I hope the Amendment will not be pressed, as it is a somewhat unusual coarse to move the rejection of a Bill without assigning any reasons for the Motion. Perhaps, under the circumstances, I had better say a word as to what the Bill does, and why it is considered to be necessary. It is a Bill which after having received discussion in the House was referred to a Select Committee of five members—three selected in the usual way and two nominated by the Committee of Selection. I was one of the two nominated by the Committee of Selection, and I can safely say that both of us entered the Committee with perfectly open minds. Neither of us took part in the Division upon the second reading, and neither of us had the slightest bias either one way or the other. The fact of the matter is, that the existing Church has come to be altogether unsuited to the wants of the parish, and it has been thought desirable to dispose of the site and erect another Church in the centre of the parish where it will better meet the necessities of the locality. I may add that the Bill is unanimously supported by the inhabitants of the parish.

I rise to protest against debating so small a question at so late a period of the Session. The whole question has already been fully discussed. I do not deny that the right hon. Gentleman has put all the facts clearly and cogently before the House, but we have heard them already and there is nothing more to be said upon the matter. Certainly nothing has occurred to-day to remove from the minds of hon. Members that a complete job is being perpetrated.

The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill refrained from giving any reasons why a measure, which was fully discussed upon the Second Reading and has passed the ordeal of a Committee, should be rejected at the eleventh hour. When the Bill was before the House for Second Reading we were told that the measure was very much opposed by the parish, and it was pointed out that there was a petition against it from the Vestry. It appeared, however, when the Committee met upstairs that the Vestry had withdrawn their petition and that the Bill was altogether unopposed except by a certain charitable Trust. One of the great points on the Second Reading was that it was proposed to destroy an artistic monument, but no architects for artistic purposes appeared before the Committee at all. The Institute of Architects did petition, but no appearance was put in in support of the petition. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) cross-examined the witnesses in order to prove his contention, but he completely failed; and it was shown that the removal of the church will be of material advantage to the inhabitants of the parish. I am afraid that the Motion to reject the Bill is to be attributed to that bitter opposition to improvements in the Church of England of which we had a signal instance yesterday afternoon. I hope that all fair-minded Members of the House will combine to resist the opposition offered to this Bill.

I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn. As a resident of the parish, I can assure hon. Members that the removal of this church is very much needed by an increasing and populous district, and it would be a great loss-to the neighbourhood if the Bill were rejected. It is simply an exchange of one site for another, and if the removal takes place there will be an excellent church, with a parsonage as well. The population to be served is a working class population, who will be placed at a great disadvantage if the Bill is rejected.

The Bill was referred to a hybrid Committee at the special request of the opponents. The Committee went very fully into every matter, and the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton), although invited to place his views before the Committee, did not appear, and no real opposition was offered to the Bill. I do not think the Committee could have done more than they did to satisfy the reasonable wishes of the opponents of the measure, and it does seem to me unreasonable that the hon. Member for Holmfirth (Mr. H. J. Wilson) should now, without a word of explanation, move the rejection of the Bill.

I do not object to the protest of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. C. Graham) against a waste of time, but it is somewhat singular that the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill did not utter a word of explanation in doing so. He did not even state that he thought all the arguments on the subject had been exhausted, and that a further speech was unnecessary. That being so, it appears to me as if the hon. Member's motive in the action he had taken was not to save the time of the House, but the hope that if the House proceeded to a Division at once the Bill would be rejected. That appears to me to have been the motive that actuated the hon. Member, but, if it was not so, perhaps he will rise in his place and clear himself of it. I have laid it down over and over again that if a Bill has been read a second time, referred to a Committee and passed by that Committee after being examined in all its details, and if, too, the Bill is defended by the Chairman of the Committee on the Third Reading stage before the House, it would be a destruction of our method of procedure and an abuse of power if the House insisted for some private reason on ruining the Bill against the well-considered decision of the majority on the Second Reading and against the views of the Committee. There is a word often used in the House, the meaning of which I think is rarely strictly examined—I refer to the word "obstruction." Cries of obstruction are often raised, and, in my opinion, frequently without justice. In connection with this word, I think I may refer to a speech which I made in this House 10 years ago, in which I attempted to define what obstruction is. I then laid down that obstruction is not prolonging a Debate in order to secure greater objection or fresh discussion in the House or in the country. That may be justifiable. What I consider to be obstruction is the use of the power given by the forms of the House by a few persons to defeat what is the desire of the majority, after the question has been thoroughly examined, after every argument has been stated, and after the House and the country know exactly what is in issue. If the House, on the chance position it was then in, at five minutes past 3 o'clock, had used the power which the Members then had to defeat the Bill, although the Members then present might have been in the majority, their action would have been, in my opinion, open to the charge of obstruction such, as I have attempted to define.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we have just heard from a very responsible Member of the House an ex parte definition of "obstruction," which I do not wish to go forth as the correct definition. I therefore ask you whether we are to accept that definition or not.

The right hon. Gentleman is so good a judge of order that I can add nothing to what he has said.

Like many other Members present, all I know of the Bill is that it has passed the Second Reading, and that a very strong Committee has reported in its favour. I admit that on some occasions the House might properly and rightly overrule the decisions of a Committee; but it is altogether unusual to ask the House to do so without a single reason being given why it should be done. My mind is quite open on the matter, and I ask those who dissent from the Report of the Committee on this Bill to state the reasons why the Bill should not be passed. If hon. Gentlemen who are against the Bill do not think it worth their while to give one reason why the decision of the Committee should be upset, I shall certainly think it right to vote in favour of the decision of the Committee.

I beg now to move the following new Standing Order to follow Standing Order 193:—

"No Bill originating in this House for confirming a Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read the first time after the Whitsuntide Recess."

It is simply intended by this Amendment to convert into a Standing Order what was adopted earlier in the Session as a Sessional Order. It is desirable to get these Bills before Committees early enough to secure their adequate consideration; and the only question is whether it is better to choose a fixed "date or a moveable holiday. On the whole, I prefer to say Whitsuntide.

I am afraid that I do not quite agree with my right hon. Friend. Having had some considerable experience in connection with Provisional Order Bills, I am of opinion that the period named by my right hon. Friend would be very inconvenient, and that it will be better to have regard to a particular period of the Session than to a holiday, which might come as early as the 10th of May, or at any time within a range of four weeks after that date. Therefore, I propose as an Amendment to omit Whitsuntide and substitute the 1st day of June.

May I ask whether the working of the Allotments Act will be prejudiced by fixing this date?

May I suggest that instead of fixing the 1st of June it would be better to name a definite time after the beginning of the Session.

The fixing of the date has reference rather to the end than to the beginning of the Session. The operation of the Allotments Act need not be prejudiced by fixing this date, because other proceedings with regard to Provisional Orders will not be altered.

In my opinion, the date fixed ought to have reference to the end of the Session and the difficulty of obtaining Members to sit on Committees as the Session advances. For this reason I think the 1st of June would be preferable to Whitsuntide.

I am quite willing to try the experiment of adopting the 1st of June instead of Whitsuntide.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he will grant the following Return, which appears on the Paper in my name:—

"Return of the Correspondence between Mr. L. P. Hayden and the Irish Land Commission, between Mr. Hayden and the Attorney General for Ireland, and between Mr. Percy Magan, J. P., and the Attorney General for Ireland and the Irish Land Commission, in reference to charges brought against Mr. Magan, of having fraudulently obtained money under the Arrears Act; and the Correspondence between Mr. Magan and the Lord Chancellor, and the Irish Office and the Lord Chancellor, in the same matter."

I am afraid that I cannot give this Return in the exact form in which the hon. Member asks for it. I will communicate with the hon. Member as to the form in which it can be given.

said: My difficulty has reference to the correspondence between the Irish Office and the Lord Chancellor, which concerns two separate Departments of the Government.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State is aware that among the public of Bombay serious alarm exists on account of the attitude and proceedings of the local police in connection with the case known as the Rajabai Tower Tragedy; whether he is aware that, in that case, the medical men who first viewed the corpses of the two Parsi girls, on the afternoon of the 25th of April, certified that there were on their persons certain marks indicating attempted outrage, but nevertheless, before the post-mortem examination was held, the police adopted, and throughout the inquiry maintained, the theory of accident, or suicide; that the man Aslajee, who was arrested the same evening on suspicion, was found to have his jacket torn and his trousers soiled, but that, nevertheless, he was released the same night, at 3 a.m., without even his person being examined or his clothes detained; and that for 56 hours the police failed to follow up an important clue furnished to them in person by one of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace; whether these, and other allegations, tending to show bias and neglect of duty on the part of the police, were set forth in a Memorial to the Bombay Government, signed by Sir Jamsetjee Jeheebhoy, Sir Duishah Petit, and some 45,000 inhabitants of Bombay, and praying that a complete investigation by independent and competent officers should be made into the facts of the case; whether the Secretary of State is aware that the said prayer was disregarded by the Bombay Government; that the man Aslajee was committed for trial upon incomplete evidence; and that he was acquitted; and whether the Secretary of State will order an independent investigation into this case with a view to allay the public alarm, and to clear the good name of the local police administration?

The Secretary of State has no official information as to the facts stated in the question. The Petition to the Bombay Government signed by Sir Jamsetjee Jeheebhoy and others seems to have been presented while the proceedings against the accused man were going on. The Bombay Government very properly refused to interfere with the course of justice, but reserved the consideration of the necessity for further inquiry until the trial was concluded. The whole matter has received, and is receiving, the fullest attention of the Government of Bombay, and the Secretary of State sees no reason for interference.

I beg to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a position now to fix a day for taking the Indian Budget?

We have thought of putting down the Indian Budget for Monday or Tuesday next; but it is impossible to come to any definite arrangement until we are enabled to see how we stand in regard to Supply.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether complaint has been made to his Department in reference to the neglect of the Wood-bridge Rural Sanitary Authority to carry out the Sanitary Act in connection with the supply of pure water to Otley, in Suffolk; how many cases of illness and death from fever have occurred in that district during the last two years, and will the Local Government Board use its powers to compel the Local Authority to proceed at once with the necessary works?

In January of the present year the Local Government Board received a complaint as to the supply of water in the parish of Otley. They communicated with the Rural Sanitary Authority, and were informed that the authority had directed that inquiry should be made by the Medical Officer of Health, and that it appeared from his Report that there was ground for complaint. They resolved that the owners should be required to provide a proper supply for the use of their tenants; and that if they failed to comply the authority would order the necessary works to be carried out, and charge the expenses upon them. This reply was communicated to the complainant, and the Board have received no further complaint in the matter. I have since been informed by the Sanitary Authority that they have called upon the owners of the properties in question to provide a proper supply of water. It is stated, in answer to my inquiries, that no deaths from fever at Otley are shown by the Registrar General's Reports during the two years ended 31st December last, but the authority are unable to furnish information as to the number of non-fatal cases of fever. The Local Government Board have not at present any facts showing that their intervention in the way of directing a local inquiry is necessary, but they will communicate further with the authority, with the view of obtaining more precise information as to the action which has been taken by them, and as to its results.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether English prison officials are obliged to dress in uniform when off duty?

There is no general order on the subject in local prisons. In convict prisons officers are permitted to wear plain clothes when on leave of absence, but on no other occasion.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture why fees are demanded for inspection of the Tithe Reference Books; whether those books were prepared at public expense; and whether he will consider the desirability of permitting the examination of such books without charge, as is permitted in regard to documents at the Patent, the Record, and other public Offices?

