, who had the following Notice of Motion on the Paper:—

Order [14th July] that the Hanover Chapel Bill [Lords] be committed read, and discharged.

I do not propose to move the Instruction which stands in my name—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to alter Clause 13, and authorise the Charity Commissioners to amend the Trinity Chapel Scheme, and give to the new Church the same income as to the other Churches under the Scheme, and transfer the balance of the double portion given (under the plea of absence of endowment) to the Hanover Chapel, to the Mother Church of St. George's, Hanover Square."

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to inquire whether the cost of building Hanover Chapel was not largely borne by the rates of the whole parish of St. George's, Hanover Square; and, if so, whether a portion of the surplus of the money to be derived from the sale of the chapel building and the site thereof, after providing for the erection of the new district church contemplated by the Bill, should not be used for the religious requirements of the whole parish; and, if so, the Committee, if they think fit, be at liberty to insert provisions in the Bill to apply a portion of such surplus accordingly."—( Mr. Thomas Henry Bolton. )

Objection being taken, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

^* (12.30.) : As the remarks which I was making upon this Vote were interrupted last night by the Rules of the House, I desire to continue what I was then saying. The complaint I have now to make against the Charity Commissioners is their disregard of the Resolution which was passed by this House in 1886, that the majority of the trustees and managers of a charity shall be elected by the ratepayers of the district affected. The Commissioners systematically ignore this requirement, and the consequence is, that in one charity I find the stewards' charges have been increased from £20 to £40, and that a law bill of £20, £30 or £40 is incurred, with rare exceptions, every year. I have no wish to give names, although I have them here. The accounts are not properly looked into, and the consequence is that the charities are robbed. Only this year, instead of the Charity Commissioners loyally carrying out the decision of this House that the majority of the trustees or managers should be elected by the ratepayers, in one of the schemes connected with the City of Lichfield there are only three out of 15 trustees directly elected by the ratepayers. There are eight representative trustees, which looks well upon paper, and gives a majority, but they are not elected by the ratepayers. They are nominated by the Town Council, who are identical with the Co-optative trustees and managers. I have often been asked the question, What is Co-optative Trustee? as many Members have failed to discover what their functions and duties are. It is, I believe, a position invented by the Charity Commissioners to enable a clique of persons, usually including the parson and the squire, to control and retain the control for ever of the Charity. The system is copied from the Municipal Act of 1837, when Lord John Russell, in order to carry his Bill through the House of Lords, had to submit to the pernicious system of Aldermen being elected by the Town Councillors in lieu of their being elected directly by the ratepayers. Whenever a vacancy among the Co-optative Trustees arises from death or bankruptcy, or any other cause, a new trustee or manager is elected by this body from among themselves. The pious founders of these charities nominated certain persons to see that their wishes were carried out in the future, and to see that the money was administered for the benefit of the poor in the place of their nativity. All what the founders looked to, was the proper administration of the funds, so that the poor, who they intended to benefit, should not be robbed of their rights. But the fact is, that under the present arrangements stewards are ap- pointed who receive an excessive salary themselves, which is quite out of proportion to the work done, or required, and take care that their professional friends receive fees out of the funds. The Charity Commissioners say—"We are not accountable. Trustees and Managers have been elected, and if they will job away the money of the poor people we cannot help it." As they are practically out-voted, the poor have no voice whatever in the management of these charities. However small a Charity may be, if the managers have to go before a constituency at intervals, they will take care how they administer the trust, and, on the other hand, the constituency will see that they elect the best men as administrators. What I wish to see established is a system of election direct from the ratepayers. I know the Government say that the Resolution of the House was carried by a snatch Vote. My reply is, that if it was a snatch Vote, let Her Majesty's Government come forward and rescind it. I challenge them to do that, and to see what the opinion of the House of Commons is now. So long as the Resolution remains un-rescinded, I think the Charity Commissioners ought to accept it loyally.

^* (12.35.) : There are one or two matters in connection with this Vote which I should like to bring under the notice of the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther.) In the first place, I believe there are a considerable number of cases in which the Trustees of Charities do not render their accounts as prescribed by the Act of Parlianent. Indeed, there are thousands of cases in which the Trustees are still in arrear with their accounts. This arises, I believe, from the fact that in a great many instances the person who is supposed to keep the accounts is the incumbent, who is not, as a rule, a man of business, and in consequence, although quite unintentionally, he succeeds in getting the Charity into a great mess. In support of that view I may mention a case which occurred not long ago. I was present at a public inquiry into one of these Charities, which was conducted by the late Mr. Skirrow, one of the Inspectors. In the course of con versation with Mr. Skirrow he told me, quite unsolicited, and he had had a large experience in connection with the administration of Charities, that he only knew of one ease in which a country clergyman had kept the accounts properly as a man of business would have done. Last night the question of popular representation in the appointment of trustees was brought up, and it was pointed out that the Resolution passed in 1886 has never been carried out. Personally I have had a good deal to do with the Charity Commissioners, and I have often benefited by the courtesy and consideration of the hon. Member for Penrith, and I must say that matters have been much better during the last two years than they were before. I do not see why, in regard to the smaller village charities, some uniform principle should not be adopted for the framing of a scheme in regard to the appointment of new trustees. In one of the Northamptonshire villages a scheme has been framed which ought to be converted into a model and advantageously followed in other places. The old trustees were the vicar, the two churchwardens, and the two overseers. At the inquiry which took place—and it was the inquiry I have already mentioned at which I met Mr. Skirrow—certain acts of gross negligence in the administration of the charity were proved. The funds which ought to have been administered for the benefit of the poor had been taken by the churchwardens and used for the purposes of the Church. In all these cases I think it is desirable that there should be a public inquiry. It tends to clear the atmosphere. In this instance, although it was at first supposed that the inquiry was instituted in hostility to the trust, it was soon made manifest that that was not so, and the vicar in the end was glad to get rid of responsibilities which he was unable to carry out under the new scheme. There are seven trustees; one, the Poor Law Guardian, is ex officio for the time being; four are representative and elected by the vestry every five years, and the two remaining trustees are co-operative trustees. Since the scheme has come into operation other villages are looking forward to a similar measure of justice. There is another important case, of which I regret I have been unable to give the hon. Member for Penrith notice, but I only received a letter in regard to it this morning. It is the case of a charity in the town of Warwick, a town represented by the Speaker of this House. There are in Warwick a number of charities which are called municipal charities. A scheme has just been put forward in regard to them, and it is provided that the first 6 vacancies out of a total of 21 trustees named in the scheme shall be filled by Representative Trustees elected by the three wards in Warwick. The 7th, 8th and 9th vacancies are not to be filled up at all, and the remaining 12 vacancies are to be filled by Co-optative Trustees, so that the total number of Trustees will be reduced to 18 in future, and when the first Co-optative Trustee is appointed he will be appointed by the 6 Representative Trustees and the 11 Co-optative Trustees. That is the reverse of popular representation, seeing that there will only be 6 Representative Trustees against 12 Co-optative Trustees, or two to one, and it is that system which I desire to see amended.

^* (12.45.) : I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith to explain to the Committee two points in regard to the policy adopted by the Charity Commissioners in reference to the appointment of Trustees. Charity schemes, as we all know, come before Parliament, and Parliament is afforded an opportunity of considering them—not a full opportunity, but still an opportunity. But with the appointment of Trustees by the Commissioners, Parliament has nothing whatever to do. Therefore, I think, we have a right to watch with care how they use their powers in reference to these appointments. The rule of common sense as well as the principle of law is that persons should be appointed Trustees who will be loyal to the trust. You would not, for instance, place a Dissenter upon a Church of England Trust, nor would you put upon a Trust intended for education persons who are notoriously desirous of alienating the Trust from educational purposes. In appointing a Trustee you naturally appoint a person who will be loyal to the Trust. I want to know how far the Charity Commissioners in appointing new Trustees are prepared to uphold that doctrine, or how far they are prepared to throw it over. How far are they prepared to adopt the policy of nominating trustees who are opposed to the application of the trust? In the second place, I want to know what powers the Charity Commissioners intend to take themselves with regard to modifying the orders they may make. There are certain statutable regulations which the Commissioners are bound to comply with before they appoint new trustees. They have to publish the names of the persons proposed, to post them on the Church doors, and advertise them in different newspapers, so that everyone may know the names That it is an admirable rule, but by another Act of Parliament the Commissioners are allowed to modify it, and without notice, to make some small variations in it. What I wish to know is, whether, after the Commissioners have promulgated their order and published it in the usual way, they can, under cover of rectifying some technical error or small inadvertence, reconstruct the governing body? If a precedent of this kind is allowed to pass without remonstrance, where are we to stop? The Commissioners are a powerful body standing altogether outside Parliament. They seem to assume to sit in a judicial capacity, and to consider all these questions without reference to the Act of Parliament. Is the Act of Parliament to be carried out according to its words and spirit, or under the section which gives them powers of modification? Are the Commissioners virtually to be enabled to reconstruct the governing body without notice to the community at large? The case which has been brought to my notice is this: The Commissioners "modified" an order by adding three to the four Trustees proposed to be appointed in the original order. I believe such a modification to be beyond the statutable discretion allowed to the Commissioners. The other point is this: The Commissioners nominated in their "modified" order three Trustees who were notoriously hostile to the existing application of the trust money to elementary education. They desired to apply the trust money to middle-class education. I ask my hon. Friend to say how far the Commissioners have a right to construe the law in regard to these modified powers according to their own absolute discretion, and to act according to their own ideas without statutory publication? I hope that Parliament will take care that this very powerful body is not allowed to become too powerful. At any rate, we ought to know what the principles are under which they claim to act.

