold opposition if the Bill should go to a Committee, much less did I ever promise to support it.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the difficulty of providing for an accurate revision of the County Electors' Lists, and to the probable addition to county expenditure and possible breakdown in the proceedings for revising the Lists before November 1st, he will consider the advisability of postponing the County-Council elections to 1st January, 1892?

When I intimated to the House my intention of withdrawing the Registration Acceleration Bill I stated that I would consider what other proposal could be made to meet the difficulties in connection with the preparation of the Register. I have given the matter my consideration, with the result that I have had a Bill drawn postponing the elections for County Councils to January 15.

Will that refer also to the election of the London County Council?

Yes.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that students in residential training colleges have little more than four months to prepare for the matriculation examination at the London University, whereas students in the new day training colleges have the full academic year for the same purpose; and whether he proposes to remedy this apparent injustice?

I am aware of the apparent anomaly; but it must not be forgotten that the day students have to pass their examination in technical subjects also in June, whereas the residential students have theirs deferred until December. It may be said, therefore, that although day students have the advantage on the matriculation examination, the residential students have the advantage on the certificate examination, as a whole, and can devote the first part of the year chiefly to academic, and the second to technical subjects.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the prospectus of the Cardiff Day Training College, stating that—

"In respect of the subjects in which normal students receive instruction in common with other students of the college, the Education Department accepts the results of the sessional examination conducted by the professors of the college"

The Education Department recognise in day training colleges examinations by the examiners of the college, usually the college professors, in certain subjects, but the papers will be sent to the Department, and the marks will be re-I assessed, so as to bring all students as nearly as possible into line. It may eventually be necessary to ask the colleges to appoint outside examiners, and also to submit the papers that are set to the Inspector of the district; but before laying down any rule, it has been thought expedient to wait for the experience of the first examinations in June and December.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the expenses of a Sanitary Authority incurred in acquiring land for allotments, which are required by Section two (2) of "The Allotments Act, 1887," to be recouped out of the rents, include the annual instalments of the principal of the purchase-money, or only the interest payable on the purchase-money?

The Local Government Board have been advised by the Law Officers that the expenses referred to in Sub-section 2 of Section 2 of the Allotments Act, 1887, include the interest payable upon the purchase-money, but not the annual instalments of principal or payments to a sinking fund in cases where lands has been acquired by means of a loan repayable by instalments.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the cost of improving a main road or county bridge can be defrayed partly at the cost of a county and partly at the cost of the highway district or parish in which the road or bridge is situate; if so, what authority can rate the district or parish for such purpose; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of amending the Law on the first opportunity, in order to facilitate such equitable and convenient arrangements?

As regards a county bridge, under ordinary circumstances a Highway Authority would not be empowered to contribute towards the construction, or maintenance of such a bridge. Where, however, an entirely new structure is proposed, it might be practicable, under certain circumstances, to adopt the principle of joint contribution by the Highway Authority building the bridge and the County Council contributing to the cost under Section 22 of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878. With regard to a main road, I do not think there is any way in which a Highway Authority can directly contribute towards the cost of the improvement of a main road. Although I am not prepared to give any undertaking as to proposing legislation on these matters, the point is one of which I will make a note in the event of any legislation on the subject of roads being proposed.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to that portion of the Annual Report of the Director of the National Gallery for 1890, in which he calls attention to the crowded state of the Gallery, and the impossibility of maintaining a systematic classification of the pictures until further accommodation is provided, and expresses a hope that the Treasury will not long delay to carry out the promise made by the First Commissioner of Works in 1889, that, inasmuch as the ground acquired for the extension of the National Gallery had been used for the National Portrait Gallery, the Government would, if more space were required for the National Gallery, remove St. George's Barracks elsewhere; whether the crowded state of the rooms, and the impossibility of hanging more pictures, now suggests an enlargement of the Gallery; and whether he will consider the advisability of removing St. George's Barracks, and thus ensure the safety of the National collection, which is now placed in the closest proximity to buildings and warehouses filled with inflammable goods, and exposed to constant risk of fire?

I have read the Report of the Director of the National Gallery for 1890. The Government will, of course, be prepared to carry out the promise I made on their behalf in 1889—that, when they are satisfied that more space is required for the extension of the National Gallery, it should be found in the adjoining barrack-yard; and I am sure that any representation made to the Government by the Trustees of the National Gallery will receive very careful consideration. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that in 1887 a very large extension of the exhibition galleries was completed, at the cost of £50,000, by which five new rooms, a vestibule, and a staircase were added to the hanging space. No doubt it would be better if the galleries were entirely detached from the barracks, which at one point they now adjoin, but this matter has not been overlooked; and some years ago the divisional wall between the two buildings, was carried up to a considerable height above the roof of the National Gallery, and all other possible precautions will continue to be taken for protection from fire.

Is it not a fact that portions of the barracks are actually in contact with the Turner room, which contains some of the greatest Art treasures in the Gallery; and whether two fires have not already taken place in barracks in or near London?

It is true that at one point the two buildings are very close together; but the precautions I have spoken of have already been taken, and we are at present considering a scheme for providing a better supply of water in case of fire.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can state when the postponed surveys on the 1–2,500 scale maps of the six Scotch counties, Fife and Kinross, Mid and East Lothian, Kirkcudbright and Wigtown, will be undertaken; and if he can inform the House what length of time it will take to complete their survey in Scotland on the 1–2,500 scale?

The arrangement for the re-survey of the six Scotch counties on the 1–2,500 scale is to employ upon it four of the field divisions now engaged in re-surveying Lancashire and Yorkshire on the same scale. One of these divisions will commence work in Edinburghshire during the course of the present year, and the others, I hope, next year. The work in Lancashire and Yorkshire has been so heavy, and the town areas have been so large, that the re-survey has taken longer than was expected; it is, therefore, not possible at present to say when the three divisions will commence work in Scotland. No accurate estimate could at present be made of the date when the re-survey of the Scotch counties will be completed, but when once taken up it will be pushed forward as quickly as possible. The levellers are already at work in advance of the re-survey.

Do I understand there is no prospect of the survey of Fife being completed within a measurable time?