Fees have hitherto been demanded for the inspection of the Tithe Reference Books in order to cover the cost of an attendant capable of affording and explaining information respecting them, as well as for taking them out and replacing them. The tithe apportionments and maps were prepared in part at the public expense and in part at the expense of the landowners in the several parishes. It is not the case, I am informed, that the inspection of documents is permitted in the Patent, Record, and other Public Offices without fees, and, so far as I am at present informed, I am aware of no reason for remitting the fees in this case.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the remission of one-half of the sentence of imprisonment which was passed upon William Jarvis by the Ross Bench of Magistrates, advised by him in June last, upon statements made to him in memorials and letters from the neigh- bourhood, alleging, inter alia, that the punishment was excessive, and that evidence was improperly admitted by the Bench, whether he is aware that, at the recent Herefordshire Summer Assizes, James Green, who had been sent for trial for criminal assault by the same Bench, was discharged as not guilty, and Mr. Baron Pollock stopped the case, saying that it ought never to have been sent for trial; whether he is aware that the Chairman of the Ross Bench is a clergyman 80 years of age, the next Magistrate a doctor nearly 90 years of age, three other Magistrates clergymen, and six military men, and only two lawyers who never attend the Bench, and that the recently appointed Clerk to the Magistrates is a man who has had no legal education, and is not a lawyer; whether Mr. William Hebb, the Registrar to the Newent County Court, who is also a practising solicitor at Ross, wrote to the right hon. Gentleman on 22nd June, pointing out that the Magistrates had no responsible-clerk; and whether, under the circumstances, he will point out to the Magistrates on the Ross Bench that it is desirable that they should appoint a trained lawyer as their clerk?

I have only seen a newspaper account of the case against James Green, in which there is nothing to indicate that the learned Judge said or implied anything by way of censure on the Ross Bench. I will, however, make inquiry of the Judge on this-point. It must not be understood that, because I advised a remission of part of the sentence in the case of Jarvis, I intended in any way to find fault with the Bench. It was a question of the amount of punishment for an admitted offence, as to which there can properly be a difference of opinion. It is no part of my duty to inquire into the ages and professions of gentlemen holding commissions of the peace; and, with regard to the Clerk to the Justices, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave on the 27th of April.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that an addition has been made to the churchyard of Whitfield, Derbyshire, in the diocese of Southwell, the land being conveyed under a private Trust to the vicar and churchwardens as a parish burial ground for the inhabitants of the parish, but to be used only for burials in accordance with the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, burials under the Burial Act of 1880 being for that reason prohibited; whether he is aware that an addition has also been made to the churchyard of Tettenhall, in the diocese of Lichfield, on the same conditions and with the same result; and whether, in view of the fact that the 9th section of the Burial Act of 1880 provides that such conditions shall not be imposed in any churchyard or part of the churchyard of any parish, he will take steps to prevent the Nonconformist inhabitants of the two parishes named being deprived of the rights secured or intended to be secured to them by such Act?

Yes, Sir; I have made inquiry, and am informed that in neither case is the ground part of the churchyard. These are private burial grounds governed by the terms of the deed of Trust. The Act of 1880 does not apply to such grounds, and it was not the intention of Parliament to interfere with private Trusts of this character.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the refusal of certain County Councils to reimburse Quarter Sessions boroughs the costs of prosecutions at Assizes of prisoners committed for trial from such boroughs; and whether, inasmuch as Section 35 of "The Local Government Act, 1888," makes all costs of such prosecutions (formerly reimbursed from Her Majesty's Treasury) a charge upon the County Fund, the Government will take such steps as may be necessary to prevent Quarter Sessions boroughs from being placed in a worse financial position in this matter than they were in before the passing of "The Local Government Act, 1888," and of the grants in aid of local taxation?

My attention has not been called to the refusal of any County Council to reimburse Quarter Sessions boroughs the cost of prosecutions at Assizes of prisoners committed for trial from those boroughs. I infer from the question that a difference has arisen in some case between a County Council and the Town Council of a borough on this point. If the facts of this particular case are communicated to the Local Government Board the question will receive their consideration.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the school district of Broom-field, in the County of Somerset, had in 1881 a population of 420, and has now a population of about 380; whether the small population grant (Art. 104 of the present Code) has been paid to the national school in this district since the year 1886; and, if so, for what years; and by what legal authority has this grant been paid to a school in a district whose population exceeds 300?

A grant of £15 has been paid to the Broomfield School for many years, under the authority of Section 19 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, on the ground that the population within two miles, measured according to the nearest road, is less than 200, and that there is no other public elementary school recognised by the Department as available for that population.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Education Department have entertained the application for annual grants to the new infants' school proposed to be opened by the managers of All Saints' Schools, at Wellingborough, in the Midland Road; whether he is aware that there are at present 700 vacant places in four schools in the immediate neighbourhood, including one Church of England, one Roman Catholic, and two Board schools; whether the Department has also refused to sanction the provision of a new Board school in the neighbourhood of the Northampton Road, at the west end of Wellingborough, although the inhabitants of that growing district have petitioned the School Board to provide such a school; whether the Wellingborough School Board have represented to the Education Department that the parents at the west end of the town wish to have a choice of schools, and that the existing accommodation in the immediate neighbourhood is unsuitable, being in denominational schools; and whether he will re-consider these decisions in view of the provisions of the Act of 1870, and especially with the 5th and 18th sections of that Act?

The new infants' school which the Department have sanctioned is only new in the sense of its having been transferred to new buildings, and it is not the practice to place any obstacle in the way of managers improving their school accommodation, whatever vacant places may be found in neighbouring schools. The Department have not refused to sanction the erection of a new Board school at the west end of the town, but have, after careful inquiry, expressed an opinion that the project should, for the present, be deferred. I am not able to follow the hon. Member in respect to his concluding suggestion, as it was a fundamental principle of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, and has since been an axiom of the Department's administration that every public elementary school is, ipso facto, suitable.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether an order has been given from the War Office to Messrs. Hebbert and Co., of James Street, Haymarket, S.W., for 10,000 pouches and belts for telegraph messengers; if so, whether the contract permits Messrs. Ross & Co., of Grange Mills, Bermondsey, who were struck off the list of contractors, to cut and supply leather for the order; and if the factory clause is inserted in the above contract?

Messrs. Hebbert & Co. hold the contract for pouches and belts for telegraph messengers. Under the contract the contractors are required to have the cutting-out done on their own premises, but there is no restriction as to the source whence the materials are procured, provided they comply with the prescribed pattern. The Factory Clause is included in the contract.

Would it be illegal for Messrs. Ross to deal in any way with the material they supply in cutting out the articles, seeing that they have been struck off the list of contractors?

Messrs. Ross and Co. are prohibited from providing any manufactured goods of any sort or kind. But contractors for the War Office have-power to obtain the material in any market, provided the article complies with the terms of the contract.

Is not that a violation of the pledge-given to the House when the question of contracts was under discussion?

Were not Messrs. Ross struck off the list of contractors because the material they used for their articles was not of the right quality?

The material can be purchased any where, provided that it is according to contract, and care is taken to see that the conditions laid down are carried out.

Is the standard rate of wages given by these contractors?

The rates of wages are agreed upon and are published in the workshop, where every man can see what he is entitled to.

Why was this proviso made in this contract? If the wages are to be arranged by the Director of Contracts, the whole plan mentioned in the House as having been adopted by the Government falls to the ground.

The proviso was made in this case because the trade is not a general one, but peculiar to the requirements of the War Department. There is no standard rate of wages, and no market for rejections. The War Office found that the wages offered to the people employed in this particular trade were what might be termed of a sweating description. It was felt that the Government ought to prevent their work being executed in that way, and for that reason a price was agreed upon between the contractors and the War Office—a price which is known to the workpeople, and which they can obtain.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has considered the finding of the Court of Inquiry appointed to examine into the cause of the burning of the fire-bars of the Sharpshooter, namely, "that it arose from the inexperience of the stokers"; and whether there was any evidence to show that the accident was due in some measure to the use of sulphurous coal; and whether it is true that another vessel belonging to the manœuvring squadrons, the Spanker, has had to return to port through the weakness of one of the boilers and defective machinery, and that, in consequence of these defects, will be unable to rejoin the division this season?

There was no evidence to show that the burning of the fire-bars of the Sharpshooter was in any way due to the use of sulphurous coal. Welsh coal alone was used. In the case of the Spanker, the accident to the boiler was entirely due to the shortness of water, and not to weakness of construction, while the defect of the machinery was caused by the breakdown of one of the slide valves of the port low-pressure engine, an unaccountable accident in the opinion of the Court of Inquiry, and one in which no blame attached to anyone. The Spanker, after undergoing the necessary repairs, sailed to rejoin the Fleet on the 25th inst.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the report in the Standard and other papers of 28th July of the prize fight for,£1,000 between Smith and Pritchard, which took place on the night of 27th July, from which it appears that, notwithstanding that gloves were used, Pritchard was in the first round felled to the ground by a "terrific body blow," and in the third round Smith was twice driven half across the ring "with terrific left-handers in the face," and held on to the ropes for support, but that after this Pritchard knocked him down twice, so that Smith was hanging half out of the ring, and Pritchard was declared the winner; whether he is aware that the gloves which are used are mere evasions of the law, and that blows dealt with them are quite as damaging, and in some cases more so, than those dealt with fists; whether he is aware that prize fights under the name of glove fights have been on the increase during the last two years; whether the police were present at, or were aware of, the prize fight in question, and if the names of the promoters of the fight can be given; and whether he will take stringent steps to stop these fights, and to punish not only the combatants but those of all classes who promote and attend them?

May I ask whether, if proper gloves were used, these boxing matches are not perfectly legitimate?

I have seen the paragraph quoted from the newspapers as to the prize fight between Smith and Pritchard. The police were not able to effect an entrance in time to be present at the encounter, which only lasted a few minutes, but they inform me that, having entered and seen both the pugilists immediately afterwards, the only injury they observed was a small swelling on Pritchard's face. They saw a pair of ordinary 4oz. gloves, and have no evidence to rebut the statement made by all concerned that these were used in the encounter. The names of the chief persons taking part in the proceedings appear to be correctly given in the newspapers. The law as to what constitutes an illegal fight has been laid down in the superior Courts. If evidence were forthcoming that the fight was of an illegal character, I should not hesitate to direct proceedings, whether it took place with or without gloves.

The right hon. Gentleman must not think I am against boxing, because I used to be very fond of it, but I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in future, in any contest with or without gloves in which the finale consists in one of the combatants being "knocked out of time," it will be within the power of the police to interfere and regard it as a prize fight?

I am not quite sure that I appreciate the exact force of the expression "knocked out of time." I have not the special knowledge of the subject that is possessed by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I take it that the distinction is this: If two men for delight or for exercise, or to test their skill,' choose to box with or without gloves, it is not an illegal proceeding. If, on the other hand, they fight for the purpose of doing each other serious injury in order that one might be exhausted—that is, knocked out of time—the case is different.

I wish to know whether, if a man is killed in one of these encounters, it would be held to be a case of justifiable homicide?

I am afraid I must decline to answer a question of possible law.

As a specialist, I must apologise for having used a technical word. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the fact that these men were fighting for money does not alter the case?

I do not think the doing it for money has the slightest influence upon the question at all.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether any reduction is made to the Post Office when the mail steamers in the West Highlands are allowed to leave their routes for other than Post Office work in order to earn money for their owner?