^* (12.53.) : The first important point which was raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Sir J. Swinburne) was one which I am almost ashamed to go into again, seeing that it has been brought forward so many times by the hon. Member, and that I thought I had convinced even him of the justice of the course taken by the Commissioners. I refer to the question of the appointment of Representative Trustees. The matter stands thus: In the small hours of the morning the hon. Gentleman carried a Resolution to the effect that in the opinion of the House every scheme of the Charity Commissioners ought to provide that a majority of the Trustees or managers should be directly appointed by the ratepayers of the locality to which the charity applied. It was pointed out at the time that that was an impracticable resolution and ought not to be put in force. The matter came before the Committee which sat upstairs for two Sessions. It was fully gone into, and the Committee reported that they had failed to satisfy themselves that the Resolution could be beneficially carried into effect. The hon. Member himself gave evidence before the Committee, and in his evidence he actually suggested that Christ's Hospital should be placed under the control of the Metropolitan Board of Works. I think that after evidence like that, it was clearly proved to the Committee that the proposal of the hon. Member was absolutely impracticable. The Committee recommended that the Charity Commissioners should be allowed to preserve freedom of action in organising the governing bodies of charitable schemes, but that they ought to bear in mind that it was in the interests of education to enlist the sympathies of the localities in the welfare of endowed schools by giving them representation either direct or indirect through elected bodies. The hon. Member asks whether the Commissioners have loyally carried out the decision of the House, and my reply is that we have loyally carried out the decision of the Committee which sat upon and considered the Resolution of the hon. Member. At the present time we are constantly giving a large share in the management of charitable schemes to representation, either direct or indirect through elected bodies. In a recent scheme to which the hon. Member referred in connection with the Lichfield Charities, we have provided for a local election of trustees in every ward of the town. I am sure the hon. Member knows very well, from his experience of the work we have been carrying on, that in every case in which we have thought it right, we have given direct or indirect representation. The hon. Member must bear in mind that in many of the charities for which we make schemes the income is very small; and if we were to provide for direct representation, the whole of the income would be swallowed up by the cost of the election. But we provide representation indirectly through elected bodies. The hon. Member complains in regard to a certain charity that the lawyer's bill was too high, and that it was sent in by a firm of solicitors in which the clerk of the charity was a partner. But the lawyer's bill was taxed, and not reduced, as it was found that the charges had been properly made. The hon. Member also complains of the stewards' fees; but, perhaps, I may be allowed to say that the clause which deals with that question is purely permissive. If the trustees of a charity think that the salary received by their steward or clerk is too high, they have power to reduce it. If they consider that 10 per cent. of the gross receipts is too large a sum to pay the clerk for collecting the rents and acting as clerk they can reduce the amount. The provision in the clause is merely an optional one, and a maximum, and not a minimum, is laid down. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Cobb) asked questions in regard to the accounts. The accounts received at the office during last year amounted to 27,942 against upwards of 31,000 in 1889, showing a considerable diminution. These figures might be misleading, however, unless I drew attention to the fact that many of the charities have been consolidated. The Commissioners have done what they can to simplify matters in this respect. They issue a form of a simple kind on which the accounts of the charities are sent in. The law on the subject, as the hon. Member no doubt knows, is that it is compulsory upon the trustees of charities to send in copies of their accounts to the Commissioners, and the latter have power, if they think fit to do so, to inquire into the accounts of any charity. As a matter of fact, we do not compare the number of accounts sent in with the number of charities on our books, and we do not call upon any charity to send in its accounts unless our attention is specially directed to the matter.

^* : How many charities do not send in their accounts?

^* : That I cannot say, the accounts are coming in more regularly than they did, but still there is a considerable number—perhaps some thousands—of charities which do not send in any accounts. Even now a considerable number of charities exist which the Commissioners do not know of, but that number is decreasing every day. The hon. Member has asked me whether it would not be possible to have some uniform method of appointing new trustees. The requirements of localities differ greatly, so also do the trusts; some are applicable, only to Church purposes, and others are of an open character; in some schemes one parish is, and in others two or more parishes are, interested, and this has to be borne in mind in fixing the number and nature of the trustees. Therefore, in my view it would be impossible, owing to the variety of circumstances which surround these different charities, to have a castiron method applicable to all cases. The hon. Member has spoken of the admir- able results of public inquiry. I quite agree with him on that point, and experience has shown that in very difficult cases the local friction, which unfortunately so often exists with regard to charities, is modified, if not altogether eliminated, when one of the officials of the Commissioners is sent down to hold a public inquiry. The Commissioners hold a public inquiry wherever they can properly do so, and there is a reasonable chance of its being successful, because they have found that by doing so they themselves are not only better informed with regard to the charities, but the two opposing parties are brought face to face, with the result that in most cases the difficulties which divide them disappear. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Member the information he asks for in respect to the municipal charities of Warwick, but if he will put a question upon the Paper on the subject I will do my best to answer it. The hon. Member for Oswestry has asked me questions with respect to the appointment of trustees, and whether the Commissioners always act upon the principle of appointing only such trustees as are what he terms "loyal to the trust." That expression is rather vague, because, however disloyal to the trust the trustees may be, they cannot alter the trust in any way. All that they can do is to apply to the Commissioners to alter the trust, but in no case will the Commissioners allow the trust to be diverted from its original object to one totally different. The hon. Member has suggested, in illustration of his argument, that a majority of the trustees of a Wesleyan trust being Roman Catholics might change the character of the trust from a Wesleyan to a Roman Catholic trust. That, however, is an impossibility; indeed, it is the reason of the existence of the Commissioners to prevent such diversions of trusts, and they would not listen for a moment to proposals of that character. As a general rule, the Commissioners do not appoint as trustees of a charity connected with a particular form of religious belief any persons who have shown themselves hostile to that particular form of belief. In the case of open charities, however, where no question of Church or Nonconformist views is involved, the Com- missioners do not think it incumbent upon them to make investigations into the religious belief of those persons whom they appoint trustees. It is quite true that in some cases the Commissioners, where, in their opinion, there is no reconstruction of the trust, do not republish the scheme merely because they have increased the number of the trustees. The Act of Parliament gives us power to dispense with such notice. We consider each case upon its merits, and our judgment is guided by particular facts. The hon. Member quoted a case in which we originally proposed to nominate four trustees, but in which we altered our order and added three, without republication. The facts were that there were originally two Trustees who sent to us a requisition to appoint four more. We issued an order nominating the four suggested by the Trustees. Then we received Memorials from the Joint Education Committee—for the case occurred in Wales—that we should appoint three persons named by them. The case was fully considered in the locality. We received further Memorials, I think no fewer than five, and one signed by 200 or more, some of which favoured the appointment of the four Trustees named in our first order, and others recommending the substitution of the three other names, and in the end we decided to appoint all seven. Surely that was not such a re-construction of the body of Trustees as to necessitate republication. The hon. Member suggests that nine Trustees form too large a body to manage a charity of £60; but bearing in mind the conflicting representations made to us, we did the best we could, and probably gave satisfaction to neither party. As to nine being too large a number of Trustees, I may remind the hon. Member that the Joint Education Committee, when considering the new scheme for this very charity, voluntarily suggested that there should be nine Trustees, showing that they did not think it too large a body. The interests of more than one parish were concerned. I think I have answered all the questions put to me on the subject, but I shall be glad to give any further information in my power. I can only thank the Committee for the patience with which it has listened to me.