I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer I have given.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the evidence at the inquest on George Wells, a platelayer of the North London Railway Company, who was killed at Highbury Station at 9 a.m. on 6th February, from which it appears that Wells came on duty at 6 a.m. on 5th February, worked till 5.30 p.m., resumed duty at 11 p.m. on the 5th, and would, if he had not been killed, have continued on duty till 5.30 p.m. on the 6th, and thus was on duty no less than 21½ hours, divided by an interval of only 5½ hours' rest, up to the time of his death, and would, if the accident had not occurred, have been on duty for 30 hours, with an interval of only 5½ hours; and whether the Board of Trade have made representations to the North London Railway Company, with a view to the prevention of such excessive hours of work; and whether he will consider the advisability of requiring Railway Companies, in the Reports they send in of fatalities and injuries occurring to individual workmen on their lines, to state the number of hours at which such workmen have been employed previous to the occurrences?

My attention has been called to the fatal accident referred to, and I have received a communication from the Railway Company on the subject. The company state that on February 5th the deceased platelayer had been working at his ordinary duties from 7 in the morning until 5 o'clock in the afternoon; but, after having rested until half-past 11, was specially employed on overtime in a relaying operation, which could not be carried out until after the passenger traffic had ceased. They attribute the accident to failure on the part of another company's driver to give warning. I shall be glad to show the hon. Member the correspondence on the subject. I will consider the question of the Reports.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government are prepared to take steps for giving practical effect to the recommendation of the Accidents in Mines Commission that there should be—

"An official establishment of some permanent arrangement by which the merits of inventions and suggestions affecting the working of mines may he investigated promptly, thoroughly, and authoritatively."

I do not think that this suggestion is one which can be usefully carried out. Experience shows that the value of scientific discoveries is best tested by actual use and through the operation of a free and open market. I always communicate to the Inspectors, and through them to the mining industry, any new invention which appears to secure greater safety in the working of coal mines; but colliery owners and managers would not readily accept as authoritative the decisions of an official Board of Investigation.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will obtain and lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Belgian and Austro-Hungarian tariffs for goods and passengers on the State Railways in those countries, showing the rates and distances in English money and miles, and a copy of the State Returns for 1888, showing the financial working of the railways in those countries?

I have not the information referred to by the hon. Member; but I am in communication with the Foreign Office, with a view of ascertaining whether all or any of it can be procured.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state or give as a Return the quantity of game imported from Norway during the first quarter of 1890?

The import lists do not distinguish game from poultry. The imports of game and poultry from Norway in the first quarter of 1890 amounted to £3,246 in value, of which the great bulk is believed to have consisted of game.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of "James Holmes v. Frederic Hardwick" in the County Court of Leicester, 2nd December, 1890, in which a claim was made for penalties under "The Hosiery Manufacture (Wages) Act, 1874;" whether he has observed that, notwithstanding the provisions of the above Act for the payment of—

"The full and entire amount of all wages, the earnings of labour in the hosiery manufacture …… without any deduction or stop page of any description whatsoever,"

I have seen the case of "Holmes v. Hardwick," which was tried in the Leicester County Court on December 2 last, and, as I understand it, the deductions then in question were held not to be in fact frame rents. There was consequently no evasion of Sections 2 and 7 of the Act in question. The Judge offered to state a case to decide the point. The statute in question appears to me sufficiently stringent and penal, and I am not prepared to amend it.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there is any intention to adopt the recommendation made in paragraph 25, page 9, of the Fourth Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, namely—

"That there should be one Foreign Service, entered by limited competition, and on the same examination as that which now obtains for the Foreign Office;"

There will in future be one examination qualifying for both the Foreign Office and the Diplomatic Services. Political economy will be omitted from the examination. The subjects of examination are settled by the Secretary of State.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Secretary for Scotland has been called to the dissatisfaction which exists among the police force of Greenock at the scale of pensions awarded to them under the Act of last year; and whether, in drawing up that scale, any consideration was given to the fact that in Greenock alone in Scotland a police pension fund, showing a large surplus largely constituted of contributions from the men, existed at the date of the passing of the Act; and, if not, if the Scotch Office will consider whether the members of the Greenock force cannot in some way be recouped for the exceptional sacrifices which for many years they were called upon to make?

Yes, Sir; the Secretary for Scotland has received representations showing the existence of some dissatisfaction among the members of the Force; but after giving the most careful attention to the question he does not think there is any real ground for complaint. A reference to the Act, and to the evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Bill, will show that the existence of the Police Pension Fund at Greenock was taken into full consideration by Parliament when the Bill was under discussion; and there appears to be no reason to think that any departure is now necessary from the decision deliberately arrived at for dealing with the fund.

There is a strong feeling on the subject, and, therefore, I should like to know whether the decision of the Department is final?

When the Select Committee was sitting gentlemen were sent up to represent the interests of the Force. The case was very carefully considered, and I think if any dissatisfaction exists it is due to a misunderstanding of the results that were brought out in the inquiry.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, considering that the Post Office has never proposed to undertake the so-called "Electric Call System," or the carriage of letters by special messengers, as proposed by the Boy Messengers Company, it is his intention to avail himself of monopolies vested in the Post Office, but not utilised by that Department, to prevent the establishment by private enterprise of services which would tend to the convenience of the public? and as I understand the Postmaster General has it in contemplation to institute some new Messenger Service, possibly he can give the House some information in regard to that Service.

had the following question on the Paper:—To ask the Postmaster General whether it is true that he intends to stop the carrying of written communications by the Boy Messengers Company, Limited; and, if so, whether it will be legal for the public to send those communications by Commissionaires, cabs, and private messengers?

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is true that arrangements have already been made whereby letters may be taken to railway booking offices, and forwarded thence at a cost of 3d.; and whether these facilities will be accorded equally to the Boy Messengers and District Messengers Companies?

I have given directions for the establishment of a service which will, I believe, meet such public demand as exists for the more rapid transmission of single letters. I have to point out that it is my duty to protect the public interests entrusted to the Post Office by Act of Parliament, and I cannot, therefore, without dereliction of duty, allow organised services for the collection and delivery of letters or the transmission of telegrams to be set up side by side with those of the Department. In reply to the question of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Carmarthen), I have to say I am advised that the conveyance and delivery of letters by the company is illegal, and if continued it will be my duty to take such proceedings as may be necessary to prevent infringement of the law. A person wishing to send a letter on his own private affairs may legally employ a special messenger on his own account. I hope the new service will be in operation at the latest by Wednesday in next week, and it will consist of boy messengers, who will be attached to all the principal post offices in London, where their services can be requisitioned, as they are now at the offices such as are open of the Boy Messenger Company. As we have a very large staff of telegraphic messengers always on hand waiting at those offices it is believed we shall be able to render very much more efficient service with a small addition to the present force than that which the Boy Messenger Company is at the present time offering to the public. In regard to the question of the noble Lord the Member for Hertford, I have to say that an arrangement has been made with the Railway Companies to enable letters to be conveyed by railway which cannot be conveyed by post—that is, letters posted after the time when the mails are sent off. This arrangement does not apply to the Boy and District Messengers Companies, as their operations will be in competition with the service we propose to establish.