I am aware of only one route on which the mail steamer is allowed under special circumstances to make an occasional deviation from her course, and in that case the deviation is a condition of the contract, and the Postal Service does not suffer. Therefore no reduction of payment by the Post Office is made.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer is he aware that serious loss and damage have been caused to the fishing industry of Stornoway, and to Lewis fishermen and others, in consequence of the local Customs officials prohibiting vessels to berth, load, and discharge at the inner quay, lately built along Cromwell Street, Stornoway, by the Stornoway Pier and Harbour Commissioners, until the same is legalised; whether he is aware that several old piers and landing-places formed at one time part of the inner quay now reclaimed and rebuilt by the Stornoway Harbour Commissioners, and that vessels were always permitted to be berthed, discharged, and loaded at these piers and landing-places without any objection on the part of the Customs local officials in the past, and will he give instructions that these objections be not persisted in as regards this inner quay; will he explain why, for the first time in 140 years, a demand has been made by the Board of Customs, on the representation of the local Superintendent of Customs, that the Stornoway Pier and Harbour Commissioners should, at their own expense, construct and maintain a watch-house and boat-house for the convenience of the local Customs officials, when there is a watch and boat house already in existence at Stornoway belonging to, or rented by, the Customs; whether such a demand is usual in the case of small harbours such as Stornoway; whether he is aware that the Stornoway Pier and Harbour Commissioners are at present applying to the Treasury and the Public Works Loan Commissioners for a loan to help them in providing additional harbour accommodation, which is much required there; and whether such loan was recommended to be granted by the Western Highlands and Islands Commissioners?

The Board of Customs have declined to legalise the new quay at Stornoway until the Harbour Board fulfil their statutory obligation to provide proper watch-house and boat-house accommodation for the Customs officers. Such a demand is usual in the case of any harbour as soon as increase of trade or any other reason makes the want of such accommodation felt. At present there is no Customs boat-house at all in Stornoway, and the watch-house (which is not provided by the Harbour Board) is quite unsuited for its purpose. I understand that a portion of the frontage covered by the new quay was formerly approved as a legal quay, but this portion has been partly built over, and had been for some time disused as a quay. I have not heard of serious loss being caused to the fishing industry by the prohibition, which only applies to vessels from foreign ports. The Harbour Board have not applied to the Treasury. They have, however, applied to the Board of Trade to sanction an application to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for a loan on easy terms under the Harbours and Passing Tolls Act, 1861, but under the existing regulations loans cannot be made under this Act for mere facilities of trade, such as quays. It is true that the Highlands and Islands Commission recommended exceptional treatment in this case, but they coupled that recommendation with conditions which the Harbour Board has not seen its way as yet to accept.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can hold out any hope that the engineering branch of the Telegraph Service will be placed on the same footing as the commercial branch as regards classification; and, if not, will he state the reason for withholding the concession?

The engineering branch performs work of a special character, and there docs not appear to be any reason for making its classification uniform with that of another branch. But proposals affecting the pay of certain classes of engineering officers have been submitted to the Treasury, and are now receiving their Lordships' careful consideration.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether a considerable number of clerks of the Savings Bank Department are still engaged on overtime, in addition to the clerks from other Government Departments, who since January have been working two and three hours a day, after completing a full day's work in their own offices; whether, notwithstanding the overtime at present being performed, he has decided, as stated by the Acting Controller of the Savings Bank, to transfer a number of Second Class Clerks from that Department; whether any such transfers have been-made; whether, if further transfers are in contemplation, they will be to other Government Offices, or only to other branches of the Post Office; and whether in every case the clerks transferred will take their seniority to the new Department?

At the present time very few clerks of the Savings Bank Department and no clerks belonging to other Government Departments are being employed there on overtime. Since the 1st of January last seven clerks of the Second Division have been transferred from the Savings Bank to other branches-of the Post Office, three on their own applications, and the others in the interests of the Service. At the present moment no other transfers are in contemplation.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate from what date the increase of salary to the officers of the Fishery Board for Scotland, recently intimated by him, will take effect; and upon what principle the officers are in future to be divided into first and second class?

In reply to the first part of the question, I have to inform the hon. Member that increase of pay is-to date from the 1st instant; and, in reply to the latter part, that the principle on which it is proposed to distinguish the first from the second class of officers is that the former will be composed of those who perform more arduous or more important duties.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the statement contained in the Treasury Letter to the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 19th June,. 1884, with regard to the promotion of Lower Division clerks, the Treasury will endeavour, so far as is possible, to fill up vacancies in the First Division by the promotion of eligible and qualified Second Division clerks, many of whom are already in receipt of £200 per annum, thus saving £130 per annum on each promotion, as compared with a direct appointment of a new clerk at an initial salary of £200 per annum?

The "Higher Division" spoken of in the Treasury Letter of 1884, referred to by the hon. Member, is a class of much greater extent than the very reduced Upper Division contemplated by the recent Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, who recommended the simple substitution of Second Division clerks for a large number of the Higher Division as it then existed, improving at the same time the pay of the Lower or Second Division. The Royal Commissioners have themselves considered the question of the promotion of Second Division clerks to the reduced Upper Division, and have expressed their opinions in the passage quoted by me in my answer to the hon. Member on June 29. In these circumstances, I cannot go beyond that answer, or give any such pledge as he desires.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether magistrates' clerks or their partners are allowed to act as solicitors to any Licensed Victuallers' Association?

I am aware of no statutory restriction preventing a magistrate's clerk or his partner acting as solicitor to a Licensed Victuallers' Association.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther) whether the Charity Commissioners have yet received a reply from the Governors of St. Paul's School to the allegations made by members of the Fulham Vestry and by the late Mr. James Beal; and whether he will communicate its purport to the House?

The Charity Commissioners have now received a reply from the Governors of St. Paul's School, which demands careful consideration. The communications between the Commissioners and the Governors are lengthy and complicated, and it would be undesirable in the interests of the school that, in the present stage of the negotiations, they should be made public.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the report of a meeting of the Court of Aldermen of the City of London, held on the 28th instant, at which the Gardeners' Company was granted a livery, not exceeding 60 in number, who will become electors of the City of London; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take the necessary steps by legislation to prevent the manufacture of faggot votes?

I cannot give any undertaking upon this matter. So far as I am aware at present, Her Majesty's Government have no intention of opening up the question of Parliamentary reform next Session.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the following observations of Mr. Justice Wills at the Staffordshire Summer Assizes:—

"It is the practice at most large gaols for the officials to go round a week before the trial and ask if prisoners desire to have any witnesses sent for. I wish this were customary at all gaols, as it is only right that it should be;"

and whether he will give directions that this practice shall be adopted at all gaols?

I have not seen the observations of the learned Judge; but the practice which he commends seems to me to be a good one, and I have no objection to giving an order for its general adoption.

I had intended to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the fact that the East London Waterworks Company, and other London Water Companies, have been charging on the new assessment, which came into force in April last, increased rates for the three months preceding the date of such assessment coming into force; and whether this demand for such increase by the Water Companies is legal? At the request of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to postpone the question.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it would be competent for a County Council to apply its share of the sum of £100,000, proposed to be given in relief of local rates in Scotland, wholly and exclusively in relief of the county rates paid by owners only?

It is proposed to give to the County Councils complete discretion as to the mode of relieving rates; and it is presumed that this discretion will be exercised in the interests of the general body of ratepayers, by whom they are elected. It would, of course, be competent for them to follow the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, or to adopt any other application of the grant; but this is merely another way of saying that we propose to give an unfettered discretion to the popularly elected local administrative bodies.

Arising out of the question, may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the contentious matters that would arise in connection with the distribution of this money in Scotland, he cannot adopt the same course in this case as the Chief Secretary adopted in respect to Ireland, and postpone the application of the money until next year?

The Treasury is never unwilling to postpone the payment of money to Local Authorities. If there is a general desire for the postponement on the part of Scotch Members, I think it may be done. I will consult with my noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate on the matter.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell Bannerman), who is unable to be present, has asked me to press the Government to postpone the Vote as suggested.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information with reference to the difficulties which have arisen in British Honduras; whether the report is true that the unofficial Members of the Legislative Council have resigned in a body, and that their places have been filled by gentlemen holding office under the Government; whether the Supreme Court of the Colony has pronounced a Council so constituted to be unconstitutional, and the taxation levied under their authority to be illegal; and whether, in view of somewhat similar incidents having occurred in other Crown Colonies, the Government will assent to the appointment of a Select Committee or a Royal Commission to inquire into the relations between the Colonial Office and the Crown Colonies?

No difficulties have arisen in British Honduras, except in connection with the resignation of the unofficial Members of the Legislative Council, the grounds for which could not be stated within the limits of an answer. Their places have been provisionally filled by the appointment of gentlemen holding office in order that the Legislative Council may be duly constituted for the despatch of business. Her Majesty's Government were advised that this course was necessary and legal. As regards the third paragraph-of the question, it has been reported by telegraph that the Supreme Court has given such a decision; but the terms of, and reasons for, that decision have not yet been received. It is hoped that the differences between the late unofficial Members and the Government will be satisfactorily arranged; and Her Majesty's Government have no intention of holding any such inquiry as is suggested.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the tenants in the Belvill Estate, County Antrim, purchased from Lady Harberton their holdings at 17½ years' purchase in 1887, with an agreement for interest to be paid instead of rent until purchase completed, and the first allowance in accordance therewith made on 1st November, 1887; that the title has been proved and the security satisfactory, and the matter for some time in the hands of the Commissioners; and will he explain what is the reason of the delay, and when will the purchase date from?

The Land Commissioners report that none of the applications referred to were lodged until October, 1889, and that they have long since been ruled upon as to security and title. I gather from the Commissioners' Report that if there has been any subsequent delay in completing the transactions it does not rest with them.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can toll the House the reason why the Lord Lieutenant has lately refused permission for the importation of cattle into Ireland from a district of Scotland which is not scheduled, and from which the cattle could be moved anywhere throughout England, Scotland, and Wales?

The Lord Lieutenant grants permission to import cattle from Great Britain into Ireland in all cases where, after due inquiry into the previous history of the cattle proposed to be imported and their surroundings, it is considered safe that such importation should take place. There has been no case, so far as I can ascertain, of refusal where the requisite conditions have been fulfilled.

Is it actually the law that cattle cannot be imported into Ireland from England except with the previous permission of the Lord Lieutenant?

The Lord Lieutenant undoubtedly has power to make such regulations regarding the im- portation of cattle into Ireland as he deems necessary, and he can prevent cattle from being imported if he is of opinion that any risk would be involved.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the Grand Jury of any county have power to select medical witnesses for inquests and compel the Coroner to call in those appointed by them, and, in the event of the Coroner not complying with their instructions, to disallow the fee (£1 1s.) if the Coroner calls in any other registered practitioner residing in the district; whether he is aware that, in the County of Londonderry, the Grand Jury cancels the Coroner's application for the fee of £1 1s. which has been paid by the Coroner to the medical witness at the time of the inquest, if he does not call in the dispensary doctor as such witness; and whether instructions will be given to reimburse the Coroners for the loss and expenses they have thus sustained?