^* (1.15.) : I do not think the Committee will regret the time that has been occupied in discussing this subject, because nothing could be more interesting to the country at large than the proper, the economical, and the due administration of its charities. The Charity Commissioners have often been attacked from various points of view; but I have seen a great deal of their work, both as regards general charities and more particularly with regard to the administration of their powers under the Endowed Schools Act; and I venture to say that any Member who takes the trouble to examine the work they have done will be struck by the very liberal-minded way in which they have exercised the powers conferred upon them. No doubt they are human, and have consequently in some cases made mistakes. They have been guilty, of course, of errors of judgment, but when the vast amount of property and the vast number of charities they have to deal with are considered, it will be realised that they have done their work well, and that the country owe a deep debt of gratitude to them. I propose on this occasion to address a few observations to the House as to the educational endowments of the country. There is no doubt in my mind that in past times, and to a large extent in existing days, those educational endowments have been very largely monopolised by the upper and middle classes, and have to a great extent been wasted, so far as any good to the general body of the people is concerned. I suppose there is scarcely a Member of the House who has not at one time of his life derived some benefit from the charitable educational endowments of the country. It may perhaps surprise some hon. Gentlemen who have been educated at Eton, Harrow, or Rugby to know that they have enjoyed the benefits of a charity in the shape of school buildings, for which they have had to pay no rent, and in the form also of chapels and playing fields. Many Members of the House—I include myself amongst them—have derived direct pecuniary benefit from those educational endowments by receiving more or less substantial exhibitions to assist in their support while going through their Uni- versity course. I will say nothing as to scholarships or fellowships, because they are on a different footing. I prefer to confine myself to the educational school endowments of the country, and I venture to assert that the Charity Commissioners have rescued a good many school charities from extinction, because there are many schools now flourishing which were formerly moribund. Of that we have an instance within a very short distance of this House. I refer to the Westminster day schools. It appears to me, however, that the powers of the Commissioners are too restricted. In the first place, they are restricted by the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission, which is embodied in the Preamble of the Act. They have, rightly in my opinion, held themselves bound by the policy which was indicated in that Report. Their powers also are restricted in the matter of applying to educational purposes charities which are not strictly educational, but which it would be for the benefit of the community to apply to such purposes. Their powers, too, of consolidating charities are limited. Therefore, if it is desired to secure anything like a scheme of management of those charities for the purpose—which I strongly support—of applying them to the secondary education of the people of the country, we must invest the present Charity Commission with larger powers, or we must create a Commission with sufficient powers for the purpose. There are a good many people nowadays in favour of applying charity money in support of elementary education. Personally, I think there is a good deal to be said in favour of that view, but it is not a popular one, and will probably not prevail in the House, because it will be suggested that the charities are being devoted to the relief of the rates. The subject of secondary education is one which before long—indeed, perhaps, within the next year or two—must engage the attention of Parliament, and if we are asked, as we probably will be asked, to provide cash out of public funds for its promotion, I think Parliament, before it votes the money for the purpose, ought to take in hand the whole re-organisation of the educational endowments of the country, with a view to providing the necessary funds. What is wanted is secondary schools, with at any rate a large number of free places to be set apart for scholars from the elementary schools who have most distinguished themselves by their industry and capacity. I know of no more advantageous mode by which we can apply the educational endowments of the country than that. There are three matters which it has occurred to me it would be necessary to provide for. What is wanted is a scheme of general organisation. We want in the administration of educational endowments some general system and some large scheme of administration, and for that purpose we require consolidation. We must take larger powers than at present exist for diverting charities from localities where they are not wanted, and throwing them into a general mass for the benefit of districts where they are wanted. I know that that is a very thorny subject, and will create a good deal of opposition; but if we desire to do anything in a large way we must put an end to the system of local charities and must consolidate those educational endowments, with a view to applying them to large areas and placing them under a single management, so as to secure the establishment of secondary schools in convenient parts of the country. We must also get larger powers than at present exist for sweeping into the educational net a number of the dole and bread charities and other charities of a similar kind. These charities, no doubt, hon. Members are familiar with. It will be admitted that in some cases they positively do mischief, while in almost all cases they do little if any good, and it would be better if they could be applied to educational purposes. At present the Commissioners have only power to divert those charities to educational purposes with the consent of the Trustees. In many cases that consent is, I am bound to say, forthcoming, but in some cases it is withheld, and in my opinion it is very desirable that these charities should be swept into the educational net and consolidated under a single Board of Management. I see no reason why the general management of secondary schools maintained by educational endowments in a county should not be given to a Committee of the County Council itself, or if that is objected to there might be a Board of Management for the secondary schools of the county on which there should be a large representative element. It is needless to point out the increased economy which would result from having one General Board instead of a separate system of management for each charity. I hope before long to see all charities under one general system of management, because that will do away with the clashing of interest, and we shall no longer hear of any such difficulties as those which occasionally crop up when masters of grammar schools insist on giving a classical education, though it is not desired in the interests of the scholars attending the schools. Neither will there be schools maintained in localities which are dwindling down, and which are maintained simply because those places were once populous and required such schools. If we had one general management we should find no difficulties of that kind. We should not only have more economical management of charities, but the charities would be applied more directly and more efficiently to the purposes for which they exist. I am well aware there are difficulties in the way, but difficulties of this kind are only made to be overcome. Probably public opinion is not ripe for the full measure I have ventured to sketch out. But if it is brought home to the people of this country that there are already public funds which, if better organised and administered than they can be under the present law, will, if not entirely, at least to a large extent, provide means for secondary education, public opinion will be enlisted in the matter. It is very difficult, no doubt, to get a body of Local Trustees to resign their management to a general body, and there is also difficulty occasioned by religious differences. The teaching in some of these schools is by charter, Act of Parliament, or otherwise confined to members of the Church of England. In others it is not so, and no doubt that is a difficulty which we shall have to face. But I do not think the difficulties insuperable, and I have made these remarks because I believe, after what has been done for elementary education, the question of secondary education is one which before long Parliament will have to deal with, and I am anxious it should be dealt with in connection with our charitable educational endowments.

I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not think it is from want of courtesy or because the Government underrate the magnitude of the question if I do not go into the matter which in a very interesting speech he has brought before the Committee. I recognise the importance of the question, but it is a very large subject to bring forward in connection with the particular point the Committee is now engaged on, and its discussion would occupy a considerable time. We should not make real progress with the Estimates if we were to follow up the matter the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised, and I would appeal to the Committee to allow us now to bring this discussion to a close. If hon. Members desire to bring their labours to a close in a reasonable time I trust they will do what I am doing in this matter, and that is exercise considerable self-restraint. But for that I should have liked to make some reply to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend.

^* (1.40.) : I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me a few moments in which to reply to some remarks made by the hon. Member for Penrith. I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman quoted my evidence before the Committee upstairs correctly, but he seemed to ridicule me for having suggested that Christ's Hospital should be put under the management of the Metropolitan Board of Works. I then knew, as many others did, that the days of the Metropolitan Board of Works were numbered, and that a representative body like the County Council would take the Board's place. I do not see why the County Council should not through one of its Committees make a very good governing body of Christ's Hospital, as has just been proposed by the hon. Member for Stockton. As to public inquiries, I desire to take this opportunity of thanking the Commissioners for acceding to my request that inquiries should be held in the evening when working men could attend. I have also to give the Charity Commissioners great credit for having merged, especially in Lichfield, a number of small charities together. But what I ask the Commissioners to take up immediately is the question of accounts. At present the Trustees of charities are not obliged to send statements of their accounts to the Commissioners. [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER: Yes.] I understood the hon. Member to say that many hundreds were not sent. At any rate, there was no power to enforce the rendering of accounts, and even when accounts are sent the Commissioners exercise no control over them.

^* (1.44.) : I quite appreciate the appeal just made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I do not think that appeal should prevent us considering the items in this Vote. I should like to ask the hon. Member for Penrith what he means by his answer just now to the hon. Member for Rugby with regard to the taxing of solicitors' bills in the office? What means have the Commissioners of taxing lawyers' bills; and have those who oppose the bills any right to make representations in the matter? Then I find the sum of £25 for the purveyor of luncheons. I will not move a reduction in respect of that item, but I trust the hon. Gentleman will consider whether this should not be the last occasion on which the Vote should include such an item. Under Sub-head E I find £600 for travelling allowance to Assistant Commissioner. Last year £250 only was voted. I should like to know what is the reason of the increase. Then as to the City of London Parochial Charities Department. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say last night that the powers of the Commission would end in March, 1891; he explained to me afterwards that he should have said 1892. I had understood that the work of the Commission practically ended on the 23rd of February in this year, and I wish to know whether the hon. Gentleman seriously considers that it is wise or fair to go on expending this money, which should be used for the benefit of the people of London, and not in mere official expenses?

^* : Perhaps I may be allowed to put the question I have put on other Votes, namely, how many hours the clerks in the Department are employed?

^* (1.50.) : With regard to the taxing of lawyers' bills, the Commissioners have power to tax such bills, and there are one or two clerks who perform the duty whenever it becomes necessary.

Are opponents allowed to be represented?

^* : I should think so. As to the item for the purveyor of luncheons, the circumstances have been explained more than once, and I have nothing to add to what has been said by the Secretary to the Treasury. Reference has been made to the increase in the travelling allowance to the Assistant Commissioner. The learned gentleman has under an Act of Parliament been appointed to attend all the meetings of the Welsh Intermediate Joint Education Committees. Such attendance involves a great deal of travelling about Wales now that the Committees are in full swing. As to the City of London Parochial Charities Department, I fell into an error last night when I said the powers expired in 1891: I ought to have said 1892. I believe it has been decided to continue the Act for, at least, six months, possibly a year. Anyhow, there will be a considerable diminution in the staff. The hon. Member is wrong in supposing that the whole labours of the Commissioners came to an end on the 23rd of February last. Only one scheme out of 20 or more schemes dealing with the City of London Parochial Charities came into force then. There are several schemes going through the mill now, and in order that they should reach the haven of approval by Her Majesty in Council it is necessary that the powers of the Commissioners should be continued. The hon. Member for Shoreditch asked what hours are worked by the clerks. A portion of the Upper Division clerks are 6¾hour men, but I believe the average attendance is 6¾ hours: many of them remain 7 hours and more at the office. The rest of the Upper Division clerks and all the Lower Division clerks are 7-hour men.

^* (1.54.) : The hon. Gentleman in answering what I said last night referred me to a passage in the Report of the Charity Commissioners, in which the Commissioners themselves, recognising the permanent character of much of the Endowed Schools work, expressed a hope for its discontinuance and re-organisation in some shape or other. I cannot help thinking it would have been well if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he paid his fleeting visit to the House, had been good enough to explain in what way the Government propose to deal with the matter. I rise especially to ask the hon. Member for Penrith whether he will furnish a Return showing what endowments for educational purposes coming under the powers of the Endowed Schools Act, and still remaining within the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners, have not yet been dealt with by the scheme?

^* : I think that, so far as the charities have been ascertained to be within the Endowed Schools Act, such a Return can be given, but I cannot give a pledge in the matter without consultation with my fellow Commissioners.

Vote agreed to.

2. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £26,441, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission."