Will any arrangements answering to the electric call system be made?

The matter is under the consideration of my expert advisers, and it is hoped and believed that some such service can be established.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the system he proposes to establish will be extended to provincial towns?

Will there be a number of boys always at the service of the public; and will it be necessary to come to Parliament for a Supplementary Vote?

I do not think it will be necessary to come to Parliament for a Supplementary Vote. As regards the question put by my hon. Friend behind me, I shall be very glad, if the experiment succeeds in London, to consider how far and in what cases it may be introduced in the large provincial towns.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the paragraph in Saturday's Times, saying—

"There is reason to believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not propose-to give legislative effect to the suggestion that private banks should be compelled to publish periodical balance sheets,"

I believe it will be unnecessary to exercise any compulsory powers as to the more frequent publication of balance-sheets, as I have reason to believe that the Joint Stock Banks will themselves act in this direction. I have heard rumours to the effect that my hon. Friend informed the banks that they need not fear that I should be able to bring any compulsion to bear on them; and I must not be lured by the question into any declaration that in no case would I ask Parliament for compulsory powers; but I shall be most gratified if the Joint Stock Banks should, as I expect they will, meet public opinion and the circumstances of the day of their own accord.

I also wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state when the present agreement with the Bank of England expires; what are its terms and conditions; whether he proposes to make any change in the agreement now to be made; and for how many years he proposes to make it?

The Bank of England holds its banking privileges, including issue of notes, upon condition of making certain payments to the Exchequer, under the Bank Act of 1844, but subject to redemption upon 12 months' notice and on repayment by Parliament of the debt due by Government to the Bank. The Bank of England manages the Public Debt at certain rates of remuneration fixed by the Act of 1861. These rates continued in force until the 5th of April, 1886, and thenceforward until Parliament shall otherwise direct. The Bank of England transacts the ordinary banking business of the Government, having the use in return of the Government balances. This agreement can be revised at any time. I have at present under consideration the arrangements between the Government and the Bank.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government of Newfoundland will be directly represented at the arbitration on the "French Shore Difficulty" by a delegate from the Colony or only through the Foreign Office?

Her Majesty's Government have invited the Government of Newfoundland to name a delegate with full local knowlege to represent the colony on the Board of Arbitration, but no final answer has yet been received.

I understand that the sanction of Parliament will be necessary in regard to the arbitration, and I wish to know when that sanction will be asked for?

The attention of Parliament will be invited to the subject in the course of a few days, but not in this House.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the measures taken against gambling at horse races in France, alleged to be occasioned by the great development of such gambling among all classes; and whether the Government will consider the propriety of taking measures to put down the evil in Great Britain?

I can only repeat the answer which I gave on the 5th inst.—that my attention has been called to this matter, and that the Government, while they will do their best to enforce the existing law, do not contemplate legislation on this subject.

I beg to ask the first Commissioner of Works if he can arrange for a bookstall somewhere in the Lobby for the convenience of Members wishing to buy and post newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, &c.?

In answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman, I do not think I can arrange for a bookstall in the Lobby for the convenience of Members wishing to buy and post newspapers, magazines, and pamphlets. I do not know of any place in the Lobby that would be suitable for the establishment of such a bookstall. On some nights the Lobby is crowded, and the bookstall might be an inconvenience.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether King Ja Ja has been removed from St. Vincent to Barbados; whether his servants refused to accompany him, and consequently caused him great inconvenience and annoyance; whether his wife also declined to be transported to Barbados; and whether, considering that it: is now some seven months since he was informed that it was Her Majesty's gracious will and pleasure to order his release and re-conveyance to Opobo, he can fix a date for his return to his own country?

The Governor of Barbados telegraphed on the 11th inst that Ja Ja had arrived much improved in health. We have not heard any particulars. It is impossible to say at what date the political situation at Opobo will admit of his return. He will be sent back as soon as the circumstances are sufficiently favourable.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to an article in the Journalist of 7th March, in which it is stated that, without making any concession to journalists, if he would arrange to allow figures, which take only a tenth of the time to write and the Department much less time to transmit, to be telegraphed as cheaply as the words which spell the figures, both journalists and the Department would be benefited, as the work would be done by each in less time, the transmission of Press messages would be accelerated, and the Department would receive the same payment for considerably less labour; and whether he will consider the expediency of giving effect to this recommendation?

I have read the article in question, and I find that both the newspaper and the hon. Member have shifted their ground. What they originally sought was the assimilation of the method of counting figures in Press telegrams with that which obtains in regard to ordinary telegrams. A concession was involved in such assimilation, and I was not prepared to grant it. The suggestion now made is, that a new method of counting should be adopted. I have considered this method, but I do not regard it as being preferable to the present one, which affords greater security for accuracy in transmission.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Painted Hall at Greenwich is being stripped of the greater part of the pictures and relics which form the chief attraction to visitors; whether it is also intended to remove the principal models from the College buildings; and when the several objects removed will be replaced?

In the unavoidable absence of my noble Friend at the head of the Admiralty, I beg to state that a considerable number of the pictures, relics, and naval models now at Greenwich will be moved to London to form part of the collection to be shown at the Royal Naval Exhibition. From the liberality with which private owners have responded to the appeal made to them, that section of the Exhibition relating to naval pictures and portraits, marine models, and relics, promises to be quite unique from its magnitude and unbroken historical continuity. My hon. Friend could hardly expect that, when private individuals are thus bestirring themselves to assist the Naval Exhibition, the one great national collection of naval pictures and models should not contribute its share, especially when the inhabitants of Greenwich have in ordinary years the benefit of a gratuitous access to the only naval exhibition of pictures and models in the country supported by national funds. The pictures and models will return to Greenwich when the Exhibition is over.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the questions of co-partnership and profit-sharing will be included in the scope of the Reference to the Royal Commission on Labour?