The Secretary to the Grand Jury of the County Londonderry states that the order of the Grand Jury made at Spring Assizes 1872 in regard to medical witnesses at inquests has been continued up to the present time. That order is to the effect that, in all cases in which medical witnesses are required at inquests, the Coroners shall in the first instance call in the dispensary doctors of the district in which the inquest is held. It appears that order was made after the power of the Grand Jury to do so was upheld by the Assize Judge, who ruled that such order was altogether right and reasonable, the dispensary doctor being, from his position and standing, the most suitable witness to call in in the first instance, and that the Coroners were bound to comply with this requirement and should not deviate from it without giving sufficient reason to the Grand Jury. Where the Coroners fail in satisfying the Grand Jury as to the reason for calling in a medical gentleman other than the dispensary doctor, the Grand Jury disallow the fee. The matter is one in no way under the control of the Executive Government.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that the Irish National Education Board has paid results fees for passes in book-keeping for the past 10 years in Castle Hill National School, Gilford, though the time always devoted to the subject was only two half-hours per week, and that the Board has never refused to pay fees to this school for passes in algebra, geometry, physical geography, music, or drawing, the time devoted to each of these subjects being two half-hours weekly, will he explain under what rule the Board has this year refused to pay the fees for book-keeping, not because the time given to it was less than formerly or less than that given to any other voluntary or extra subject, but simply because the two lessons in each week were given on the same day; and, considering that the time given to this subject was as much for last year as for any other extra subject taught in the school during the past 10 years, and also considering that 92 per cent. of those presented passed the examination, will the Board, upon reconsideration, pay the amount withheld?

The Commissioners of National Education report that at the recent results examination the certificate of the teacher mentioned showed that the total number of days in the results year on which book-keeping had been taught was 41, and that only one lesson weekly had been given. The Commissioners regarded this as obviously inadequate, and accordingly declined to pay results fees for the subject. In previous years this teacher had certified that book-keeping had been taught for a number of days, varying from 87 to 94, and on these representations results fees were paid. As regards the other extra branches, the teacher had certified that they had been taught for 88 days in the last results year at the rate of two lessons weekly. This was regarded by the Commissioners as an adequate provision, and results fees were accordingly paid. The Commissioners do not think the case one for re-consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Intermediate Education Board expended in the year 1890 34 per cent. of their income on working expenses, and only 27 percent, on results fees, averaging 10s. per head on the students taught; whether the additional grant under "The Local Taxation Act, 1890," must be applied for both or either of the purposes following: for the payment of results fees to school managers, for the payment of prizes to students, the Educational Endowments Commission having strongly urged exclusive application to the former purpose, whether the head masters of the Protestant and the Catholic Colleges have presented a joint Memorial to the Board protesting against the establishment of new grades and the consequent indefinite increase of working expenses, and asking for the application of the grant by way of results fees, which should be paid on students who are above the age limits prescribed for prize winners as well as on under age students; and whether the Board has deferred the consideration of the Memorial until November next; and whether, in view of the fact that the new preparatory grade will come into practical operation in September, when new classes must be formed and teachers engaged to prepare for the new examinations, and thus an obstacle will be created to the free consideration of the Memorial in November, the Board will suspend the rules establishing this new grade until they shall have decided on the Petition of the head masters?

The Assistant Commissioners of Intermediate Education report that the amount expended on administration by the Board in 1890 was £3,445 6s. 4d., and on "examinations" £7,702 9s. 3d. The amount expended on results fees was £8,894 3s., averaging about £2 17s. per head for each successful student.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, with regard to the arrangements for the accelerated mail service in connection with Belfast, whether the Belfast sorters at present are on duty from 4 a.m. to 7 a.m., from 10.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m., from 12.15 p.m. to 4.15 p.m., and from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.; and whether there is any truth in the report that they are now to be called upon to surrender the forenoon interval of rest, and to come on duty, for the second morning delivery, at 9.30 a.m. instead of 10.30 a.m., thus increasing the total amount of daily labour from 10 hours to 11; whether, in the Delivery Department, the postmen are to be required, after the first morning delivery, extending from 6 a.m. to 9.15 a.m., to come on duty again at 9.30 a.m. (without any interval for breakfast), and to remain on duty till 12.15 p.m., this system obliging the men on wet days to remain for six hours without a change of clothing; and whether these men have to do duty again each day from 3.45 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.; and whether the sorting and delivery arrangements at Belfast will be personally examined by him, and such needful addition made to the staff as will secure the efficient discharge of the service without inflicting undue hardship upon the sorting clerks and postmen?

I am not aware of the arrangements to which the hon. Member refers, and there has not been sufficient notice of the question to enable me to receive a reply to the inquiry which I have made on the subject. The hon. Member may rest assured, however, that I will take whatever steps may be necessary to provide for the efficient discharge of the service without inflicting undue hardship upon the staff.

I beg-to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any Government assistance will be afforded the Clonakilty and Rosscarbery Extension Railway; whether a deputation from the district in question, who went to Dublin and had an interview with the Under Secretary, Sir W. Ridgeway, were informed by him that their request would receive every consideration; whether a similar assurance was given by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at Skibbereen to another deputation on the same proposed railway; and whether, having regard to the benefit of the large fishing and agricultural interests in the district, the Government will give material assistance to the work?

I must ask the hon. Member to be good enough to defer this question until to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if any further representations have been made to, or communications received from, the Cork and Bandon and West Cork Railway with regard to the proposed acceleration of the mails to Skibbereen, Bantry, and West Cork?

No. Sir. But I am quite prepared to consider a reasonable proposal if the company will make one.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. J. E. Medlicott, J.P., Dunmurrey, County Kildare, attended at Monasterevan Petty Sessions on the 17th instant, and adjudicated upon a case in which his friend Forbes Johnston, Esq., Q.C., was plaintiff, and John Hannon, defendant, and which was for the recovery of possession of the latter's holding at Laghill, Monasterevan, County Kildare; if Monasterevan is one of the Petty Sessions Courts that Mr. Medlicott attends, when he last attended, and how often within the last five years; and will the Government deal with Mr. Medlicott in the same way as they did with Mr. James Byrne, Wallston Castle, Mallow, County Cork?

The gentleman mentioned does not appear to have attended at the Monasterevan Petty Sessions within the last five years, but there is a record of his having attended there previously. He resides in and attends the adjoining Potty Sessions. There is, however, at present a scarcity of Magistrates in the Monasterevan district owing to the death of a Magistrate, and the attendance of the gentleman referred to in that district is of public utility. There is no reason to believe that he attended in the interest of any litigant, nor is there any analogy between this case and the other one referred to.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mrs. Doherty, wife of Pat Doherty, on the Tenalick Estate of Lord Annaly, in the County of Longford, was arrested on the morning of the 8th July for taking possession of her house, was lodged in Carrick-on-Shannon Gaol, and still remains in prison without trial; and whether he will take steps to have this woman, who is 58 years of age, and the mother of a large family, released?

I have not yet been able to obtain the information that would enable me to answer the question, and therefore I must ask the hon. Member to repeat the question.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General why the Postal Telegraph Office at Nobber, County Meath, has been closed; and whether he will take steps to have it reopened?

The telegraph office at the railway station at Nobber was closed on the 28th September, 1886, because the Railway Company were not in a position to carry on the business any longer. I shall be glad to inquire whether the circumstances have changed, and I will let the hon. Member know the result.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord. Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Sunday, the 12th of July, Mr. D. Dunn, P.L.G., of Rostrevor, County Down, accompanied by another ratepayer of the same place, waited on Mr. Horner, J.P., to swear an information that if an Orange procession was permitted to pass through the village of Rostrevor on Monday, the 13th of July, a breach of the peace would most certainly follow, and that Mr. Horner, though bound as a Magistrate to receive this information, nevertheless refused, and declared his intention of leading the Orange procession in person; whether the information was subsequently sworn before Mr. Charles Leslie, J. P., and notice served on the police that the information had been laid; is he aware that these facts having been brought to the knowledge of Mr. Home, he insisted on the procession passing through Rostrevor when he headed it himself, and that a disturbance actually took place as anticipated, and an Orangeman was sent for trial on a serious charge arising there-from; and, if the facts of the case be as stated, whether the Lord Chancellor proposes to take notice of Mr. Horner's conduct?

As I have not yet received the information, I must ask the hon. Member to defer the question.

I will put it down for to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain why the English night mails for Belfast and other places in the North of Ireland, which have been carried over the City of Dublin Junction Railway (Loop Line) from 4th February until 27th July, have since that date been carted from Westland Row Station to Amiens Street Station, although the through passenger service is still carried on over the loop line; whether the Railway Company offered to continue the mail service as hitherto; and whether their offer has been accepted; and, if not, what arrangements have been made for the carriage of the northern mails over the loop line on and after 1st August, when the accelerated service will commence.

The conveyance of the Belfast mails over the loop line has hitherto been purely experimental, and at the suggestion of the Railway Companies interested. So long as a fortnight ago I inquired of the companies on what terms they would enter upon a permanent arrangement. Their reply, naming what appears to me an excessive payment, only reached my hands an hour or two ago. The hon. Member will see that it is out of the question that I can make any definite arrangement without consideration. Meanwhile, the mails are being efficiently carried as formerly by road over a distance less than a mile now traversed by the railway as quick or even quicker than by rail.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to make a binding agreement with the Railway Companies to carry the mails as they were carried up to a recent period?

If the companies approach me in a reasonable spirit I am prepared to enter into an arrangement with them.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if the arrangements are now completed for sending mails for the North of Ireland viâ Larne and Stranraer; and when it will begin to work?

The arrangements are practically complete so far as the Post Office is concerned, and the service might begin on the 1st prox. But the draft contract is still before the Railway Companies for examination, and until it is returned by them, approved, I am not in a position to give a definite answer.

May I ask whether any decision has been arrived at in reference to the designs for the New South Kensington Buildings?

The judges appointed to consider the designs for the new South Kensington Buildings held their final meeting to-day, and unanimously chose out of the eight sets of designs submitted to them those which bore the motto "S. K. M." as, on the whole, the best. On opening the sealed envelopes, it appeared that S. K. M. was the motto adopted by Mr. Aston Webb, of Queen Anne's Gate. He is, therefore, the successful competitor. I shall cause his designs to be exhibited next week in the Tea Room of this House.

I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government contemplate having a Sitting on Saturday, and whether there are any Bills still before the House for the consideration of which a particular day can be fixed?

Do the Government intend to proceed with the Clergy Discipline Bill? According to Hansard's Report of July 2, it was there stated by the Government that the Bill would not be proceeded with until the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) returned to the House.

May I ask when the Lords' Amendments to the London Public Health Bill will be considered? There are 11 pages of Amendments on the Paper, which was only issued this morning, and I wish to know whether the Amendments alter the character of the Bill or are likely to receive the support of the Government or not?

There are no fewer than 137 Amendments to the Bill. No doubt many of them are non-contentious and some consequential, but there are others which will cause discussion, and, in view of the number of Amendments, I wish to ask whether the Government cannot fix a particular day next week for the consideration of the Bill?

When do the Government propose to take the Lords' Amendments to the Factories and Workshops Bill?

Are the Government prepared to give a day, or any portion of a day, for the discussion on the Eight Hours Bill?

With regard to the London Public Health Bill, I may state at once that all the Lords' Amendments except two are of a verbal character, and on those two I do not think much discussion or opposition is likely to be raised.

Will the postponement of the Scotch Vote mean the loss of the £110,000, or will it only be held over to be disposed of in another year?

It will be impossible to give any of the small remaining part of the Session to the discussion of the Eight Hours Bill. With regard to the question of the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), arrangements must depend much on the progress made with business to-day and tomorrow. As soon as there is a prospect of Supply being speedily closed the Government will be better able to make arrangements for the convenience of the House with regard to the remaining business to be disposed of next week. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to repeat his question to-morrow. As to the Factory Acts Amendment Bill, it will depend on the progress of Supply when it will be taken, and, therefore, I cannot say whether it will be taken on Monday or not. If I receive no serious protests in the course of the evening against the postponement of the Scotch Vote, I think I shall be able to accede to the suggestion, and postpone the Vote till next Session. The Government propose to have a Sitting on Saturday. In answer to the hon. Member for the Rugby Division (Mr. Cobb), I may say that the statement he alleges to be given in Hansard is erroneous. The Government recognised the interest the right hon. Gentleman took in the Bill, but they did not say they would not proceed with the Bill until he returned.