I desire to move a reduction of this Vote, in order to call the attention of the Committee to what I think is a retrograde movement on the part of the Civil Service Commissioners in regard to the nature of the examinations which they prescribe for entrance into the service of the Crown. The Commissioners have reverted to the monkish notion that the soundest and most liberal education is the old classical training and Latin has now been made a compulsory subject, while English composition has been relegated from the first to the third rank. That young men wishing to enter the Military Service should be compelled to take up Latin is absurd. Latin, taught from a philological point of view, may be very useful; but that is not the way in which it is taught at the public schools. The result of the change is bad for the Public Service, and is a retrograde step in the education of the country. These are days when the people do not want to acquire education that is not useful; they want that education which will fit them to become useful citizens of the Empire; but you limit yourself to the old classical education, and discourage the improvements and reforms of modern education by this policy. I protest against the idea that underlies what has been done on this subject, the idea that for an appointment in the Public Service you ought not to insist on any useful knowledge but upon the old-fashioned notion of what constitutes the liberal education of a gentleman. People travel freely all over the world now, and engage in great enterprises, and they want a modern education, including elementary science, modern languages, knowledge of the physical world and the distribution of its races, political economy—not that which has been banished to Saturn—and the principles of jurisprudence that underlie all laws. But you exclude, or rather throw into the shade of non-compulsory subjects, branches of useful knowledge in favour of the old idea of classical education. If you make your examinations for entrance into the Public Service upon subjects of useful knowledge, you will not only benefit the Service, but you will influence the teaching in the public schools. But this action is likely to check the movement in public schools in favour of modern education which public opinion has created. We have a modern side to our public schools, though it is somewhat starved and over weighted by the endowments on the other side. Still, there is a disposition to recognise modern acquirements; but now the Civil Service Commissioners throw their weight on the other side in favour of classical education. I do not deny that it is desirable, as the Secretary for War has said, to get young men to enter the Service from the public schools; but you will secure this, and you will influence the education given in those schools, by the compulsory subjects you insist upon. You should not adapt your subjects to the system of the schools. I am justified in protesting against the Commissioners, who prescribe the subjects for examination for candidates for the Public Service, throwing their weight in the scale in favour of classical education as opposed to the modern ideas of a liberal education. The elevation of Latin to a compulsory subject, and the relegation of other subjects to the optional class, is a retrograde step. The Civil Service Commissioners are the original offenders, and I move the reduction of the Vote under the head of salaries of the Commissioners by £500.

Motion made, and Question proposed "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £500, part of the Salary of the Civil Service Commissioners."—( Sir G. Campbell. )

The hon. Member has entered his protest, of which we cannot complain, and he has discussed at considerable length his entire opposition to the views of the War Office and the Civil Service Commissioners. I do not feel myself qualified to criticise the action taken by the War Office and the Civil Service Commissioners. The change was made at the wish of the War Office, with the full concurrence of the Civil Service Commissioners, and I take it these two Bodies are charged with a duty they are well qualified to discharge. The hon. Member has spoken of a great change, but so far as I know no great change has been made.

English is relegated to the third class.

The change made by the Commissioners makes very little difference, as under the former system marks are assigned to the subjects which will be taken by the great majority of candidates. The hon. Member says changes have been made in subjects generally, but I do not think that is so. It is true Greek has been omitted from the Foreign Office list, but I am not aware of any other important change. I am quite sure that anyone who knows the care and attention given by the Civil Service Commissioners to their important duties will give them credit for the desire, so far as they can, to make the examinations fit in with the general system of education throughout the country, and to secure the best among the candidates offering themselves. Anyone who knows the care the Commissioners give to their duties will feel, whatever may be the difference of opinion, that they are a body very competent to form a sound judgment, and, so far as I am concerned, I am disinclined to criticise their action. This question was, I believe, raised on the Army Vote. It was then carefully considered and thoroughly discussed, and I hope that the hon. Member having made his protest we may now be allowed to go to a Division.

^* (2.15.) : I know that a great many officers deeply regret that the Secretary of State for War has yielded to the public schools. If he had stood to his guns, he would have compelled the schools to teach modern science and modern languages. I quite agree with the spirit of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War when he said he desired to avoid the evil of young English gentlemen being sent abroad to learn foreign habits with foreign languages, but my contention is that if my right hon. Friend had stood firm he would have compelled the masters of Eton, Harrow, and our great schools to give the instruction required to obtain admission into the Army, and I regret that he has not done so. Another matter which ought to receive attention is that of plain, legible handwriting, most boys leaving school quite unable to write legibly. This is in a measure due to the practice of setting boys the imposition of writing so many hundred lines at a time. I am sure most hon. Members will recognise the importance of this. I confess my own correspondence presents many difficulties in this respect, and I attribute this defect to no fault of my own, but to my school training. There is another matter which, perhaps, I may here mention. The indistinct utterance of some of the examiners who set dictation leads to many of the candidates making mistakes which they would not otherwise fall into. I do not speak of any present examiners, but from complaints I have heard in years past. The Army generally do not acquiesce in the change which has been made with regard to classical learning.

I do not agree with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, or with the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken. In my opinion, the Civil Service Commissioners have done an exceedingly wise thing in endeavouring to meet the public schools half way; because the public schools have already gone far in the introduction of modern subjects into their curriculum. The Commissioners have acted wisely in making Latin, which occupies a high place in public school education, a compulsory subject of examination. The War Office are wise in endeavouring to get as many boys as they can from the public schools sent direct to Sandhurst or Woolwich rather than those who have been sent to crammers. I shall support the Government.

^* (2.17.) : I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has given the weight of his authority in favour of a change for which there does not seem to be any excuse. The effect of the change is to displace English as a necessary subject and to put it in only as an ornamental one. I admit I do not know much about the Army, but it does seem to me that the power of writing English with clearness of writing and expression is one of the most useful qualifications a public servant could possess, and I should have thought it an exceedingly useful one for officers of the Army. To substitute for that and for some knowledge of English history such a knowledge of Latin as will be got up by making it a compulsory subject is a great mistake. It is not a question whether due weight should be given to Latin or to previous training at a public school. That can be done by giving an adequate number of marks to each. But a subject should not be made compulsory which is not of distinct value to a particular profession. Optional subjects should be recognised, but nothing which is not of real importance to the business of a profession should be made compulsory. If it is to be a sufficient defence of such a change that the Commission recommended it, there is no use in Parliamentary supervision of these matters, and much that comes before us would be withdrawn, a great change being made in Parliamentary procedure. To make Latin a compulsory subject is to hinder many candidates from getting up subjects which would be of more use to them, and the amount of Latin which is acquired will often be worth nothing.

^* (2.20.) : I quite concur in the view expressed by the hon. Member who has just spoken. This change, by which Latin is made an obligatory and English an optional subject, has been brought about in a secret and clandestine manner. We find in the correspondence in relation to this subject that a communication from the head masters of public schools is not given because it was marked private. But I contend that any representation from head masters ought to be submitted in such a form that it could be laid before Parliament. Not only the change itself, but the reasons for the change ought to be laid before this House. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) rather let the cat out of the bag. This is really a contest between the masters of public schools on the one hand and the so-called crammers on the other. The latter have secured more success in the examinations than the former, and the head masters of the public schools are accordingly trying to manipulate the examinations in their own interests.

If I thought that this movement emanated from the War Office, and if it was confined to military candidates, I should have little to say; but it is clear that the initiative came from the Civil Service Commissioners.

With their full concurrence.

Reference is made in the correspondence to representations made to them by the head masters of the schools. I will not enter upon a consideration of the question as between public schools and crammers. I do not question the view that it is desirable to get candidates from the public schools, but it is a question what education should be given in public schools. The question is whether the schools should give a sound and useful education to fit young men for the Public Service, or whether we should yield to the old prejudice in favour of this old monkish classical education. The War Office is guided by a small majority of head masters. Many eminent head masters are by no means in favour of this retrograde step. I have heard many complaints from parents who sent their boys to the modern side of a school and now have to send them back to learn Latin, because the War Office have suddenly turned round and made this change. In default of a better defence of the change than we have had I must trouble the Committee to divide.

(2.27.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 84.—(Div. List, No. 348.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

3. £37,291, to complete the sum for Exchequer and Audit Department.

4. £4,972, to complete the sum for Friendly Societies Registry.

I want to ask the Secretary to the Treasury some questions, but I see he is not here. There was a Select Committee sitting for some years inquiring into the question of Friendly Societies, and they made a Report in reference to the re-organisation of the Friendly Societies Office. I understand that the Registrar will retire next month, and that the Office will be re-organised. But I also understand that since the Select Committee sat a Departmental Committee has been sating to consider the question of re-organisation, and has arrived at conclusions different to those of the Select Committee. I want to know from the Government what they intend to do. Do they intend to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee? We have been voting £1,000 a year for the past eight or nine years for the preparation of a scale and tables, but they are not yet finished. As so much time has elapsed since they were begun, it will probably be necessary to revise the tables before they are published. Will the amount we are voting this year be the last that will be required, and when may we expect to have the tables issued? If they are to be of use we ought to have them at once, and if £2,000 or £3,000 is required to finish them, the money should be voted for the purpose, especially when we consider that a Bill has been brought forward by the Government to compel Friendly Societies to give paid-up or surrender policies to their members. Who composed the Departmental Committee, and how do their recommendations differ from those of the Select Committee?

I must apologise for not having been in my place when the hon. Member rose to put his question. The recommendations of the Departmental Committee were mainly three—first, that the Returns should be administered in the Department of the Actuary; secondly, that the rules should be dealt with in the Department of the Assistant Registrar; and, thirdly, that the general management of the Department should be under the charge of the Director of the Department. These recommendations have either been carried out already or are in process of being carried out. I hope the Committee will now allow the Vote to be taken.

Vote agreed to.

5. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £111,704, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board."