I must ask the hon. Member to wait till the terms of Reference are before the House.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether his attention has been called to a letter in to-day's Times from Lieutenant-General Newdegate, Governor and Commander-in-Chief of Bermuda, exonerating the men of the 1st. Battalion of the Leicestershire Regiment from the disgraceful charges made against them sometime ago in a Dalziel telegram from New York? I have thought it right, Sir, to ask this question publicly in the House in the interests of a most gallant and deserving regiment; and I would venture further to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has received any additional information in relation to this matter?

I have seen the statement referred to by my hon. Friend, and from this, as well as from other information which has reached me, I am glad to be able to repeat what I have already stated in this House on a telegraphic despatch, that it is clear that what I then said was correct, and that the honour of a very distinguished regiment is entirely freed from an unfounded charge of insubordination.

I should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether I am right in understanding him to have said that the Lords' Amendments to the Tithes Bill will be taken on Thursday. I would also ask whether he can state what business will be taken on Friday?

I have every reason to hope that it will be possible to take the Lords' Amendments to the Tithes Bill on Thursday.

Will it be the first Order?

It will be substantially the first Order, although we may have to take one or two small matters before it. I shall, however, be able to make a positive statement tomorrow on the subject. Arrangements have been made by which we hope to get the Amendments made by the Lords printed and circulated to-morrow, or, at all events, made available to hon. Members at 12 o'clock. On Friday we shall proceed with the Bills which are on the Paper for to-day, and with other Bills.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say definitely when the Government will move the Speaker out of the Chair for the Civil Service Estimates?

I hope to do so on Monday, but we must take these measures by themselves first of all. One business must be finished before we go on with the other.

I rise to move the reduction of this amount by the nominal sum of £1,000 on the Vote to account which it embraces for Scotch Education. I do so for the purpose of obtaining from the Government an assurance that in the expenditure of this money they will take care that the control of Parliament over the finances of the nation shall not be set at naught, and that the law shall not be disregarded. I do so in consequence of a remarkable Report which has been made by the Auditor General on the Scotch Education Vote. According to the Education Act of 1870, which is stated by the Auditor General to be binding in Scotland, no school is eligible for the annual grant in which the ordinary payment for the scholar in respect of elementary education exceeds the sum of 9d. per week. A further definition in the Scotch Act excludes schools in which the major part of the education does not consist of elementary instruction, but instruction in Latin, Greek, mathematics, natural science, and generally the higher branches of knowledge, from being deemed to be primary schools, and enacts that they should be deemed to be higher class schools. Now the Auditor General explained in his Report that from certain circumstances that came under his notice he was led to suspect that a number of public schools in Scotland received a share of this education grant which did not come within the definition of primary schools for which the grant is intended. I believe that in some previous year the Auditor General brought the subject under the notice of the Committee upon Public Accounts. Friction has existed for some time between the Department of the Auditor General and the Scotch Office on the subject; but at all events, according to this Report, the matter has now been brought before Parliament, and is to be found set forth in the Appropriation Accounts. It appears that a stated case on the subject was laid before the English and Scotch law officers, and that on the 3rd of May last the opinion was pronounced by a majority of them to the effect that, though the average amount of fees paid afforded a guide for determining the scale of fees, it was a question to be determined in each particular instance by whether a large number of scholars did or did not pay more than 9d. a week. Immediately on this opinion of the Law Officers being placed before him, the Auditor General applied to the Scotch Office, and said that as a matter of fact was involved it would be necessary before he could pass the accounts that in many instances a joint investigation should be carried on between his own Department and the Scotch Office, and that the inquiry should be undertaken locally into the real facts of the case. The Scotch Office, however, refused to accede to this request. Later another request of the same kind was made to the Office, and on that occasion they acceded to it, under protest. But shortly afterwards the Office withdrew from their agreement to the proposal, and the matter was left standing where it was. The Auditor General has pointed out that by their withdrawal, as the Estimates have been prepared and his Report brought before Parliament, any possibility of investigation has been thrown over for a number of weeks or months, and the whole matter delayed for another year. Now, the Auditor General, although he was not able to get the facts of the case in a number of schools which he suspected, and where the returns were stigmatised by him as erroneous and misleading, examined for himself the prospectuses of a number of schools and the admissions and explanations sent up by them. In the cases put before him by the schools themselves he surcharged the grants in the case of 15 of them, and he said he could not pass grants to the extent of £12,000 odd in connection with a number of schools which in his view were not within the class of schools to which this grant in aid of primary education should be made. I know different views are held in this House as to whether it is desirable that those public School Board schools should be carried on in the style which the Auditor General refused to pass. The Auditor General tells us that in certain schools, of which he gives the prospectuses, a very efficient course of higher education is provided, with readings in the higher classics. I know many hon. Members consider that it is desirable this class of education should be encouraged from educational grants, while others hold a different opinion. I am not going into that question, how- ever. What I maintain is that it is a matter of Constitutional importance, when Parliament passes an Act prescribing the way in which certain money is to be expended, when the Government refer to their own Law Officers the interpretation of that Act of Parliament, and when it receives from them an explicit interpretation, that hon. Members should have a right to demand that the Government shall not go outside the law in giving away public money to purposes for which it has never been provided for by Parliament. To some of my Colleagues from Scotland it may not much matter if they get a little more out of the Imperial Treasury, but I do not regard the matter in that light at all. I know that some hon. Members from Scotland are so exclusively nationalist in their sympathies that if they could get an extra £15,000 out of the Treasury they would accept it with gratitude; but it must be remembered, in connection with this, that any unfair distribution of the ordinary grants to education in Scotland carries with it an unfair distribution of the extraordinary grant, which is limited in amount, and every school in Scotland not entitled to that grant which participates in it diminishes by that extent the amount divisible among the other schools legally entitled to participate. I have no desire to interfere with the discretion of the Committee on Public Accounts, or in any way to forestall its deliberations. My object in bringing forward this matter is a purely practical one. This is a Vote on Account, and it refers to money which will be distributed next year, and I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give a pledge, if the House grants this £100,000 on account, that until the question is settled no portion of it shall be allocated in any case in which the Auditor General has any doubt as to the legality of the grant. If the contention of the Auditor General is correct, those payments are illegal, and it would require an Act of Parliament to set the matter right. What I contend is that while the law remains as it is it should be administered. If, on the other hand, it is disputed that the law is as laid down by the Auditor General on the dictum of the majority of the Scotch and English Law Officers of the Crown, then I contend that, pending an investigation of the matter by the Committee on Public Accounts, and pending the submission of this House of some remedial proposal by the Government, no portion of the money should be paid in grants with regard to the legality of which the Auditor General has any doubt. I ask the Treasury to give that assurance, and beg to move the reduction of the Vote.