I find on reference to Hansard the First Lord of the Treasury is reported to have said—

"The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian is deeply interested in the measure, and I hope he will soon be able to return to the House in order that we may be able to proceed with the Bill."

I can assure my hon. Friend—the communications having passed a good deal through myself—that he is entirely mistaken. There is no assurance that this Bill is not to be proceeded with in the absence of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, who takes a deep interest in the Bill.

Do the Government intend to proceed with the Clergy Discipline Bill, then, this Session?

I am reluctant to withdraw the Clergy Discipline (Immorality) Bill until I am thoroughly convinced that the opposition to it is such that it will be absolutely impossible to pass it, but I venture to appeal to hon. Members—others may be able to appeal to them with greater force—not to allow a state of things to continue in which, as was stated yesterday, scandals may occur without any possibility of a remedy, when the passage of a few simple clauses might prevent a state of things which is to the interest neither of the Church nor the community.

In what order will the Civil Service Estimates be taken?

In their regular order.

With regard to the Eight Hours Bill, I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that an influential deputation of miners waited on the First Lord of the Treasury on this question, and although the right hon. Gentleman gave them no definite pledge, he certainly left in the minds of the vast majority of them an idea that a day would be granted for the discussion of the subject this Session.

Bearing in mind the advanced period of the Session and the business still to be transacted, I doubt if the House would be prepared to discuss the question.

Sub-section 1 of Clause 4 gives power to the Department, if they are satisfied that sufficient and suitable public school accommodation without payment of fees has been provided for a school district, to approve a charge or an increase of fees in a particular school. The Lords have struck out the words "and suitable." I complain that such an Amendment as this has been inserted in the Bill after the Government have voluntarily accepted these words when the Bill was last before the Commons. The words have been struck out by the Lords without a single remonstrance or argument being raised against it by the Minister in charge of the Bill. It looks very like a pre-arrangement; and seeing that 10 or 12 Members of this House had expressed themselves strongly on this point, it does seem strange that the Amendment should have been accepted without argument of any kind against it. There are several grounds—and not merely religious ones—for disagreeing with this Amendment. When I entered the Department Catholic schools were considered necessary, because it was regarded as not suitable that Catholics should be compelled to send their children to Protestant schools; and when I consulted Mr. Forster on the point, he said I was right in holding that that was a proper view to take. What will happen in Lancashire, Cheshire, and the North of England if this Amendment is carried? There are a large number of good Roman Catholic schools in those districts, and the hon. Member for Preston will bear me out when I say that they have accommodation largely in excess of Roman Catholic needs. If hon. Members will take the trouble to look at the number of children in average attendance they will be astonished to find that in Catholic schools, and especially in the North of England, there are vacancies for something like two-fifths of the children in attendance. I take at random the towns of Wigan, Manchester, and Preston, and ascertain what is the attendance at certain schools and what is the accommodation. In four schools at Wigan the number of children in average attendance is 2,271, but there is accommodation for 4,615 children. In five schools in Manchester the number in average attendance is 1,712, and there is accommodation for 3,734. In Preston there are four" schools—I believe they are the best schools both in regard to staff and in regard to general management of any in Preston—The English Martyrs', St. Augustine's, St. Ignatius's, and St. Wilfrid's.

The largest is St. Walburge's.

I do not find that school. Is it St. Wilfrid's the hon. Member means? The average attendance is 3,188, and there is accommodation for 7,224. In all these schools, therefore, the attendance is just half the accommodation. We know that Catholic schools will be among the first to be made free. Now, suppose these schools are made free and the Church of England schools are not made free, do the Government intend to compel the Church of England and Nonconformist children to attend the Roman Catholic schools? It is no use in such a case to say that the Protestant children would be protected by the Conscience Clause, because in Roman Catholic schools the emblems of their religion are to be found everywhere, and the atmosphere of those schools is pervaded by Roman Catholic teaching. The children there are constantly being taught by members of the Religious Orders. I ask the House, is it intended not to consider the suitability of these schools for Protestant children? In my experience the Education Department has always considered that Roman Catholic schools are not the proper schools for Protestant children. When I entered the Department I found that whenever the London School Board applied for additional schools in any district the number of vacant places in Catholic schools was always subtracted from the existing accommodation. Besides religious questions there are other questions of suitability. There is the question as to the quality of the schools, and it would be most unfair to compel a bright child to leave a better class fee school in order to make it attend a lower class free school. Then there is the question of site. Can you ask that infant children shall be taken to schools other than those for children of a larger growth? It is often the custom for the infant to be taken to school by the elder brother and sister. Are you going to say that children who have fee schools in their immediate neighbourhood shall be compelled to go to the free schools at the other end of the town? It is highly necessary that the schools selected should be as near as possible to the residences of the children. That is always a consideration with the paying schools, and it should be a still greater consideration in the case of the free schools. The schools should be as convenient for the children and suitable for them from every point of view. Many of us know the sacrifices the poor make on this question of education. I know many distinguished men—some of them on the Episcopal Bench—who have owed their success in life to the sacrifices made for them by widowed mothers. It is meritorious for a poor parent to desire to send a child to a higher elementary school. The First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord G. Hamilton), when he was Vice President of the Council, went down to Sheffield and made a very good speech at a prize distribution. One boy was there who looked so clean and smart that the noble Lord said he thought he was hardly of a class to go to an elementary school. That boy turned out to be the son of a poof widow, who earned her living by turning a mangle. He won various scholarships, and is now a distinguished man at his University and the pride of his family. I should like to point out that the word "suitable" was inserted in the clause without a dissentient voice, and the Guardian newspaper has expressed regret at this Amendment, as well as another proposed by Lord Sandford, because it does not properly consider the interests of the children and their parents. If the House votes £2,000,000 for the purpose of giving free education in elementary schools, I protest against its being accompanied with a condition which will harass the children in free schools, and making their schools of a lower order and an inferior status. These cunningly-devised Amendments do not come from a friend of free education, but emanate from those who have denounced the Bill as the proposal of quacks—as a bitter pill, detested but which had to be swallowed. If the Government, after having twice shortened debate and accepted Amendments voluntarily, recognising the sense of the House, accept such an Amendment as this, they will be doing that which is equivalent to a breach of faith.

The right hon. Gentleman, having made some remarks which were exceedingly moderate, has concluded with the rather wide statement that if we retain this Amendment we shall be committing a breach of faith. I think that is rather a strong thing to say.

I said if, after twice cutting short the Debate, they accepted the Amendment, it would seem to me equivalent to a breach of faith.

The right hon. Gentleman has changed his statement into an hypothesis. I believe that ample means might be found to meet the case we have in hand. It is perfectly true that in this House the Amendment inserting the word "suitable" was accepted by the Government, and it is equally true that in another place they assented to the word being struck out. But considering the far-reaching character of the Commons' Amendment, I think it may be fairly urged that in the other House the Government treated the matter in a broad and statesmanlike spirit. The right hon. Gentleman has placed upon the word "suitable" a construction which it has never borne before; and if there had been any doubt as to the advisability or otherwise of the course now taken by the Government, I think it has been removed by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. It is obvious that a word like this must be dealt with in a reasonable and elastic manner by the Department in solving the difficulties' which it has to face every day; and if difficulties had not been so met, these Acts would long since have produced intolerable chaos and confusion. There is, however, a vast difference between construing the word in a reasonable manner and introducing into a Bill for the first time an entirely new meaning. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to free schools being possibly wide apart, and to the fact that infants are often taken to school by their brothers and sisters. These, however, are purely administrative difficulties which will have to be met by the Department. The word "suitable" occurs in two clauses of the Act of 1870. Mr. Forster said the object of the Act was to supply sufficient, efficient, and suitable education, and it is clear that by "suitable" he meant schools that were available from the absence of religious or other restrictions or the adoption of the Conscience Clause. Of course, the Department would not, as a rule, put pressure on Protestant parents to send their children to a Roman Catholic school; but there have been cases in which Protestant children have freely attended Roman Catholic schools. ["Where?" and "Give us one?"] In Herefordshire, in 1873, official requirements were satisfied by a Roman Catholic school, which for 13 years was the only school in the neighbourhood; and the Inspector reported that there was no more efficient school under inspection. Before the Royal Commision an important statement was made by Mr. Cumin with regard to the word "suitable." Mr. Cumin said that a school came under that description if it was a public elementary school adopting the Conscience Clause and open to inspection. In these circumstances, I am quite certain the Government are well-advised in asking the House to retain the Lords' Amendment.

The Government passed through this House a Bill which, though there were some points in it to which we took exception, was on the whole a satisfactory one. The House of Lords has dealt with this Bill as it is in the habit of dealing with a great many Bills. It has spoilt the measure of the House of Commons. I am sorry, for the sake of the right hon. Gentleman, that the Lords should have introduced this Amendment, because it will go very far to spoil his Bill in the estimation of the country when it is passed. Everybody will remember that there was an almost unanimous feeling in this House as to the introduction of this word. It was not a mere Party question at all, but it was a matter upon which Members on both sides of the House who were interested in education had the same opinion. It is only under the compulsion of men in the House of Lords who are the enemies of free education that this thing has now been done. It is with the express object of injuring and, I might say, hamstringing free education that this Amendment has been introduced. I think it is very hard upon the right hon. Gentleman that he should, under the pressure of this adverse Party in the House of Lords, be compelled to be an accomplice in the spoiling of his own Bill. In defence of the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman quotes a case in which Protestant children have been forced into a Roman Catholic school. The very fact that the right hon. Gentleman should be driven into such an illustration in support of the Amendment is a condemnation of the Amendment itself. It was for the very purpose of preventing these practices becoming common that these words were introduced. All we can do is to protest against this proceeding. We protest in the name of the House of Commons—on behalf of the unanimous voice of the House of Commons—against this attempt of the enemies of free education in the House of Lords to destroy this Bill in the last stage of its progress. I understand very well the strain and the pressure under which the right hon. Gentleman is placed. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have yielded to it; and I must protest as far as I can against these proceedings, in order that the country may understand the true character of what has taken place.

I greatly regret that the Government assent to this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President said, "The Education Department will not bring pressure to bear to send Protestant children in large numbers to Roman Catholic schools. That means that the Department may use pressure to send small numbers—

Sir, I must really protest against this construction being placed upon what I said. I referred to a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella).

I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn that, but I am here to protest against any pressure being put upon Protestant parents to send their children to Roman Catholic schools. Such a thing would excite the utmost dissatisfaction in the country. Of course, we wish to main- tain the rights of Catholics, but we also maintain the rights of Protestants, and I respectfully protest against any construction of the Bill which may lead to a course of conduct that would excite great indignation in the country.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) spoke in one sense in language of moderation, but in another sense he used the language of absurd exaggeration when he said the House of Lords were determined to destroy and to hamstring this Bill. The subject is most difficult, and yet the right hon. Gentleman can only find objection to one Amendment in the Bill.

One at a time.

I was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman confined his objections to one Amendment. The hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) tried to prove that the Bill would have the result of forcing Protestant children in large numbers into Roman Catholic schools. Well, Sir, whatever has been the practice in the last 20 years will continue to be the practice under this Bill. We cannot assent to the retention of a word which would have a different meaning in the Bill from that which has always been attached to it. I can show from an administrative point of view that it is impossible to accept this word "suitable" as it now stands. It is true that we did somewhat hastily assent to the insertion of the word, but, after having had time to consider what it means as it now stands, we have been forced to the conclusion that it must come out if the Bill is to be properly administered.