^* (3.4.) : I desire to call the attention of the Committee to the question of emigrating pauper children. The number of pauper children who are annually emigrated appears to be exceedingly small. In 1885 it was 301, in 1886 it was 164, in 1887 the number was 411, in 1888 it reached 596, which is the largest total during late years, and in 1889 it was 428, and in 1890 it was 375, so that it will be seen that the number has fallen off in the last two years. On the other hand, the number of pauper children dealt with by the Guardians is very large, the total number in England and Wales being 241,000; of these, 51,000 are indoor paupers and 189,000 outdoor paupers, the latter number including 4,366, who were boarded out. I wish particularly to direct attention to the 51,000 children who are still in the large district pauper schools, there being also a considerable number of children in the industrial and reformatory schools belonging pretty much to the same class. The bulk of the 51,000 children in the pauper schools are either orphan or deserted children, and, consequently, are entirely at the disposal of the State, because they are, so to speak, wards of the State. It appears to me that from every point of view, whether we consider the interests of the children themselves or the interests of the ratepayers, the emigration of these children would be of immense advantage as contrasted with our present method of dealing with them. I may point out that for a number of years past several private agencies have carried on the work of emigration in the interests of children of this class with very great success. One agency with which I have been connected for the last 17 or 18 years has emigrated about 2,500 children, while the institutions associated with the names of Mr. Quarrier, Dr. Barnardo, and others are carrying on the same kind of excellent work, so that something like from 2,000 to 3,000 children are sent out every year to Canada and elsewhere with immense advantage to themselves, and at a comparatively small cost. The contrast between the position of a child sent out to a farm in Canada, and that of a child brought up in an English workhouse is enormously in favour of the emigrant. The pauper child in England is brought up in a huge school with probably 1,000 others, where there is a great want of that sort of natural life which is necessary to fit the child for its after career; and although much has been done to improve the system prevailing in this country, it was demonstrated by Mrs. Nassau Senior 12 years ago that about 50 per cent. of the girls used to go altogether to the bad, although of late years great improvements have been introduced, and that proportion is said to have been reduced to only 10 per cent. However, it is well known that a large number of those who are brought up in the pauper schools go back to their original position. The average cost per head of rearing the pauper children in London schools is £20 or £25 per annum, and as they are often kept, on an average, about five years, the average cost per head per child in the pauper schools is about £100, whereas we can emigrate them to Canada, paying the whole cost of the agency, for £10 or £15 per head per child. From two points of view the emigration system has an enormous advantage over our pauper system. In the first place, the future chances of the child are many times as good in Canada as they are at home; and, in the second place, there is a saving of from three-fourths to nine-tenths of the outlay that would otherwise have to be made. This is not a theoretical question, because we have thoroughly tested the system I am advocating. We have carried on this emigration work for many years with the greatest possible success. We have found that at least 95 per cent. of the children sent out to Canadian farms have turned out well. Before going out they receive the necessary amount of practical instruction, while at the same time the moral and religious element is duly attended to, and it is found that those who are doing these things as a labour of love are bringing influences to bear upon the children which are far superior to those of mere salaried superintendents. I do not know any system by which the results can be so well followed up as that which we have adopted. One of the difficulties raised by the Local Government Board arises from the fact that whatever pauper emigration takes place must be inspected by the Canadian Government, whereby the children are branded as paupers. They have to be sent out and distributed in Canada as pauper children, while in the case of the private emigration agencies the children's chances are much better than where they have to be described as paupers. The children sent out by these agencies are treated very differently from the pauper children here. They live upon large farms generally of from 200 to 300 acres. They sit at the same table as the farmer, partaking of the same food, and grow up in a few years strong and sturdy men and women. There is no comparison between the condition of such a child and a child brought up in an English workhouse. Then with regard to the economical part of the subject, here in England we have to expend a large amount of public money which necessarily comes from the pockets of the ratepayers; but if the children were emigrated this expenditure would cease, and the ratepayers would be saved a large amount of needless outlay. In some of the London pauper schools the children are costing as much as £20 to £30 per head per annum, whereas the whole income of the family from which each child is taken is probably not more than £40 per annum. A more wasteful system of bringing up children than that which is here adopted it is hardly possible to conceive, and yet it continues to go on in spite of all the representations that have been made against it. I have brought this matter before the House on several former occasions, and I am taking the same course to-day, with a view of our getting from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board an expression of his views upon the subject. I only ask the right hon. Gentleman to put a spur on the Guardians, and I would suggest that he should send a Circular round to the different Boards asking them to freely communicate with him on this important subject. We have been talking about this matter for at least 20 years, and nothing of a really practical character has been done. Let us now make an early effort to find out what are the impediments to the adoption of a wise and sound system of emigration in the case of these pauper children, and we shall then be enabled to see whether they cannot be removed. I am sure I can count on the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will be enabled to say something which will help on this subject.

^* (3.24.) : The emigration of pauper children is a matter in which I take a considerable amount of interest, and I shall be glad, within the limits of safety, to encourage the Guardians to emigrate children to a larger extent than they do at present. The hon. Gentleman knows that four years ago I issued a revised set of Regulations with regard to the emigration of these children, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman could himself find any fault with those Regulations. The Local Government Board adopted what they considered the minimum of safety in fixing these Regulations. They provided for the proper inspection of these children when they arrived in Canada. Although in nine cases out of ten the children are better off in Canada than they are here, it was essential that Regulations should be made under which a Report should be sent from time to time of what becomes of them. It would not be right or proper that the Guardians should emigrate these children and then wash their hands of them. They also provide that the children should go through some amount of training before they are emigrated. These are really the only limits that have been put on emigration. The hon. Gentleman spoke of these children as being in the hands of the Government. They are not in the hands of the Government; they are in the hands of the Boards of Guardians. The hon. Gentleman asked the Local Government Board to put the spur on our Boards of Guardians. I do not think we could put on any greater spur than is put on them already. The cost of emigration is something like £11 a head, without any further charge on the rates. Comparing that with the annual cost of bringing up each child in this country, it will be seen that the Guardians have a very great inducement indeed to send the children to Canada. The hon. Gentleman cast reflections on the Boards of Guardians, as being interested in the buildings and other matters. I must dissociate myself entirely from suggestions of that kind, as I do not think that anything which is known at all justifies any such reflections. I am glad to be able to say that the Reports received from Canada with reference to these children are increasingly favourable, and the last Report, was the most favourable of all. We desire to encourage Boards of Guardians to take advantage of the facilities for emigration as far as they rightly can; but it would be going beyond the duty of the Local Government Board if they were to apply the spur, because that might lead to a wholesale emigration, which would land them in far worse evils than any which exist at the present time.

I intend to take a Division on this subject. I see no reason why the inspection of casual wards in the Metropolis should not be carried out by, and at the expense of, the County Council, in the same way as the Local Authorities throughout the country are required to do it. Similarly, the inspection of boarded-out children should be carried out by the Boards of Guardians. I object to charges in respect of such work and of auditing the accounts being defrayed out of Imperial revenues, while in Scotland local sources have to bear the whole burden. By way of protest, I shall move to reduce the Vote by £1,000 in respect of the charges for the inspection of the Metropolitan Poor Law schools, on the ground that it ought to be borne, not by the Imperial Government, but by the London County Council. I hold that, both audits and inspections should be carried out, as in Scotland, by the Local Authorities.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £110,704, be granted for the said Service."—( Dr. Clark. )

^* (3.36.) : I must point out to the hon. Member that for the purpose of the inspection of casual wards London is treated as one union, and it is necessary there should be an inspection of the casual wards in order to identify the casuals who frequent them, and so to prevent an abuse of the Regulations, otherwise the casuals would make these wards their home, and that would be a great misfortune.

But why not leave it to the County Council?

^* : This work cannot be done by the London County Council, because that body has no jurisdiction whatever with regard to the Poor Law. The inspection of boarded-out children has, for a long time, been most efficiently carried out by a lady, with great advantage to the children, and it has been thought desirable that this lady should be placed upon a permanent, instead of a merely temporary, footing. I am sure no item in the Estimates will be more freely voted than this by those who take an interest in the boarding-out of children. As to the cost of audits, I am aware that it is not entirely covered by stamps, but it was never contemplated that it should be. I am aware that the financial relations between England and Scotland have long constituted a standing grievance with the hon. Member, but I submit that that whole question, though a proper one for discussion, cannot be gone into at the present time.

In dealing with the Probate Duty the Government laid down a new principle, and allocated to England 80 per cent. of the total amount. Yet the Government, in addition to giving England the lion's share of the Probate Duty Grant, have now placed upon the Estimate the charge for the inspection of Poor Law schools, and for the audit of accounts, contrary to the understanding come to when the allocation was made. Scotland pays every penny of her own charges under those heads, and now, in addition, she is asked to pay a share of the taxation of the English accounts. I submit that these expenses, which solely affect England, should be defrayed out of England's share of the grant. Why should Scotland, after paying all her own charges, be asked to contribute a share of this £16,000 expended on England?

^* (3.44.) : I will not go into the question of the financial differences between England and Scotland. I think that they can only be settled by giving Scotland some sort of Home Rule, and enabling her to deal with her money in her own way. I wish to ask a question as to the inspection of the metropolitan vagrant wards. I suppose there is a similar inspection in every large town, and yet it does not appear to be paid for out of Imperial funds. Is it fair then, while Provincial towns pay for this inspection, London should be relieved of the burden at the expense of the taxpayers of the whole country? I say that it is most unfair. With regard to the inspection of boarded-out children, the right hon. Gentleman referred only to one Inspector, whereas I find that in the Estimates four Inspectors are provided for.

^* : There is no inspection in other parts of the country similar to that which is carried on in the London Unions. It is necessary to have this inspection in the Metropolis, in order to secure that vagrants do not pass from one ward to another without being subjected to the disadvantages which should follow upon such a practice.

I had desired to discuss the principles upon which the Local Government Board based its decision in the matter of disputes between certain boroughs and County Councils as to the maining of high roads. The right hon. Gentleman answered a question on the subject some time since, and on that occasion it was not possible to discuss his reply, to which great objection was taken by many boroughs. I am quite aware that the subject is intricate and complicated, and will open up wider questions, such as the relationship of the County Councils to non-county boroughs. But I am anxious to save time, and will be content to refrain from raising the question in Committee if I may understand that a written statement of the grievances, put before the Local Government Board, will be fully considered, and a reply given in writing. If that is done I will consult with those who feel strongly upon the matter, and raise the question again on some more favourable opportunity.