The hon. Member may rest assured that the matter will be carefully considered by the Treasury. There is no Parliamentary work which is more carefully done than this, and the special attention of the Public Accounts Committee will be drawn to the point.

The Accountant General has gone into elaborate detail to show that the School Board Returns are practically fallacious. The whole gist of the Report is that Returns are made which have the effect of deceiving him, and he asks that an officer of the Education Department and one from his own Department should be sent into the localities to inquire whether these Returns are correct or not. I venture to say that no Government Department would refuse such an appeal from the Accountant General; yet the Scotch Education Department refuse to assist in making such a local investigation. Why? Because they know that these Returns are fallacious, and that the Government have been defrauded by them. What interest can any Department of the Government have in refusing to make a local inquiry which would have no other effect than to show how the facts stand? There is no use in having an Accountant General at all if he is not to have the means of ascertaining whether the Returns presented to him are true or false. If it were only the Government that was being defrauded I do not suppose that any Scotch Member would say one word about it. It is not, however, a question in which the Government alone are concerned. In Glasgow the question assumes an important aspect. There the School Board says: "We have not got sufficient money from the Government to free all the compulsory standards, so that it is necessary to have certain fee-paying schools to make up the deficiency." In the case of the school at Lenzie the accommodation is for 560 children, and the average attendance is only 201. Why is that school more than half empty? It is on account of the school fees, which are so high that the children have to walk a mile and a half to go to the free school, and some of them find it cheaper to pay the railway fare to Glasgow than to attend the fee-paying school. It is, therefore, not merely a question of defrauding the Revenue, but one in which the people in the localities suffer. It is only those who can afford to pay exorbitant fees who can send their children to school in these localities. The refusal of the Scotch Education Department to accede to the Accountant General's request that a local investigation should take place, is due to the fact that they know perfectly well the effect would be to upset many of the Returns sent in, and to show that schools are receiving grants which they are not entitled to. I hope, therefore, whatever course the Scotch Education Department may have taken in the past, the Government will back up the Accountant General in this, that there is nothing to conceal, and that there is no reason why, if a fair inquiry is asked for, any obstacle should be imposed in the way of that inquiry.

The hon. Member is hardly well advised in referring to a question which is at present sub judice. There is no indisposition on the part of the Government to get at the true facts of the case, but it is not a matter of plain sailing. In the first place, it is not quite clear what set of facts it is necessary to have in order to ascertain whether a grant is earned and is payable by the Education Department or not. The wording of the Act is such that it gives rise to difference of opinion among the Law Officers, and a certain amount of consideration is required in order to arrive at a proper standard as to what school is and what is not entitled to receive the grant. One view is that a certain proportion of schools must pay less than 9d. before the school can receive the grant, but there are other competing views. Counter proposals were made in correspondence between the Education Department and the Accountant General, and no agreement was come to, but I have no doubt the merits of that difference will be stated before the Public Accounts Committee, who will form their own opinion. The question involves large public interests in the distribution of the grant, and deserves dispassionate consideration.

I think from the view expressed just now by the Secretary to the Treasury, it is obvious that this is not the moment to enter into a discussion of the merits of this question, but I think the hon. Member for Glasgow deserves credit for having brought this matter forward, because so strong a Report has not been made by the Controller and Auditor General to the House of Commons on any other subject in any part of the Estimates. My hon. Friend has long been opposed to these fee-paying schools as a matter of public policy, and he asked the House of Commons clearly to understand that, so far as judgment has hitherto been passed on the question in concern, the result of this defect in public policy has been that considerable financial abuses had occurred. We understand from the Secretary to the Treasury that the whole question will be inquired into by the Public Accounts Committee, and that it will be seen whether the Scotch Education Department should have responded to the invitation of the Comptroller and Auditor General and whether the Public Accounts Committee wish them to respond to it now. I was not surprised to hear that the Treasury pay the greatest respect to the opinions of the Committee on Public Accounts, and that there is not the least probability, or even possibility, of money being paid on account of any Service of which the Committee may disapprove.

That is in the ordinary course.

Yes; in the ordinary course. Under the circumstances I must say I think my hon. Friend would do well to withdraw his Motion. I am, however, extremely glad he brought it forward, if for no other reason, because the other day a most important official of the Glasgow School Board declared that the whole thing was a mare's nest. I think the hon. Gentleman, as a Member of the House of Commons, is quite justified in calling attention to the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor General, a high officer of the House of Commons, has reported on this matter as the principal financial question of the year, and that the matter is not one to be regarded lightly.

As one who knows something about education, and the necessity for secondary education in Scotland, I am by no means sorry that the policy pursued by the Scotch Education Department has brought them into this difficulty. They tried to establish in connection with the education of Scotland a second grade system, under which there would have been odious distinction between classes of scholars attending the schools; and that was the origin of the difficulties in which they now find themselves. I trust that that is a policy which will be abandoned by the Scotch Education Department, and that they will revert to the ancient system which has existed in Scotland for centuries, under which there are no distinctions at all.

This controversy is of great interest to the School Boards who will be affected by the decision. In my constituency there is one school which alone receives a grant of £1,354, and it will be readily conceived that if this grant had been disallowed very serious inconvenience would have been caused to the School Board of Dundee. At the same time, I quite concur that this matter should be sifted. The School Boards have for some years past conducted their schools on the understanding that if the average fee does not exceed 9d. in the week the grants will be given. In Harris Academy, Dundee, there are 554 scholars paying more than 9d. a week; 196 paying exactly 9d.; 346 paying 8d.; and 108 paying 7d. per week. The fees above 9d. are stated to range from 10d. to 1s. 0½d. per week, while the reputed average fee is only 8·7d. Certainly the School Board in Dundee has conducted this school on the clear understanding with the Scotch Education Department that if they have an average under 9d. these grants would be given. Therefore, I think that whatever may be the decision as to strict legality, the inconvenience which will be caused by altogether withholding the grant should be avoided.