The word is in the original Act.

My contention is that the word "suitable" in this Bill has a meaning entirely different from what it has in the original Act. In the original Act the word occurs in two clauses only, and those clauses relate to the supply of schools, and to the proceedings for the supply of schools, and in both refer to schools, which are not public elementary schools. I say that it has in practice never been applied to public elementary schools.

Has the Education Department never deducted vacancies in Catholic schools from the school accommodation of a district?

I assert, as a broad principle, that the Department has never applied the word suitable to public elementary schools. I assert that, as far as Roman Catholic schools are concerned, they are almost exclusively in Board school districts, and, therefore, the children have the option of going to another school. The word "suitable" has never been applied to an elementary school. All the evidence in the matter, both positive and negative, shows that the word "suitable" has never before been applied to public elementary schools, and we are now asked to give to the Act, by the insertion of the word, a meaning it never had before, and which meaning is not in the Act of 1870 or any other Act. Mr. Forster said that by "suitable" he meant schools "to which, in the absence of religious and other restrictions, parents could not reasonably object." If an Amendment moved to Clause 8 of the Education Bill of 1870 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) had been agreed to, the word suitable would have been applicable to a public elementary school, but that Amendment was negatived. It would be impossible for the Education Department to carry out the Act under the procedure of that of 1870 if in the two statutes they have to administer there is the same word having a different meaning in each. In the interests of the Bill itself, as well as of those who will have to administer it, I hope the Lords' Amendment will be agreed to.

We have been placed in a somewhat difficult position owing to the course pursued by the Government in the two Houses. In this House, nearly a month ago, after full discussion and at the request of many of their own friends, as well as of hon. Members on the other side of the House, they consented to insert the word "suitable" in the Bill, and yet almost directly afterwards they consented, without controversy, without Debate, and without Division, to an Amendment in the House of Lords striking it out. They then come down to the House of Commons at the very end of the Session, when a large number of Members who are interested in the Bill have gone away, relying on the good faith of the Government, and ask hon. Members to reverse their former decision on a very important matter. The only defence the noble Lord who has just spoken could make was that the Government had not time to consider the question when they accepted the Amendment. But the Amendment was introduced in Committee, and, therefore, the Government had ample opportunity before the Report stage to take counsel upon it with those who are deeply interested in the Bill. What is the source of this Amendment in the other House? It emanates from a noble Lord who is a most determined foe of free education, and who has always been opposed to it, and it is made in the interests of those who are opposed to free education. It will be neither fair nor straightforward if the Government use their majority at such a late period of the Session to the disadvantage of the Opposition, and in order to carry an Amendment against which there is such a strong feeling as there is against this. Something has been said about the interpretation to be given to the word. I am at a loss to understand the new doctrine that inserting a word in a Bill is equivalent to inserting its interpretation. We want the word inserted; the interpretation will be worked out by the Department. The word was in the Act of 1870, and we want it in that of 1891.

The word in the Act of 1870 bears a different application from what is intended in this case.

The Department in determining the amount of public school accommodation required in a district has under the Act to take every school into consideration, and, therefore, I contend that the clause in the Act of 1870 does apply to public elementary schools. This is not a question of providing accommodation, but of conferring a benefit on the individual parent. You say to the working man: "You shall have the benefit of free education;" and immediately afterwards yon say: "If you will not send your child to occupy a vacant place in a school to which you object, you shall be deprived of the benefits of free education." My right hon. Friend put the case very strongly with regard to Protestants being forced in to Roman Catholic schools. I think the converse would be equally hard, and that it would be very wrong to force Roman Catholic children into Protestant schools—which is a thing no Government in this country dare attempt to do in face of the feeling that would certainly be aroused on the question. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted the case of a Herefordshire village, where Protestant children had to go to a Roman Catholic school. I think that was a case of great cruelty to the inhabitants of that village. I hope the House will make a strong protest against this Lords' Amendment, and I still trust that the Government will, in conformity with their pledges, see that it would be wise to reject the proposal. When a bargain has been made between the Government and the House of Commons, I do not think it right that the Government should recede from it, and impose upon us that which they could not have imposed upon us otherwise.

The right hon. Gentleman a little departed from the general moderation with which he has discussed the Amendment when he referred to the noble Lord who is supposed to be responsible for it. It is only fair to Lord Sandford to say that he did not challenge a Division on the Second Reading of this Bill, and that all his Amendments were aimed at making the Bill more workable. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will look into this matter they will see that the insertion of this word, in this particular place, would be the "letting out of strife." The Department might be constantly called upon to say whether, in their judgment, these free places are suitable. The word "suitable" is mainly looked upon from the religious point of view. In other words, it would mean that in every place where there was a feeling that a school did not exactly represent all the religious convictions of the inhabitants of that district, representations might be made to the Government and the Education Department to undertake the very perilous duty of inquiring into these very difficult and delicate matters. It is hardly worthy of right hon. Gentlemen opposite to talk of Protestant children being forced into Roman Catholic schools; the idea is preposterous, and the common sense of the country would revolt against it. It would be impossible to do anything of the sort, and I do not think there need be the slightest apprehension. Of course, a number of persons in a district might represent that the religious teaching of a school was unsuitable, and would keep the community in a ferment by constant representation. But I think we may rely upon what has been the practice of the Department. The Commission on Education in their Report quote the interpretation of the Act of 1870 given by Mr. Cumin, to the effect that wherever there is an elementary school, there the accommodation is ipso facto suitable. If you put this word "suitable" into a new Act, you raise the question whether an elementary school is or is not suitable. The only way to avoid perpetual religious discussions is to adhere to the practice of the Department, and the present conditions of the law. It is true that the word "suitable" was inserted by Her Majesty's Government in their attempt to please all parties in the House, but it is not much of a reproach to them to say that they had not probably considered how this word would work. We have seen how it would work, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield and others have let the cat out of the bag. They have told us that this word was introduced in order to prevent the forcing of children into Roman Catholic schools, but it is clear that it would be worked in very different ways from that. The House of Lords acted with perfect discretion and wisdom in removing this word, and, far from introducing discord, they have done that which will facilitate the smooth working of the measure. It will introduce peace and concord in the interests of fair dealing between the different sections of the community. I appeal to the House to support the House of Lords in their Amendment.

I venture to say that no fair-minded man can interpret the 5th section of the Act of 1870 in the sense which the noble Lord has attempted. The deficiency to be supplied is a deficiency in suitable schools. How can it be argued, when we are supplying the deficiency, that the word does not equally apply to the schools which have to be provided? It seems to me plain that the Government have made full use of the conciliatory spirit which we on this side manifested in endeavouring to secure the progress of the Bill; but now that they have secured this Bill, they are unmasking their batteries by means of the House of Lords. Sir, the question of the suitability of schools includes the question of distance as well as that of religious teaching. These are points of great importance, and it is the duty of Members on this side of the House to do what they can to obtain justice for the people. I make a formal protest against the course adopted, and I have some right to protest, as an Amendment which stood in my name was accepted with great fairness by the First Lord of the Treasury. The issue before the House has to a certain extent been lost sight of. It is the question of the power of the Department to raise fees or to authorise the charge of fees in a district where free schools have been established. It will operate chiefly in those large of northern towns which are in the hands the Denominational Party. The removal of this word "suitable" will have this result: Where Inspectors have spoken of schools as sheds, it will leave the general managers to give free education in the worst of their schools, and to deny the use of the best of their schools to the people. I protest against the course which is being adopted, and it is perfectly clear that we are face to face with one of those frequent conspiracies which the noble Lord has instituted against the School Board system, and, from my knowledge of the constituencies, I believe Her Majesty's Government, by this breach of faith, will have firmly driven one more nail into their political coffin.

The hon. Member speaks of the feeling of the constituencies, but I can assure him that Preston does not share his view. The managers of elementary schools in Preston do not entertain the view that Protestant children will be forced into Roman Catholic schools, and I have no doubt that when this Act is passed, though it was not desired by some of us, it will be so administered that none of the risks which are feared will be experienced.

On the question of suitability, I wish to cite the opinion of two Permanent Secretaries of the Education Department, Sir Patrick Cumin and Sir Francis Sandford, given before the Education Commission. Sir Francis Sandford questioned Sir Patrick Cumin on the question of the distance of schools. Sir Francis asked: "Then suitability covers distance, fees, and the Conscience Clause, does it not?" Sir Patrick Cumin answered: "Yes; that is so." We are not entering here so much into the operation of the Conscience Clause, although I think the claim of the three right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench is just—that Roman Catholic children shall not be driven into Protestant schools, and vice versâ. I go further, and I say that I do not see why the children of Nonconformists should be driven into Church schools. My fellow-countrymen feel that very strongly. I have quoted the opinion of two Permanent Secretaries that suitability does not depend merely upon the Conscience Clause, but upon the question of distance, and what is a much more pertinent argument in this case, it depends on the fees. In Stockport the word "suitable" has been used to break down the fees, which were so high that the Department felt they were unsuitable; and I say that it is of tenfold importance that this word, which has been so used in Stockport, should be employed with the same object all over the country, whether the parents will not have an opportunity of obtaining free public school accommodation. It seems to me that the contention of the noble Lord and of the Vice President falls completely to the ground in face of the experience of the two Vice Presidents on this side of the House and that of Sir Francis Sandford and Sir Patrick Cumin.

I cannot understand why the word "suitable" should be struck out. The proposal to take it out leads me to suppose that the word "sufficient" will mean sufficient in number, whether suitable or not. We know perfectly well that there are many schools which ought not to be counted in reckoning the accommodation for a district. Sometimes a river may divide a district, and there may be an excess of accommodation on one side of the river which is not available for children living on the other side of the river. It has always been the practice of the School Board of London and of the Education Department that they reckon the excess of accommodation in certain schools (say Roman Catholic schools) as unsuitable. Temporary schools are unsuitable, and in many cases the point turns on the question of distance. Now, this clause is really as to a fee school after sufficient free accommodation has been provided. I notice in the 4th sub-section of this clause it is proposed by a subsequent Amendment to take out the word "unsuitable." It seems to me that this desire to take out the word "suitable" and to alter the word "unsuitable" indicates a wish to charge higher fees in certain schools. If that be the object we ought to understand so. The effect is to enable the Education Department to allow fees to be charged in a larger number of schools than would be allowed if the word "suitable" is allowed to remain in. The Government themselves first allowed this word "suitable" and the word "unsuitable" to appear in the Bill, and if the proposal to take them out changes the operation of the word sufficient, it is a misfortune, for "sufficient," as I understand it, means sufficient in the ordinary sense, that is, available and proper. The Education Department have never had a difficulty in defining what is suitable, and I believe they have always come to a just decision upon it. Therefore, the word would not give any more trouble in the future than in the past. If the word suitable is only to apply to non-private schools the idea is new to me. Besides, the words in this section are "suitable public schools." What is the object of introducing the question of private schools at all. Suitable public schools, and a sufficient number of them go together. Therefore I shall have to vote for the retention of the words "suitable" and "unsuitable" wherever they occur.

When the argument was used by my hon. Friend that Roman Catholic children might be forced into Protestant schools and Protestant children into Roman Catholic schools, the Vice President interposed in a way which showed that he contemplated a few children being subjected to the injustice, but not a large number.

I repudiate the assertion altogether.