^* (3.51.) : I am obliged to the hon. Member for his courtesy and consideration in making the proposal he has now made. I shall be glad to receive such a communication, and will take care that a full reply is returned.

^* : I have to ask another question. A short time since I asked if the Local Government Board could not extend the practice of sending their Reports on sanitary matters, which, I think, are acknowledged to be of extreme value, to medical officers throughout the country. It appears to me almost grotesque that a Member of this House should if he wishes receive these valuable scientific Reports, while public servants who have charge of the health of the people should only be able to get them on paying for them, particularly when many of these medical officers help to collect the information contained in the Reports. No doubt I shall be told the difficulty may be met by the Local Authorities purchasing the Reports, which they have power to do out of the rates; but the fact is that medical officers do not care to trouble the Local Authorities on such small matters, and would prefer to have the Reports sent to them direct.

^* (3.56.) : The hon. Member referred to this matter on a previous occasion, and I then told him, as I tell him now, that whenever a strong desire is expressed by any Medical Officer of Health to be sent a copy of a Report, especially where he has himself contributed, a copy is almost invariably sent. If, however, these Reports were distributed wholesale they would not be much regarded. The Local Authority has full power to purchase anything of the kind out of the rates; but as hon. Members can have the Reports supplied to them they might consider whether they cannot advantageously forward them to their own constituencies.

With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Scarborough, I may point out that the awards for the adjustment of the finances as between certain boroughs and counties are to hold good for five years. But as the rateable value of 1889 was taken as the basis of calculation, practically the award is for seven years. This is a matter which my constituents at Norwich feel to constitute a grievance. I wish to know whether there are any means by which the matter may be reviewed before the end of the term?

^* : There is no mode of altering the award given by the Commissioners.

The right hon. Gentleman promised to inquire as to the extent to which Local Authorities had availed themselves of the power of supplying periodicals and books to inmates of workhouses. Has he any information to give the Committee?

I have no details. I believe that Boards of Guardians have had their attention drawn to the desirability of availing themselves of this power.

(4.0.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 125.—(Div. List, No. 349.)

Original Question again proposed.

^* (4.10.) : I have to move the reduction of the Vote by £100. The point I particularly wish to call attention to is what appears to be the use of improper lymph by vaccination officers at Southend about a month ago. A Mrs. Cooke was summoned because she objected to lymph being taken from her child and used at once in the vaccination of other children. She claimed that the vaccine was unfit to be used, on account of her child and her family generally being consumptive. It is generally understood that it is the duty of vaccination officers to take care they use lymph that has been properly examined, so that there may be no chance of diseases being communicated by vaccination. In the case at Southend it appears the doctor took it upon himself to use the lymph immediately he obtained it, so that there was no possibility of the rule of law being observed. That is the point I wish particularly to call attention to—that it is the duty of the doctors to take care that only good lymph is used. The other matter—that of the age of the child—I have nothing to do with to-day. The lymph in the case I have referred to was about to be used immediately on being taken from an unhealthy child. The doctor, I believe, says he did not intend to use the lymph, but from all the evidence we see in the papers—

I do not see how the hon. Member connects this question with the Vote.

^* : I understand that this is a matter which is under the charge of the Local Government Board. A large sum of money is taken here for things connected with vaccination.

If the allegation were that the medical officer drew the lymph from the vaccination establishment of the Local Government Board the hon. Member would be in order. But that is not the case. It seems to me that the hon. Member's charge is one of misconduct on the part of the local vaccination officer.

^* : What I want is that the Local Government Board shall secure the use of proper lymph. The other point is whether it is right that the vaccination officers should sit on Boards of Guardians, thereby becoming prosecutors and judges, when the Guardians sit on the Magisterial Bench. Of course, under such circumstances people have no chance of getting their cases properly considered. I know of no other way of calling attention to this matter than by raising the question on this Vote.

^* (4.17.) : I desire to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to a matter he has already had under his notice, which I think he will admit is of importance, namely, the case recently before the Rugby Rural Sanitary Authority of selling bad meat. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to answer a question I put to him on the subject. A local butcher was three times convicted of having sold bad meat. Twice he was imprisoned for periods of six months, and the third time he was fined very heavily—£40 or £50. Notwithstanding that, quite recently again the Inspector of the Rural Sanitary Authority found the man with a number of carcases of bad meat in his cart at the station, the carcases being directed to a dealer in the London meat market, and there is no doubt they were to be sent off. The meat was subsequently examined by a Magistrate and the medical officer, and was ordered to be destroyed. The case was brought before the Rural Sanitary Authority at their next meeting, but owing to some dispute about a previous case, which, however, was not on all fours with this, it was decided by a majority of one that there should not be a prosecution. The right hon. Gentleman wrote to the Rural Sanitary Authority asking them to re-consider the matter. They did so; but there seems to have been some misapprehension as to the point on which they were called upon to vote. The local Press says that the division—which was against a prosecution—was somewhat confused. It is needless to point out how important it is that the public should have sound meat, and that the Act of Parliament regulating the matter should be properly carried out. This particular case affects London more than the country, for there can be no doubt that if this bad meat had reached its destination it would have been used for sausages, and many people might have been poisoned. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough, seeing that the Local Sanitary Authority were under some misapprehension when they last voted, to write to them and ask them to again reconsider the matter? A letter to that effect could do no harm. Let the question be raised before them fairly and plainly, and then if they pass a resolution to the effect that they will not prosecute the responsibility will rest with them, and when next they come before their constituents for re-election I have no doubt their action will be remembered.

^* : I remember the case referred to, and will look into it again with the object of seeing whether any further action can be taken. As to vaccine lymph, the whole question is before the Royal Commission, which is taking evidence on the very point. No doubt the Report of the Commission will deal with the subject, and then the Government will be in a position to consider it.

^* : May I ask whether the prosecutions at Southend will be stayed pending the issue of the Report of the Commission?

^* : I cannot say anything as to that particular case; but with regard to the general question of stopping prosecutions until we have the Report of the Commission, we have no power to do anything of the kind. So far as I am concerned, I should be unwilling to do anything that would lead people to think that the law can be disobeyed.

I desire to call attention to a reply given to me by the Government the other day as to the refusal of the Local Government Board to constitute Corwen in Merionethshire a Local Board District. I think the objections the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board stated to the formation of this Local Board are such as to necessitate some attention being called to it in Committee. This town of Corwen is typical of a large number of small towns in rural counties. It is not merely a market town and a steadily growing town, but one of those towns so situated by closeness to the sea and in the midst of beautiful and attractive scenery as to bid fair to become a favourite resort for visitors. The right hon. Gentleman will admit that it is of the utmost importance that in places of this sort some power should be given by which the habits of the village—the worst habits of the village—can be done away with, and the best habits of a well-conducted town can be developed and encouraged. The town, I admit, is a small one, with less than 1,400 inhabitants, and has hitherto been governed by a Rural Sanitary Authority. Now, this Rural Sanitary Authority covers a very large district, and the great majority of the members on the Board are either landowners or farmers from the adjoining district. There are, I think, two members connected with the township of Corwen itself on it; but the town has, practically, no real voice in the management of its own affairs. One of the officials of the Local Government Board, six or seven years ago, reported that scandalous sanitary abuses were allowed to exist. In consequence of this, and in view of the rise of public spirit in the town, especially after seeing that it could be made into a prosperous town and a resort for visitors, an attempt has been made during the past three years to get it constituted into an Urban Sanitary Authority. The ratepayers decided by an immense majority to apply to the County Council to hold a public inquiry. A most exhaustive inquiry was held, and the County Council subsequently voted unanimously in favour of an order converting the town into an Urban Sanitary District. The order was sent to the Local Government Board, and I understand that it would have been sanctioned at once had it not been that the Rural Sanitary Authority petitioned against it. I would point out that that decision was arrived at without previous notice, in the absence of the Corwen representatives and on the motion of the Chairman, who has been all along one of the two or three most determined opponents to the formation of the Urban Sanitary Authority. So far as I can understand, the President of the Local Government Board rather welcomed this opportunity of going against the wishes of the people of Corwen, on the ground that it is only a small township containing less than 1,400 inhabitants. I, of course, speak with diffidence on this point, as I admit the experience of the right hon. Gentleman and his Board; but I cannot help thinking it is unfortunate for a Central Authority to repress the energy of a local community who are anxious to take the initiative in bringing about a great local improvement, and who wish to take a fair and intelligent part in local government. But the right hon. Gentleman has based the whole of his objection to giving these powers to Corwen on the fact that it is a small township. I asked him the number of towns of under 2,000 population and 1,300 population who have Local Authorities. The right hon. Gentleman admitted there are 116 Urban Sanitary Authorities with populations under 2,000 and 46 under 1,300, but he said this was due to the fact that many Boards were constituted before the Central Department had power to deal with them. I should be sorry to learn that the right hon. Gentleman refuses under any circumstances to sanction the conversion of a rural township into an urban district because of its small population. To fortify my position, I turn to Scotland, and there I find that this House has passed an Act to make provision for the better lighting, paving, cleansing, draining, and generally making better arrangements for the health of the population in the populous districts by the formation of Urban Boards, with powers be- yond those we ask for in the present instance, and 44 police burghs in Scotland have all the authority and powers we ask for in the case of Corwen. So we have 116 authorities in England exercising the power of Urban Boards and 44 in Scotland in populations below 2,000. I should be surprised to learn that in these 44 cases the authorities do their work so badly that the right hon. Gentleman would, if he had control in Scotch affairs, suppress those authorities. Surely, with the views we know the right hon. Gentleman entertains in favour of extending and developing local government, and giving to small bodies powers of initiative, it would be unwise to set up an artificial and arbitrary limit of 2,000 inhabitants. Is it not better to welcome any signs of real energy in the inhabitants of a small township like Corwen, and wise to encourage them as much as possible? In this instance, not merely is the theory upheld, but we have the County Authority which the right hon. Gentleman himself has been instrumental in setting up, coming to a decision that it would be an advantage to convert the township into an Urban Sanitary District. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will hold out some hope that he will grant the almost unanimous request of the inhabitants of Corwen that they may have an Urban Sanitary Authority. As a matter of fact, opinion against the change is confined to two or three persons, a local landowner, a large farmer, and the doctor. It would be deplorable if the right hon. Gentleman should play into the hands of a very small section against the general local opinion. Apart from the residential population, there is a continual increase in the number of visitors who come to the district for recreation and health. It is one of the most beautiful districts of North Wales, and if the energy of the inhabitants had sufficient scope, there is no doubt that Corwen would be placed on the same footing as other towns in Merionethshire and Carnarvon. With urban powers, the abuses Inspectors have complained of would be swept away, and the town would become a credit to the county and a testimony to the wisdom of the Minister who sanctioned the change.