I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Motion; but, at the same time, I am not sorry—as other speakers have said—that the subject should have been brought forward. I should not have risen if some hon. Members had not taken it for granted that the feeling of Scotland is against these high fee schools. No doubt there is a feeling against them in some quarters, but it is by no means universal. These schools have done good work, and they continue to do good work. It must never be forgotten that our Scotch system of education is carried out under an Education. Act, and not an Elementary Education Act, as is the case in England. There' is no limit of fees in the original Scotch Act, but by an accident or slip of legisslation the 9d. limit, which is in the English Act, was introduced into the Scotch system. I trust the appeals which were made to the Government at the time when the fees were removed from the compulsory standards, to define for the future what should and what should not constitute the 9d. limit, will, in consequence of the present difficulty, be carefully reconsidered by them. I trust that during the present Session the Government will deal with this question by legislation.

The point here is that a deliberate attempt has been made to deceive the Treasury and the Education Department in regard to the amount of fees charged in certain Board Schools, especially in Glasgow. The Lord Advocate just now said the case was not one of plain sailing, and that there is a good deal to be said on both sides. No doubt there is a good deal to be said on both sides as to the question of the average 9d. fee, and whether you should take it for the whole of the children or only for individual children; but what is charged by the Comptroller and Auditor General is that there has been a deliberate attempt made to evade the law and suppress the amount of fees that were being charged by false Returns and misrepresentation of the whole case. I hope the matter will be discussed fully by the Public Accounts Committee tomorrow. No doubt there will be a field day. I hope my hon. Friend will not divide the House, though it is the worst case ever mentioned in the Report of the Auditor General.

I agree that the allegations that have been made against the action of some of the School Boards as to the making of these Returns are of a serious character; but that is a matter for the Public Accounts Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar is a Member of the Committee, as I am myself, and I am sure will agree with me in asking that these allegations should not at this stage be assumed by the House to have been proved. There will be extremely delicate questions which we shall have to consider in the Public Accounts Committee to-morrow, and I do not think we ought now to pronounce any judgment on them.

I never asked for the pronouncement of a judgment. All I asked of the Government was that, pending the decision of the matter, the Government should not use any of this money in this manner. We have received an assurance that the Government will give due weight to the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee, and will be guided by their Report. As, therefore, my object has been effected, I will not trouble the House to go to a Division.

I should like to say a few words upon this Bill, which deals with a subject in which I take the greatest interest. I think we shall all agree the Bill is a step in the right direction—in the direction of doing something towards making deposits in Trustee Savings Banks more secure. It is not an ideal Bill; it is not quite the idea that, if I had my own way, I should have liked to carry out. It would, perhaps, have been wiser to have made an arrangement by which the large banks should have developed like those have of a private nature, and been carried on under special charter, in a way most likely to increase the thrift of a district. Of course, banks are hampered by conditions that obtain in large institutions like the Glasgow Bank, and others which are carried on very well; and had this plan been adopted the smaller banks would have gradually closed and been absorbed by the Post Office Savings Bank. The scheme of the Bill, however, is very reasonable. The Bill really does two things, and is based on the recommendations of the Committee appointed by the House two years ago. It establishes a Board of Inspection or, what may possibly be called, a Board of Audit, and gives much greater power to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt. I am not quite sure that this is wise, but I do not see that we can put into anybody else's lianas the same power, which must exist, in order that the object of the Bill may be carried out. The history of these banks everybody knows. They have succeeded in doing good service to the State in the past, and have been admirably conducted; while, no doubt, considering the enormous amount of money passing through them, there have been very few lapses. The amount of money depositors have lost, considering the hundreds of millions passing through the banks, has been very small—a great credit to the management. The rules we now have were framed by Act of Parliament, and are, no doubt, satisfactory in every way to secure, if carried out, proper management; but the difficulty has been in all cases that there has been no power, no controlling authority to see that the rules were carried out. The Bill accomplishes that object; it appoints a body of persons who will see that the Regulations advanced by the Act of Parliament are carried out. Three chief duties will devolve on the Inspection Committee. They must make a complete overhaul of existing Savings Banks, and this is no small matter seeing that there are over 300 banks holding 45,000,000 sterling, and having 1,500,000 depositors. The first duty will be a complete overhauling of these institutions. The great bulk of them are, no doubt, thoroughly sound. The next duty will be to establish a complete system of audit, and lastly, they must see that this system is really kept going. There is no doubt that the difficulty all through has been that a system of audit has not been strictly adhered to, and so laxity of management has crept in. The functions of the Committee will be in the nature almost of a Board of Directors to these great institutions. There is one point in which I cannot agree, and as to which, at the proper time, I propose to move an Amendment. We ought, I think, to appoint the Committee straight out, for it is rather a round-about method to appoint one Committee with the duty of appointing another. The hon. Member for Sunderland, whom I do not now see in his place, has given notice of an Amendment to the effect that no Amendment of the Savings Bank Act will be satisfactory which does not provide for a compulsory comparison of every pass-book with the ledger, and increase the maximum amount allowed to be deposited annually. I hope we shall not make this alteration, for, candidly, I think the State has gone far enough in relation to these banks. Hon. Members, I think, hardly realise the enormous responsibility of the State in connection with these Savings Banks. The State allows every individual in the country—man, woman, or child—to deposit a sum of money with the State security—guaranteed by the State—and returnable at par at any moment to the maximum amount of £200, and, therefore, if this privilege were availed of by every individual in a population of 40,000,000 then the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have to take charge of a sum of £8,000,000,000 sterling. I do not think that amount will ever be reached, but the way the amount held is increasing year by year under the growth of habits of thrift among the people, shows that certainly the time has come when we should say to persons who want to save more than £200 that they must avail themselves of the means of purchasing Consols, or the other means open through the Post Office and elsewhere of investing their money. A man who wants to deposit more than £200 may be fairly asked to take the risks of the ups and downs of Consols rather than to increase his deposits, for which the State is responsible. Another point the hon. Member raises is the compulsory presentation of pass-books can be inspection. I think the hon. Member when he makes that suggestion can hardly have practical knowledge of the working of these banks. I do not believe there is any bank where the sending in of pass-books can be insisted upon. A system by which pass-books are examined as they come in at any hour or any day is quite effectual, and, perhaps, more effectual than any other; and it may be one of the duties of the Inspecting Committee to carry this out. I hope the Bill will be read a second time this evening, and that a good Committee will be secured. The Committee will certainly have no sinecure office. There will be no honour or glory, but plenty of hard work, in the auditing of 1,500,000 of accounts amounting to £45,000,000 of money, and they will find themselves in hot water pretty frequently in the discharge of their duty. I hope that the Committee will be carefully selected, and that their labours may prevent the possibility of those grave catastrophes happening which have in the past so seriously scandalised the poorer classes of society. To encourage and protect habits of thrift among the poor is without doubt one of the most important things the State has to do, and we must be very careful to give security to the beginning of this habit. The first steps are the most difficult, and if there is then any idea of want of security the consequences are so serious that I am sure the Stats may well go out of its way to provide absolute security for the small savings of the community.