It is all very well to repudiate the assertion, but the fact remains that no other interpretation can be put upon the words he used. Let that fact remain; it is an important fact, and one which the country will take note of. As to the argument of the First Lord of the Admiralty, if all the other schools are full, what does it matter whether it is a School Board district or not, if the Department refuses to act? There may be no accommodation in one part of a district, and apart from whether a river or a mountain divides it, the question remains whether the children of that portion of the district are to be left to travel long distances to find school accommodation. I am rather astonished that the Government should yield in this way, and we shall not only make the most earnest possible protest now, but we shall take care that the country understands the nature of the transaction.

As a Liberal Unionist Member, I regret the course which the Government have adopted in this matter. The argument of the noble Lord was that simply because this word "suitable" might not have precisely the meaning which it bears in other Acts of Parliament, therefore it ought not to be inserted. But it seems to me that if the meaning which the word would bear in this clause is the proper meaning, then it ought to be retained for the reasons which prompted the House of Commons to insert it. If you look into the case closely, there cannot be any real objection to the retaining of the word "suitable," because accommodation is not accommodation in the proper sense unless it be suitable. Accommodation in a Jewish school is not accommodation in the real sense for Christian children. Accommodation in a Roman Catholic school is not accommodation in the real sense for Protestant children; and, therefore, I venture to think that the word "suitable" as inserted by this House is most important, and that the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton is absolutely unanswerable. Unless it is retained, it is quite possible that parents in certain districts of England might find themselves deprived of free education because they declined to send their children to schools which are not suitable.

There have been some very strong attacks made upon the Government in respect of this Amendment, and I think it right to state the circumstances in which we are placed. It is said we have done a very strong thing in having accepted an Amendment in this House and in afterwards supporting the alteration of that Amendment which has been made by the House of Lords. Is it really contended for a moment that because the Government have accepted an Amendment in this House that therefore the Lords are to be deprived of all power to alter it? Since the Amendment has been accepted in the Commons the Government have discovered that it makes a larger alteration in the measure than they intended. If the object of the Lords is, as alleged, to damage free education, they have gone about their work in a most extraordinary manner, because none of their Amendments will have that effect. The Government introduced the Bill with the distinct understanding that they wished to carry free education with the least possible disturbance of the existing system. Now they find the word "suitable" defended on the ground that it is the thin end of the wedge which would produce a disturbance of the religious settlement of 1870. ["No, no!"] It is perfectly clear, from the speeches that have been made by hon. Members opposite, that the retention of the word "suitable" would enable persons to raise religious difficulty in schools in which any religious teaching is given under the Conscience Clause. The Government determined, as I have said, to pass the Bill with the least possible disturbance of existing arrangements, and, therefore, they are consistent in resisting the change which they have discovered would be made by retaining the Amendment to which they assented in this House.

I think it would have been more satisfactory as a defence of the Lords' Amendment if the arguments now urged in its favour had been used in the other House; then there would be something to be said for the position of the Government. In this House the Amendment was made on specific grounds, supported by good arguments, which led to its acceptance. In the other House the word was omitted practically without discussion; the President of the Council did not say a word about it. At all events, he did not put forward those grounds, which I admit have some strength in them, that are now put forward by the Government. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that this Amendment, coming from Lord Sandford, and taken in conjunction with his other Amendments, is intended not to strengthen but to weaken the Bill. Coming from that noble Lord it is readily accepted by the President of the Council, who, in his Second Reading speech, did not show that he had any particular love) for free education. We are, therefore, entitled to believe that this Amendment of the Lords is introduced with some ulterior motive, and the speeches we have listened to show that it is necessary that the Amendment should not be accepted. So far from its opponents wishing to raise the religious question, they wish to prevent the religious difficulty from arising by parents being forced to send their children to schools which are not suitable to them. Does the Vice President wish that parents should be forced to send their children to unsuitable schools? If he does not, what possible objection can he have to the retention of this word? As to this being only a departmental question, it must be remembered that the Bill produces a state of things very different from that existing under the Act of 1870. The question is whether the free schools are to be inferior to the fee paying schools, and it is on that point, apart from the religious difficulty, that I desire to retain the word "suitable." In many towns where the fees are very high, and where there is no School Board, it must be greatly to the interests of the managers of the voluntary schools to keep free schools out of their towns, or, at all events, to have as few free schools as possible. Their object will be to associate a sense of inferiority with the free schools, and more especially will they do that if a great extension of the grouping system is adopted, because they will provide as free schools those which are most inferior in building and equipment, and which will not really be "suitable" as free schools. I, for one, shall very heartily vote against the omission of this word by the House of Lords. It is clear from the discussion we have had that the Vice President himself is in favour of the retention of the word; and, putting aside the extreme Voluntaryists, it has the support of the general body of the House.

When this clause was in Committee I very strongly supported it, and I still believe it is very valuable; and when it is attacked I reply by pointing out the safeguards, namely, that there is to be sufficient and suitable free accommodation, and that the right to charge fees in certain cases is limited to those in which the population has shifted, or in which the charge would be for the educational advantages of the district. If the words "and suitable" had never been introduced, I suppose that the word "sufficient" would have implied suitability. But that may not be the case now. I attach no importance to the argument that the word would have a different meaning in the Act of 1870, if that be so. The meaning of any word depends to some extent on the context. I cannot agree with some of my hon. Friends who blame the Government. I cannot find fault with the Government, who had perhaps difficulty in carrying Amendments in another place. At the same time, I regret they will not agree to the retention of the word "suitable." That is the view held by the hon. Member for Woolwich, who has certainly great experience, and who is entitled to speak on the matter. I venture to express the hope that Her Majesty's Government will re-consider the matter, and will agree to the retention of the word "suitable."

I venture to think that originally it did not matter whether the word was in or out, but I think the Government would be unwise to reinsert it in the Bill now that by the Debate of to-day it has been made an ambiguous term.

I hope the House will not agree to this Amendment. The words proposed to be left out were inserted on the Motion of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, with the object that no child attending an elementary school should be charged more than 6d. a week, bringing it up to the limit of 9d. I want to know why these words have been taken out and others substituted, which allow an average fee?

Not average, but ordinary.

Ordinary; an ordinary fee is an average fee; and if the right hon. Gentleman considers what it means, he will find that in the higher standards higher fees can be charged. In the infant school you may have no charge, in the lower standards you may have a 3d. fee, and in the higher standards you may have a 9d. fee. It was not the right hon. Gentleman who accepted the Amendment in this House, but it was the Vice President himself, who, after a short discussion, volunteered to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green. I ask him what has occurred since that this matter should be changed? We know what has happened elsewhere. In Scotland, for the first time during the last 20 years, the higher standards have fallen in number. Why? Because high fees are charged. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we are to have the Government paying £2,000,000 a year in freeing schools and still to have a continuance of these hardships, to use no stronger term? I therefore move to reject this Amendment, and to restore the clause to its original condition.

The word "ordinary" has been inserted to be in accordance with the words of the Definition Clause in the Act of 1870, which says that the ordinary payment for instruction shall not exceed 9d. a week. Now, this is a scheme whereby we say, after the fee grant of 3d. a week, the ordinary fee shall not exceed 6d. per week—that is to say, it may be the balance of fee.

The effect of the Amendment of the Lords would be to bring the Bill back to substantially the form in which it originally was in this House, and on which the right hon. Gentleman accepted my Amendment. Whether the word is "average" or "ordinary," I think it will be clear that the mischief which I pointed out would equally accrue, namely, that the managers of schools would be able to charge differential rates or fees amounting to more than 6d. to children whom, for any reason, they might be unwilling to admit to their schools. Therefore, the argument now is as strong as it was when I moved the Amendment which was accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will resist this alteration.

It seems to me that the argument of my right hon. Friend the Vice President is difficult to follow. In 1870 we had not this Free Education Bill, and we limited the fees. Free-education is now to be the rule and payment the exception. But if you sanction the Lords' Amendment there will be no limit whatever, and you will have fees of 9d. and 1s. imposed. I am surprised that the Government should have assented to this Amendment after having accepted in this House the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green. If I may say so, these changes are calculated, to damage the Party of the Government outside very much indeed. If we wish to treat this matter from a Party point of view, it is the very best thing that could happen to us, but I should be sorry to take that ground. This Bill is introduced with the purpose of free education, and it is our duty to see that we are not diverted from that object. I hope the Government will still their way to disagreeing with the alteration made by the Lords; their doing so certainly could not involve any question of finance that could injuriously affect the voluntary schools.

It is much to be deplored that the Government should take this reactionary step at the bidding of the House of Lords. In the original Bill there was a valuable clause that no higher fee than 3d. should be charged, but now it seems to me that, having omitted that clause from the Bill, it would be wise for the right hon. Gentleman to adhere to the Amendment accepted readily when the Bill was last before us. By this Amendment Parliamentary sanction will be given to a most vicious system of differentiating between one child and another, differentiating in the very worst form. In previous discussions it was urged several times that we should expect school managers to give some quid pro quo for the magnificent grant Parliament was giving, and a most moderate demand was that no higher fee than 6d. should be charged for any child. The original clause plainly indicated the intention that the fee was to be brought down as low as possible, and I do hope the Government will not now acquiesce in this reactionary step taken by the House of Lords.

I have listened to the speeches made in which hon. Members have declared that this is an attack on the system of free education; but this remains a Free Education Bill, because for every child between the ages of 3 and 15 may be demanded a free place in a school; and this being conceded, if parents are willing to pay a high fee for a better form of elementary education in a higher grade school, why should they not be allowed to do so? How can this in any way affect the fact that those who desire free education can get it?

For the Government to accept this Amendment will be equivalent to taking away with one hand what they give with the other. Too much regard is paid to the alterations made in another place. If it is intended to give free education to the country, then give it in the form we have decided it should be given after it has been thoroughly discussed.

I doubt if the hon. Member has read the clause, for his remarks, as have been the remarks of the other hon. Members, are entirely wide of the actual proposal. The effect of the clause is that in certain cases—not frequent cases I think—where ample provision has been made in the district for free education, after that we may have a graded school.

But a fee above 6d.?

A higher grade school may be established; but as there must first be sufficient free accommodation in the district, not a single working man need send his children to the school charging fees above 6d. My right hon. Friend will see that it is only when the Department is satisfied that sufficient accommodation is provided without the payment of fees—that is, if you have given free education in every district—that a school may be established charging a fee above 6d.

Yes, but the Elementary Education Act says the fees shall not exceed 9d.; but this will be exceeded, taking into account the 10s. grant.

This is really a small point. There may be certain cases—they will be rare cases—in which ample free accommodation having been provided, then if school managers choose they may set up a school of this kind. How can it be said this is taking free education from the working classes In these circumstances, how can it be said that the Government are taking away with one hand what they have granted with the other? I protest against the insinuation. It seems to me as if hon. Members opposite, on the strength of the very small changes made in the Bill by the House of Lords, intend to start an electoral campaign in which they will indulge in even greater exaggerations than they utter in the House of Commons. We have had gross exaggeration as to the effect of the Amendment, and I must protest against the importance sought to be put upon a very small change. I do not attach very great importance to the change, but I do attach importance to these imputations of motives.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot deny that this allows the raising of fees in what he calls graded schools from 9d. to 1s. That, as a matter of fact, is the effect of the clause, because the limit is now 9d., and the future limit will be 9d., plus the 10s. grant. What is, therefore, proposed is that where there is now a limit of 9d., there shall be in future the limit of 1s. Our objection is to the fees of high grade schools being raised after the 10s. grant has been made to reduce the 9d. fee by 3d. We strongly object to any educational authority still continuing to charge 9d. after the grant in aid has been given.