^* (4.38) : I do not intend to enter into the particular question raised by my hon. Friend, but I support his appeal on general grounds. There seems to have been in the minds of officials who—perhaps generations ago—drew up the rules and conditions of Local Sanitary Authorities, urban and rural, an idea that the ordinary rules of health do not run in rural districts. The rules for the guidance of authorities having charge in rural districts are very deficient, and I should very much like to have them overhauled by an acute modern mind, such as that of the President of the Local Government Board, with the view of bringing the regulations up to the requirements of the present day. It was with considerable pain that I found not long ago that authorities in rural districts could not insist upon a damp-proof course in a building. Now, if a damp-proof course is required in a building anywhere, it is when that building is in a garden. A building surrounded by a pavement hardly wants a damp-proof course, but if the ground is cultivated up to the walls, a damp-proof course is absolutely necessary. That is one of the instances in which these rules should be brought into conformity with modern ideas. I have it on the authority of Dr. Fox, a Medical Officer of Health, who, with great zeal and tact, administers a large district in Mid Cheshire, that many cases of consumption in the district might have been prevented if the sanitary authority had had greater power. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will convince himself of this, that it is just as necessary that Rural Sanitary Authorities should have those powers in matters of public health which are accorded to Urban Authorities. Then there is another matter which I think comes under this Vote, the Inspector of alkali works. The law at present is in a very anomalous condition. There are a number of manufactories in the country where the business comes under the designation of alkali works. These works carry on operations on a large scale, and are prevented, under the Act, from the discharge of noxious vapours; but, strange to say, in other works, where they use the products made in the larger manufactories, the Act does not apply. In point of fact, there are smaller factories using the products of the larger works, and discharging fumes which do quite as much mischief as those which are evolved from alkali works. Oddly enough, if the Inspector can induce the owners of these works to consume these noxious gases instead of turning them out into the air, then the works come under the Act. Those who carry on their work in the most wasteful and harmful fashion are not watched, but as soon as a man ceases doing mischief to his neighbours then he comes under the watchful eye of the Local Government Board Inspector. If the right hon. Gentleman will consult with the officials of his Department, he will, I have no doubt, find that they are entirely at one with me in this matter, and he may be assured an amendment of the law will have the hearty co-operation of the manufacturers who do come under the Act. So far as the Sanitary Authorities who understand this matter—more especially in London, where the mischief is rife—are concerned, he may rely upon their support too. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the representations made to him on this subject, and endeavour to put the law into a condition consistent with common sense.

^* (4.45.) : I wish to endorse the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Merionethshire (Mr. Ellis). The County Council are absolutely unanimous, the inhabitants are practically unanimous, and the only opposition proceeds from merely two or three persons. The present condition of Corwen is anything but satisfactory from a sanitary point of view, and I hope the President of the Local Board will allow free play to local feeling in these matters. In reference to the objection on the ground of population, I may mention that, comparatively speaking, a population of 1,400 is a fair average for a small town in the mountainous parts of Wales, and Corwen is an important centre for an increasing number of visitors, and during part of the year the residential population is largely augmented.

There is a matter to which I should like to call attention in relation to this Vote, and it comes to my notice from reading the Reports of the Inspectors of Factories furnished to the Home Office and laid before the House. The Report I refer to is that from Mr. Blenkinsop, the Inspector for the district of Beds, Hunts, and parts of Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire, as affecting the village of Raunds, in Northamptonshire, and anybody who reads this Report must allow it discloses a deplorable condition of sanitary affairs, demanding the instant attention of the Local Government Board. The village contains some 600 houses, it is 4½ miles from Thrapstone, and it appears that the sanitary requirements are extremely neglected. A brook runs through the village, and is nothing but a common sewer, and cows are led to it to drink. Lime-washing is unknown, closets, &c., and the workshops are in a filthy state. The Chairman of the Rural Sanitary Authority and the Medical Officer have been communicated with, and some of the principal owners have taken up the matter and raised a commotion, which Mr. Blenkinsop says may in time have an effect, but meantime many of the workshops and dwellings are quite unfit for occupation. Typhoid fever is rife, and there were 12 deaths from this cause last year, and there were 60 cases of scarlet fever. A few years ago there was an outbreak of diphtheria. It seems to be necessary there should be the scourge of an epidemic before local action is taken in these cases. It seems that the Rural Sanitary Authority have not the power to deal with the position properly, but this Report reveals a condition of things that requires that something should be done without further delay. When we take up Local Government Board Reports we find the baldest possible statements; but strong sidelights are thrown sometimes from other departmental reports, and this Report of Mr. Blenkinsop discloses the fact that Raunds is a most neglected place and a disgrace to Local Government.

^* : Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will, in his reply, give the information I have asked for in relation to other Departments—the hours of attendance of clerks and officials of the Local Government Board.

I merely wish to add a word in support of the claim of Corwen put for ward by thy hon. Member for Merionethshire to become an Urban Sanitary District. I do not know the place personally, but I learn from friends there that the change is much desired. On general principles we should recognise the desire of localities in this respect, and I think the experience we have had in Scotland justifies the extension of these powers to small communities.

^* (4.54.) : In regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. Brunner), I have to say that the matter has been under our consideration, and a Bill to amend the Alkali Acts has been prepared, and I believe it would meet the views of the hon. Gentleman; but there has been no opportunity of introducing it this Session. I hope the Alkali Acts will be so extended as to embrace the offending factories mentioned by the hon. Member, with regard to which I am quite at one with him. As to the building powers of Rural Sanitary Authorities, they can be clothed with the same powers as Urban Authorities by simply passing a Resolution.

^* : Has the right hon. Gentleman never refused them?

^* : I do not say they have never been refused. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, and will give me the facts, I will have the case investigated. My disposition has invariably been to grant such powers whenever possible. I am familiar with the Report upon the village of Raunds, and I have given personal attention to the questions raised by it. I am prepared to admit that the case is a very bad one, without endorsing all that was said by the Inspector in the Report from which the hon. Member has quoted. That Report was not made to the Local Government Board.

A Local Government Board Inspector was sent down.

^* : No doubt; but the Report referred to was not made to the Local Government Board. But I am quite prepared to admit the circumstances are extremely unsatisfactory, and the hon. Member may rely that no efforts shall be spared to put matters in a more satisfactory condition. In regard to the brook, there is much to be said from the ratepayers' point of view. The brook is, however, a source of danger to health, and no considerations of the nature to which I have referred ought to be allowed to stand in the way of the discharge of a public duty in the interest of the health of the inhabitants. In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Shoreditch, the hours in the office of the Local Government Board are six for the upper division clerks and seven for the lower division; but those hours are often exceeded, sometimes by many hours, when there is a pressure of business in the office. As to Corwen, I may point out that the Petition which was presented to the Local Government Board praying it not to confirm the Provisional Order was signed by 300 or 400 persons, and therefore the opposition was of a more important character than hon. Members appear to believe. The decision at which the Local Government Board arrived was one which appeared to us to be called for in the interest of the public. The decision we arrived at was regarded by us as being in the interests of the public health. The rateable value is extremely small. If sanitary matters continue to be dealt with by the Rural Sanitary Authority the charge will fall on the whole parish, whereas if a Local Board were constituted, the charge upon the ratepayers of the Local Board District would be about four times as heavy as it is now. In order to show what are the views of the Corwen people as to what is necessary, I may say that they contemplated that the total expenditure of the Urban Sanitary Authority would be something like £145 a year, and they proposed to give their medical officer £5 a year. I am sure that if the Rural Sanitary Authority do their duty the sanitary administration of the district will be much better carried out and will be a much less burden to the inhabitants than if an Urban Authority were constituted. I admit that the condition of things is exceedingly unsatisfactory. At the same time, since the attention of the Local Government Board was called to the matter, a considerable sum has been ex- pended by the Rural Sanitary Authority, and if that authority does not do its duty the decision of the Local Government Board will be reviewed in a very short time.

I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. At the same time I would point out that the attitude of the Rural Sanitary Authority has been for years one of dogged opposition to the Inspectors of the Local Government Board. I admit that the rate suggested was a very low one, but the promoters of the Local Board scheme would naturally and without any dishonest intention minimise the amount, especially in view of the opposition with which they had to contend from two or three of the leading ratepayers. I can quite understand that by dint of great effort those two or three leading men were able to obtain signatures against the scheme, but I would point out that they only got two or three hundred to support them, whereas the population of the village is 1,400. I admit that the right hon. Gentleman has made a strong point with regard to the salary of the Medical Officer of Health. It may be very ridiculous to propose that such a small salary should be given to a Medical Officer of Health, but I am looking forward to a time, not very far distant, when these Sanitary Authorities will be able to group themselves into districts and to appoint one competent medical officer to take care of the group. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able again to look into these facts, and to lay some stress on the wishes of the vast majority of the people, of the Committee of the County Council, and of the County Council itself. I desire to give notice to the right hon. Gentleman that on the very first opportunity I shall again call attention to this matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a slim, not exceeding £8,944, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in due course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners in Lunacy in England."