I concur in the hope that the Bill will now be read a second time. I have had occasion to make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the interest of certain Scotch Banks, and I desire to acknowledge the very conciliatory attitude taken by the right hon. Gentleman. He has made large concessions on consideration of the views placed before him, and the Bill in its present form is much amended as compared with the shape in which we had it before us last year. Several of the regulations which were then of a cast-iron character have been made considerably more elastic, and are now very much more likely to meet the requirements of the poorer class of depositors, and those who desire to make investments. I regret, however, that the limit of deposits within the year has not been increased from £630 to £50. I know there is a difficulty in making this alteration in Trustee Savings Banks so long as the limit of £30 is maintained in the Post Office Banks, but at the same time it seems to me that, as compared with the period when £30 was fixed as the limit, the ability of the working classes now to save money has increased very considerably, and the amount of possible yearly savings would now be more nearly represented by £50 than by £30. In the case of Scotch banks these deposit accounts are used in a more operative manner than is the case usually in England. Not only do depositors continue to add small sums during the course of the year, but they take out sums more frequently to meet payments of rent and other periodical engagements; but under the peculiar clause in the older Act they are limited to putting in £30, and cannot occasionally take out £5 or £10, so as to leave a total increase of £30. It is, I think, very desirable that this defect should be remedied. Still the Bill shows a great improvement in its form to that it had before. No sound Savings Bank will object to a thoroughly systematic audit, and the proposal in this direction contained in the Bill has for years been carried out in the bank with the management of which I am connected; there the audit is systematically carried out by one of the first accountants of the city. Only in the case of weak or improperly conducted banks can any objection be taken; but by every soundly conducted bank I am sure the regulation will be welcomed. I cannot concur with the hon. Member (Mr. Bartley) in the desire that these banks should develop into what I suppose would be called Joint Stock Banks. The reason that such large sums have been deposited in these banks in our large towns is that from the beginning they have been conducted by sound business men, actuated by benevolent and philanthropic motives, and desiring to encourage that national thrift of which we have heard so much in a recent Debate; and the fact that eminent citizens have given so much of their time—several nights in the week often—to superintending the operations, has given a degree of confidence to the working classes, which, it is to be hoped, will continue. I hope that the conciliatory spirit which the right hon. Gentleman has shown hitherto will be maintained in future discussions, and that comparatively minor matters which we may desire to have improved will have his favourable consideration.

The Bill is very much in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, and I only wish to refer to one important omission. A clause which did not come under the cognizance of the Committee, because the subject had not been raised to the prominence it now occupies. I think everybody will admit there is no class in the country which is considered worthy of so little sympathy as the bankers. On the one hand they have been represented as a sort of vampire, sitting in a strong room stuffed with gold, and fattening on the unearned increment; while on the other hand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has represented them as having no gold and being a distinct danger to the community. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer is himself the largest banker in the country, and he, under one head alone—the Trustee Savings Banks—holds deposits of £44,000,000. But when we come to examine his proposals, his assets, liabilities, and securities, we find in the first place that he is insolvent. But that does not very much matter, for he an appeal to the shareholders and obtain the £6500,000 by which he is insolvent. When we come to look at the amount of his reserves, we find he has not a single light half sovereign. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has on this account £70,000 in the Bank of England waiting investment, and therefore, we may suppose the right hon. Gentleman thinks it right to hold £44,000,000 of other people's money, and the moment there is a demand for it, and the moment there is a run upon the banks and they come to him for assistance he must realise his securities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has sent me an authoritative copy of his memorable speech at Leeds, and having in mind what he there said, I hope he will, in Committee, introduce a clause—the right hon. Gentleman will not object to it as far as he is himself concerned—to bind his successors, in whom we may not have the same reliance, to keep an adequate reserve against such a very large liability.

I am glad we have got to the point when we are able to say a few words upon the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am exceedingly glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) is not present to delay the Second Reading. For nearly five years we have been trying to get something done for the Trustee Savings Banks, and I support the present Bill, not because I believe it is exactly the Bill we ought to have, and I hope we shall be able to amend it in Committee, but, under the circumstances, it is as much as we could expect considering the opposition which has been brought to bear. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) I do not think we need at all fear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will ever have £8,000,000,000 at command in the savings banks. The idea that every man, woman, and child in the United Kingdom should have in the banks an amount the total of which would reach that sum is to me a very pleasant prospect, but it is not likely to be realised. What I want to see is the savings banks in the country established by Act of Parliament for a specific purpose—a safe means of deposit for the people. I think I have a little more experience in regard to these matters than the hon. Member for North Islington, and I cannot pretend to say that the majority of these banks are in perfectly sound and solvent condition. My investigations have been a little closer than those of most hon. Members, and my conclusion is founded on facts which might have been brought before the Select Committee, as the hon. Member knows, had not certain circumstances prevented the evidence being brought forward. However, whatever may be the position of many of the banks, if this Bill can, and in a great degree I believe it will, create greater safety in the future, I am content so far as the present is concerned. I hope that some Amendments may be agreed to, so as to ensure more thoroughly and completely the enforcement of the provisions of the Act of 1863. If that Act had been really carried out by trustees and managers, we should not now be in the position we are to-day with regard to the Trustee Banks throughout the country. The hon. Member (Mr. Leng) has spoken of the, Dundee Savings Bank; but I am sorry to say that all the banks throughout the kingdom are not conducted on the same principle as the Dundee Bank is conducted, nor indeed are the majority of the savings banks in England conducted so well as is the smallest and humblest of the Trustee Banks in Scotland. In Scotland, so far as investigations have gone, the Trustee Savings Banks are carried on according to the spirit and letter of the law, with the result that in that country there have been no defalcations, and the depositors are not defrauded of their money. In this country, on the contrary, we have had a great number of very disastrous defalcations. Had it not been for the fact that a great many depositors in banks have died, and no applications have been made for the money standing in their names, the losses in some cases would have been enormously greater than any brought to light before the Select Committee. In one instance alone—an instance only partially investigated upstairs—in one bank in London the amount of money that thus fell into the hands of the Trustees in the course of a few years was £20,000, and this enabled them to tide over their difficulties. There would have been a thorough overhauling of these savings banks under the Act of 1887 had it not been that by the action of the House of Lords derelictions of duty were in that Act made criminal offences. But for this we might have been able to have investigated many circumstances which might have prevented losses. However, it is in the hope and belief that this Bill will do something to make deposits more safe in the future, that I support the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope it may be possible to introduce in Committee some small Amendments which the Government may be able to accept with a view to induce managers and trustees to carry out the law in reality, so that depositors may be no longer defrauded. I wish the Government could see its way to increase the maximum amount of the deposits. The hon. Member for North Islington does not want that, because, as he says, people can buy Consols. But they do not understand Consols, and if they did they might not, perhaps, buy them. I should like to see the sum of, £30 per annum increased to £50, and the maximum yearly amount from £200 to £400. It is, however, not for us to do anything that might wreck this Bill, and if the Government cannot see their way to increasing the maximum I will support the measure, as far as it goes, in the hope that these savings banks, as aids to thrift, will become more flourishing than ever throughout the country.