This is one of the most important Amendments made in the other House. As the Bill left this House it read thus:—

"If at any time after the expiration of one year from the commencement of this Act it is represented to the Education Department that there is in any school district, or in any part of a school I district, an insufficient amount of public school accommodation without payment of fees for children over the age of three years and under the age of fifteen for whom such accommodation is desired, or where such accommodation is unsuitable for the wants of the population"—

the Department shall make inquiry, and so on. The Lords have struck out the words—

"Or where such accommodation is unsuitable for the wants of the population."

I am only repeating what I have said as to other of these Amendments, that these words were inserted in this House with the assent of hon. Members on both sides, with the assent of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne—who does not back up his words by his vote. It was agreed that the words were not harmful, but necessary and desirable, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury stopped discussion after there had been four or five speeches, remarking "We do not object to the insertion of these words, as there appears to be a general desire for their insertion." Now, I do not wish to re-enter upon the argument we have had upon the word "suitable," but I do say that when it is represented to the Department that the provision is unsuitable, then the Department ought to listen to such representation, and it ought to be put into the Act that the Department shall listen to such, representation. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War has said we are raising again the religious difficulty, and the hon. Member for Oxford University said he was surprised to hear the "No Popery" cry from this side of the House. The hon. Member is not quite fair in using that language. We have said we are not in favour of forcing Catholic children into Protestant schools, or Protestant children into Catholic schools. We say it ought to be fair all round, and the question of whether a school is suitable to the public local wants ought to be fully considered. My hon. Friend has quoted Mr. Cumin's evidence to show that unsuitability might exist on religious grounds, topographical grounds, or on the ground of fees. These words were freely accepted in this House, and yet without a word of protest the Government allow them to be taken out again in the other House, and now in the last days of July, and a few days before Prorogation, when the Government are always proportionately stronger in numbers than the Opposition, they come down and force upon us, in spite of their own promise, in spite of their voluntary concession, these Lords' Amendments, against which they raised no protest in another place. What is the objection to these words, "unsuitable to the wants of the population?" It is most unreasonable to take these words out without cause shown. Accommodation may be sufficient, and yet wholly unsuitable, as the Vice President knows perfectly well. The right hon. Gentleman has not yet answered the statement I have made. There are two other ex-Vice Presidents sitting opposite, and I put the question again—Has it not been the rule during the past 21 years for the Department, in estimating the amount of accommodation, to deduct the Catholic schools as unsuitable for the general public wants? It is not reasonable that the Department should force Protestant children into these schools, and I say again, in common fairness to all parties, there should be some test applied as to whether a school is suitable or not.

As the words were inserted upon my motion, I may be allowed to add my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, that he should allow them to remain. I think if he will consider the argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby and by himself on a previous Amendment, he will see that that argument affords some ground in support of my proposal. The contention from the other side was that the word "suitable" did not run on the same lines as it does in the Act of 1870. Now, I contend that striking out these words and the word "unsuitable" in the 4th sub-section is really drawing the Bill on different lines to the Act of 1870 and the governing section of that Act. There the word "suitable" is used in regard to deficiencies of school accommodation, and here the words are applied exactly on the same lines, and with the same general reasoning behind them as in the Act of 1870. I remind the right hon. Gentleman, also, that there was considerable discussion on another Amendment which pressed the Government, perhaps, rather further in this direction, and it was on the suggestion of the Government—the First Lord of the Treasury, I think—that these words were accepted. This Amendment, of course, raises a much wider question than the previous one—a question of more vital importance, a question, I might say, of local rights, of local option in educational matters—the power of the inhabitants to make representation to the Department that the school accommodation is unsuitable, as well as insufficient. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will decide to retain the words.

I cannot see the force of the argument of the hon. Member and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It appears to me we have already discussed this point fully in all its bearings, and have come to a decisive vote on the question of the word "suitable." The right hon. Gentleman has challenged me to say what has been the policy of the Department, and to give any case where the Department has forced Catholic children into Protestant schools.

No; I asked the right hon. Gentleman to say whether it had not been the custom of the Department, in considering the question of supply of accommodation in elementary schools, to deduct the Roman Catholic supply as unsuitable.

That has been the case as regards the Metropolis, but not, generally speaking, as applied to the rest of the country.

It has in large towns.

But what I want to point out is that this has been adopted as part of the policy of the Department, and why, then, in the name of common sense, not leave well alone? Why not be satisfied with the result of experience—why emphasise this? I am tempted to believe—I wish to give every consideration to my opponents—but if you are not content to let well alone and rely on the well established practice of 21 years, if you will not do that, and wish these words inserted, then I am forced to the conviction that you mean something more than you are now stating. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire says it is a much wider question than the one we have already dealt with; and if he frankly tells us that, surely it is not the right way to tempt us to come to a different decision from that we arrived at on the last Amendment after exhaustive discussion. The rejection of this Amendment will seriously affect, or may seriously affect, the future policy of the Department as regards the working of the Act. I have shown that in the past policy of the Department there is no cause shown for the insertion of these words, and we are content to base our demand for the acceptance of the Lords' Amendment on the administration of 21 years, which has worked extremely well. The words are not necessary as applied to schools receiving the Government grant and protected by the Conscience Clause.

I cannot but feel disppointed with the speech just made. This is a much wider question—a totally distinct question—to that raised before. The right hon. Gentleman said the word "suitable" has a technical meaning in the Department, and, therefore, he objected to introducing that word in a previous section of the clause. He says the Department ascertained this difficulty too late to state it to this House, and, therefore, they inserted that Amendment in the House of Lords. But this Amendment is a totally different matter, and I will endeavour to show that the right hon. Gentleman's speech just now was not applicable to this Amendment at all, although it was to the previous one. It is worth while to note that the support to the Commons Amendment came from the other side quite as strongly as from this side, and this is a question which raises much broader issues than the last Division. This is the crux of the whole situation dealing with whether you are or are not to have free education, bonâ fide, throughout the whole Kingdom. Sub-section 4 of Clause 3 says—

"If at any time after the expiration of one year from the commencement of this Act it is represented to the Education Department that there is in any school district, or any part of a school district, an insufficient amount of public school accommodation without payment of fees for children over three and under fifteen years of age, for whom such accommodation is desired, or that such accommodation is unsuitable for the wants of the population," &c—

then, and then only, are the Education Department to interfere and compel the provision of free education. Now, what does the House of Lords propose? The words "or that such accommodation is unsuitable for the wants of the population," are to be struck out, and there is to be simply an arithmetical problem, and nothing else. There are a certain number of children in a district, there is a certain amount of accommodation, and though it may be, from distance or quantity, entirely unsuited to the district, yet these people are to be deprived of free education. If I were arguing this question from a Party point of view, I should desire nothing better than that this Amendment should remain. The Amendment of the House of Lords reverses the spirit of the whole Bill as a Bill for free education, and I congratulate the hon. Member for the Evesham Division, the hon. Member for Salford, and the noble Lord the Member for Darwen on the fact that by the acceptance of the Amendment a great part of the virtue of the measure is taken out of it as far as free education is concerned. The intention of the Amendment is to put free schools and free scholars at a disadvantage. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says that these words have a technical meaning in the Education Department. Not at all. These words never appeared in an Act of Parliament before. You say you are to provide for a certain district a certain number of free school places, and that these are to be available for all the children in that district; but now you strike out those words and say that if in a large parish there are a certain number of places free, even though the school is unsuitable for the needs of the population—even though a river may divide the parish, or a mountain, as an hon. Member pointed out—the parents are to avail themselves of it for their children. I thought there was some force in the argument of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary for War, that the Government have discovered a certain kind of technical meaning in the word "suitable" as applied to the 1st sub-section of this clause, and that, therefore, they felt in a difficulty in dealing with it; but they are now introducing an entirely new principle into the measure, which has nothing to do with suitability. This is a question of providing proper accommodation in each district. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether this is the mode in which Public Business is to be conducted in the House of Commons—that the Government are to accept an Amendment here and strike it out in another place for no reason whatever? It is due to the House of Commons and the character of the Government that they should consent to reinstate the words.

The right hon. Gentleman suggests that this is a fatal stab in the back to the whole system of compulsory free education. I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has sufficiently looked at the wording of the clause. If he will do so, he will see that the clause only deals with the case of a representation being made to the Department. Where no representation is made, the Department will act according to their traditional practice, and with that practice the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have expressed themselves satisfied. It is asked why the Government now wish to omit these words, which they accepted before. It is because a great deal of new light has been thrown on these words by the speeches we have heard. We see that it will be possible in the future that a representation will be made, "this is a denominational school, and, therefore, is unsuitable."

That is an afterthought.

I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should give utterance to a misrepresentation of our motive. It has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire that these words will give an opportunity for a kind of religious local option. What does that mean? It means that, after the Bill has passed, a certain number of the ratepayers in every district will come together and say, "We will now make a representation to the Department that the public elementary schools in this district are unsuitable to the wants of the population. We do not consider them suitable, because they are denominational." In the interests of education and of peace, I think it would be most unwise that words which will give rise to such a religious difficulty should be left in the Bill. We have seen sufficient evidence of this.

Nobody else has.

Then what does local option mean? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see the force of that argument, even if he does not agree with it. This point only refers to representations to be made to the Education Department. It does not fetter their hands. They will proceed as they have done hitherto. They will not allow unsuitable schools—schools that are unsuitable in the true old sense—to take the place of schools that are suitable. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with difficulties which do not exist, and has ignored the real difficulty, which is the religious one.

I would suggest that it would be possible so to word the clause as to remove the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The "representation" might be left out, and the clause might be worded somewhat as follows:—

"If the Education Department are satisfied that in any school district there is insufficient accommodation, or that such accommodation is unsuitable to the wants of the population."

According to my understanding of the right hon. Gentleman's argument that would meet his point.

I said that was unnecessary, because it is already the practice of the Department, and we do not wish to interfere with the practice.

If so, why not word the Amendment so as to recognise that such is the practice of the Department?

I do not know whether I may, by leave of the House, point out that the Education Department are to act under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act of 1870. It is clear, therefore, that the Department will take far more into consideration than simply to remove the mere insufficiency.

I do not consider the reproach addressed to me by the right hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) to be well deserved, because while it is quite true that when the matter was under discussion I added my voice to urge the Government to accept these words, I did so on the ground that they seemed to be harmless and unobjectionable. But after reading what has been said, and after having heard the Debate to-night, it is plain to me that to some extent I was deceived by the ingenuity of hon. Gentlemen who brought forward the Amendment. Now it appears that this Bill, which is ostensibly a Bill for free education, is to be made a Bill for the establishment of universal School Boards. According to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, what is the meaning of the word "suitable"? Something was faintly said about its being suitable topographically—that is to say, suitable as to distance; but I should have thought that that would have been covered by the word "sufficient." It is absurd to say that a school is sufficient which is too far off for the children to attend it. The education authorities have themselves said that every public elementary school shall be sufficient in that respect. If there is any school in England that is not suitable in that respect it ought not to receive the grant. We are told, again, that the word "suitable" means suitable to the feelings of those people who do not like religious education. It is plain that if that argument is good, whatever dislike Protestant children may have to going to Roman Catholic schools can hardly be dispelled by the dislike of hon. Members who represent Wales to any sort of denominational schools, especially those of the Church of England. I voted with the Government that the public elementary schools supported out of the taxes should be in every case suitable for all children sent to them; and when we are told that we ought to view with suspicion all that comes from the House of Lords in the matter of education, we ought to remember that the leader of the Government is in the House of Lords, and that no responsible Party leader has taken up the matter of education as Lord Salisbury has done, and his having done that for the last five years seems to be a special annoyance to the right hon. Member for Sheffield.