I have to move a reduction of this Vote. There are six Lunacy Commissioners for England, each of whom is paid a salary of £1,500 a year, while there are two Lunacy Commissioners in Scotland, each at a salary of £1,000 a year. I do not wish to institute any unfavourable comparison between the six English and the two Scotch Commissioners, but anyone who knows anything about the matter will agree with me when I say that Sir Arthur Mitchell, one of the Scotch Commissioners, is known all over the world as one of the ablest men in this branch of medical work, whilst of the English Commissioners scarcely one is known out of England. I only intend to take three Divisions on these subjects, and I will enter my protest against the differences of salary on this one Vote instead of taking a large number of Divisions on the various items. The Scotch Commissioners are as able, or if not abler, than their English colleagues. The cost of living is as great in Scotland as in England, and, the taxation being higher in Scotland than it is here, I cannot see why if you can get men of this type to work for £1,000 a year in Scotland, you should pay £1,500 a year to the English Commissioners. I move the reduction, not from the ordinary economical motives, because I think £1,500 a year is little enough to pay men in this position, but as a protest against paying 50 percent. less in Scotland than in England. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £3,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,944, be granted for the said Service."—( Dr. Clark. )

This is one of the many cases in which Public Departments in Scotland, which are worked with far greater efficiency than corresponding Departments in England, are paid at a much lower rate. I wish to repeat the protest I have made on several occasions previously, as to the absurdly small amounts paid to the Lunacy Commissioners in Scotland as compared with that paid in England. There are three Medical Commissioners and three Legal Commissioners in England. I have often asked what lawyers are wanted for on a Lunacy Commission. The chief business of the Commissioners is to find out whether alleged lunatics are improperly detained, and I think the presence of a lawyer on the Commission is entirely unnecessary. In Scotland the number of lunatic asylums is much smaller than in England, and they are worked with admirable efficiency. When it is remembered that we have on the Scotch Lunacy Commission such a man as Sir Arthur Mitchell it will be admitted that Scotland may well be admired and imitated by other countries. I am glad the point has been raised by my hon. Friend, whom I shall have much pleasure in following into the Division Lobby.

There can be no doubt that there is a great deal in the points raised by my hon. Friends. I do not know why lawyers should be placed on the Lunacy Commission. There is another point worth considering. There is exactly the same number of Commissioners now as there was about 10 years ago. There has been a large increase in lunacy of late years, and it is probable that additional Commissioners will have to be appointed. I hope that, in the event of new applications being made, those who are appointed will be of the medical profession. Perhaps one or two lawyers might be of use in giving legal advice on doubtful points, but I do not see why you should not have a larger proportion of medical men. It certainly is very unfair that the Scotch Commissioners, who do their work in an able manner, should receive so much lower salaries than the English Commissioners. I shall have very great pleasure in supporting my hon. Friends in the Lobby on this occasion.

I think we ought really to get an answer from the Government.

This is not the first time the hon. Member has brought forward this question. The hon. Member's contention is that the salaries of the Scotch Commissioners are too low. At present, however, we are not on the Scotch Vote. He does not say that the English salaries are too high. If he institutes a comparison between the expenditure in the two countries, he will find that the figures are hopelessly against him, because the Scotch Vote amounts to £5,800, and the English Vote to £13,500. Taking into account the relative populations and the amount of work done in each case, it is clear that England has not as large a share of the total expenditure as Scotland.

Of course the right hon. Gentleman is aware that I am only bringing this subject forward by proposing the reduction of the English Vote. I know it is an absurd method of procedure, but it is the only one, as we are not able to move an increase of the Scotch Vote. I do not say the English Commissioners are overpaid; I think they are poorly paid, and they would do very much better if they were not State servants. The Scotch Commissioners are certainly very much underpaid. I am fighting for the principle that men who do exactly the same work, whether in Scotland or England, should get the same pay. According to the last Returns, Scotland pays to the Imperial Exchequer 2s. per head more than England, and very much more than Ireland. I shall take a Division for the purpose of protesting, as a Scotchman, against Scotch officials getting less than English officials.

Will the Secretary to the Home Office say what are really the functions of the Commission? There are no legal Commissioners in Scotland, and I would like to know what peculiarity there is in English lunacy which necessitates the presence of lawyers upon the Commission?

The Commissioners are often called upon to advise the Government respecting the conclusion of contracts and the purchase of sites, and other questions of the same nature, and it is therefore deemed advisable that lawyers should be on the Commission.

Is there not also a largely-paid Lunacy Board?

The only paid members a the Board are three lawyers and three medical men. The other members of the Board are all laymen.

(5.23.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 136—(Div. List, No. 350.)

Original Question again proposed.

It is proposed to proceed with Supply on Thursday, and I beg to give notice that I will move the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule, when Supply is taken, for the remainder of the Session. There will be not only acquiescence in, but a desire for this course in many parts of the House, and I believe that the Motion will meet with general approval.

I wish to ask if the Government will renew the undertaking given last year, to oppose any measure that is objected to?

I can assure the hon. Member that communications have been made from my own side of the House that the proposal of the Government will meet with general acquiescence and I wish the House distinctly to understand that the Government have no desire to coerce the House in the slightest degree, but think that they will be meeting the general desire in endeavouring to bring the Session to a speedy termination. I am not in a position t o offer and pledge with regard to next Session, and in reply to the hon. Member (Mr. Robertson) I must point out that the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule only applies to Supply.

Nobody who is not an Irishman, certainly nobody above the Gangway belonging to any Party, has a right to speak on behalf of the Irish Members. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that next Session the Estimates shall be taken at an early period in the year, and that the Irish Votes now shall be taken at a reasonable hour?

It being after half past Five of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would have any objection to lay on the Table of the House a Return showing the amount of money which, with the Bankrupt Estates Account, has been handed over to the Treasury, the amount of money which the Treasury has handed back again to the Bankrupt Estates Account, and what expenditure has been made from the same for the wants of the Exchequer, and showing also the amount in the hands of the Treasury?

^* : I shall be extremely glad, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be extremely glad to give the fullest information that can be afforded with regard to this matter. If the hon. Member will put a notice on the Paper I will endeavour to meet his wishes.

I wish to know whether anything has been done to carry out the recommendation of the Committee on Forestry

The powers of the Department are limited to giving grants in aid of those Institutions which will aid themselves. We have had one or two applications for aid—one from the Scottish Agricultural Society, and we have given within the last two years a grant of £100 for Forestry to the Edinburgh University. We have now under consideration the giving of a grant to the Botanical Gardens in Edinburgh, and we have also undertaken, under certain conditions, to make grants to Chambers of Agriculture and Forestry for the establishment of schools.

Will the £100 granted to Edinburgh be counted?

Certainly.

^* : All I can say is that nothing has been done to carry out the recommendation, and we always have been told to wait until the Board of Agriculture was established. The millenium has arrived in the person of the right hon. Gentleman. Yet it is very unsatisfactory that nothing has been done to develop what could be made a very remunerative process of agricultural arboriculture.

Resolution agreed to.

Subsequent resolutions agreed to.

Perhaps the hon. Member will give some explanation of the clause.

These Amendments have all been discussed, and agreed upon by those who are interested in the Bill.

I move to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—( Mr. Flynn. )

I hope the hon. Member will not press his Motion. The Amendment simply contemplates the case of a man who has assigned his lease, and prevents engagements being entered into by the assignees.

I am sorry to say that I cannot give way.

^* : I may explain to the hon. Member that I accepted the modification which is proposed by the Amendment to meet the opposition of some hon. Members on the other side. I cannot hope to get the Bill through this Session unless I submit to these Amendments.

If you had allowed me to give notice, perhaps it would have prevented this Motion. We cannot allow the remnant of the Sitting to be taken up with this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress, to sit again upon Friday.

MOVABLE DWELLINGS BILL.—(No. 222.)

Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.

Bill withdrawn.

TRUSTEE BILL [Lords]

Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 413.]

MORTMAIN AND CHARITABLE USES ACT AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]

Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 414.]

I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that during the eight months of the present Session not one single Irish Vote in Supply has been taken. The whole of the Irish business has been postponed till after the eleventh hour, notwithstanding the pledge of the First Lord of the Treasury last year, that the business of Supply should go forward regularly from the beginning to the end of the Session. In these circumstances it will be my duty to offer any resistance in my power to any attempt to take any Irish Vote whatever, except in the ordinary hours for the transaction of the business of the House.

I can assure the hon. Member that in proposing the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule the Government by no means wish to force discussion on an important Vote after 12 o'clock, or at any unreasonable hour, but experience has shown that there is often a discussion on a small Vote, that might be concluded in a few minutes, that under the 12 o'clock Rule has to be renewed on the following day, contrary to the wishes of the Committee. The Irish Members are fully entitled to have their Votes discussed at a time when there will be a full attendance, and all reasonable facility will be offered.

This is a very gracious concession, for which I suppose we ought to be grateful. For years we have seen Irish business postponed to the last days of the Session, and it makes me feel, what I have felt for years, that the Irishman who trusts to a British Minister's word is not fit for public life.

^* : Can the right hon Gentleman say when the Post Office Vote will be reached?

It may be reached soon if hon. Members curtail their speeches.

I did not get a very distinct answer to the suggestion which I made a few minutes ago. There are scores of opposed Private Bills on the Paper, and what I wish is that hon. Members may not find it necessary to stay late if they receive an undertaking from the Government to oppose all Private Bills after 12 o'clock to which they have received notice of opposition.

I will consider it.

House adjourned at one minute before Six o'clock.