Having been Chairman of the Committee to which this subject was referred two years ago, I wish to express a general approval of the details of the Bill. It affords an illustration of the fact that the delay of a year in the consideration of the Bill is not always thrown away, and I am glad to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has availed himself of the opportunity to remove points of difficulty which have occurred. As to the Committee of Inspection, however, I am rather disposed to agree with the hon. Member for Islington that the method proposed is a roundabout process. Almost everything will depend on the constitution of the Committee. If it is to consist of nominees of the Government, then the Government will be practically responsible for the savings in the Trustee Banks. Two years ago the Select Committee unanimously came to the conclusion that the Audit Board should not be a Government Board, and that the Government should not undertake an audit for the savings banks. I hope that some other means will be devised of selecting the persons who are to form the Committee of Inspection. In regard to the general subject of Trustee Savings Banks, I must again point out that, if the regulations laid down by the Act with regard to Trustee Savings Banks are properly carried out, there can be no doubt that security will be afforded to the depositors. Those regulations, however, have not in some cases been properly carried out, especially in the case of audit. Many of the banks, of course, carry out a system of continuous audit, which makes them perfectly safe, but undoubtedly a small section of the smaller banks do not strictly carry out the regulations with regard to audit, and the result is that the depositors are placed in considerable danger. The scheme of the Bill is to supply this deficiency.

I wish to express in one sentence the interest taken by my own constituents in this measure, and to say that it is regarded by them as being a very useful and valuable Bill. I would, however, call attention to the date of November 20th, 1890, mentioned in the 10th section, and suggest that it should be altered to 1891, in order to give time for the savings banks to come within the operation of the Act.

I am gratified to see that there is a general consensus of opinion in the House in favour of the Bill, and I thank hon. Members for the reasonable criticism which has been offered. When the Bill gets into Committee it will be my anxious wish to meet any reasonable Amendments as far as I can. I agree with my right hon. Friend opposite that the audit must not be one instituted by the Government, and that the Committee of Inspection must not be nominated by the Government. Its constitution will be a question to be dealt with in Committee.

I think the Bill would be got through in less time in Committee of the Whole House.

I think also it would be more convenient if the Bill could be discussed in Committee of the Whole House.

I think it would be better to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee, on account of the danger that there may not be sufficient time found for its discussion in the House. My experience last year was a rather unhappy one in this respect, and I should prefer to have the Bill referred to the Standing Committee, so that we might make progress with the Bill while other business was going on.

I think the right hon. Gentleman will be well advised to take it in Committee of the Whole House. Otherwise I am afraid we shall have to move Amendments at a later stage, which will raise the whole of the questions involved in the Bill. If the Bill goes to a Standing Committee and discussions occur upon it in this House in addition, we shall run a great risk of losing the Bill altogether. As one desirous of seeing the Bill passed into law, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to agree to the measure being dealt with by a Committee of the Whole House.

I suggest that we should, in the ordinary way, refer the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House, and see how we get on. If it be found impossible to find time for it, or if the proceedings be delayed, the Bill might then be referred to the Standing Committee, if hon. Members assent to the adoption of such a course.

If the right hon. Gentleman waits until the Amendments are on the Paper he will be able to form a judgment as to whether the Bill is likely to occupy much time or not.

I do not think this Bill ought to be allowed to pass without some explanation.

I can only speak with the permission of the House. The hon. Gentleman was not present when I made a statement with regard to the Bill, when it came up on a previous, occasion. This is a Bill to enable Children to be taken out of the custody of parents who are not treating them properly. Judging from the representations received from all parts of the House, there appears to be a unanimous feeling that the Bill should be passed into law as soon as possible.

I beg to move, Sir, that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. I had no idea the Bill would come on this afternoon. I am indebted to the Attorney General for his courtesy the other day in suggesting we should arrange when the Bill should be taken. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had given me any intimation he wished to take it this afternoon, I might have been able to come to some arrangement with him. I hope he will defer the Committee till to-morrow.

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is under a mistake. He asked me if it was important the Bill should come on, and I told him I must take it whenever I could. I hope he will not press his Motion.

I had no idea the Bill was likely to come on, and under the circumstances I cannot withdraw my Motion.

It would be more convenient if the hon. and learned Gentleman withdrew his Motion and allowed Clause l, which is purely formal, to be passed.

I have no objection to that course; my Amendment does not apply to Clause 1.

I have been in communication with the hon. Member (Sir John Pope Hennessy) with regard to the Amendment he has proposed, and I have explained to him it is not possible for the Amendment to be inserted in the Army Annual Bill: it ought to be proposed on the Naval Discipline Bill. I have given the hon. Member for North Kilkenny an undertaking that when my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty brings in the Naval Discipline Bill he will consider favourably the proposal of the hon. Member.

I also have been in communication with the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He explained to me what the Secretary of State for War has now said, but he did not at all agree that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman was satisfactory. We would be willing to allow the Bill to be taken now provided the right hon. Gentleman will agree to either bring in a short Bill himself, giving effect to the proposal, or say that the Government will support a Bill brought in by a private Member.

It is impossible for me to give that undertaking considering the state of public business. I will communicate with my noble Friend and see if he is willing to undertake that task.

I think in that case the Bill had better not be proceeded with, especially as it is already passed ten minutes to 7.

reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged Mr. Burt from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufacture; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. William M'Arthur.