It is well, perhaps, that I should first make a few remarks, brief, and, I trust, businesslike, and I hope that the Committee will think when they have heard my statement that Scotch education is in a condition that is satisfactory for the present and hopeful for the future. The Estimate is for 565,000 day scholars, which appears to be a falling-off of 2,000 from last year; but it is only an apparent diminution. Last year there was an over-estimate in the actual average attendance, which was 549,000. That number has been increasing regularly, though not quite so rapidly as in the years immediately following free education. As regards finance, the increase in the Estimate is £16,000, of which £7,300 is the normal increase in the annual grant, and £7,600 is the fee grant from the Exchequer. I know there are hon. Members who think that Scotland should get 10s. a head for every child. I have no doubt that that would be an advantage to Scotland. There was some doubt as to whether or not Scotland was getting the whole of ll–80ths to which she was entitled, so the Scotch Office made a representation to the Treasury, and after some fighting—for nothing is got without fighting—Scotland got the sum which we believe is her due. In addition to that, £40,000 was paid under the Customs and Excise Duties Act, in aid of free education, so that, instead of 10s. per child, 12s. per child is provided. The total cost of the maintenance of schools is £1,250,000. The children in average attendance was 213,000 in 1872, 404,000 in 1880, and 549,000 in 1892. The education of each child in Scotland costs £2 5s. 9½d. The cost is £2 8s. 4d. in English Board schools, £1 16s. 5d. in Church of England schools, and £1 14s. 3d. in English Catholic schools. In the public schools in Scotland, which answer to Board schools in England, the cost per head is £2 6s. 4d.; it is £2 5s. 8d. in Free Church and Church of Scotland schools, and in Catholic schools £1 19s. 9d. It is satisfactory to find that the money spent upon the education of children in Scotland is equally distributed all over the country in a remarkable degree, and that every child, in whatever school he is taught, has the chance of getting the best of what is going in the way of education. As to the quality of the education given, it is natural to ask what is the result of the alterations of the Code under which greater liberty is given to teachers, and children have not to climb to knowledge by the hard-and-fast steps of the ladder of the Standards. Dr. Ogilvie, the Chief Inspector of the Western District, in his Report for 1892, says—

"The New Code, on further trial, has proved a substantial gain to education. It has abolished the temptation to produce a maximum of minimum results, and substituted as the test of efficiency the greatest progress on intelligent lines of the greatest number. It gives free scope to individual talent, and, at the same time, secures that dullards and weaklings shall not be driven at a faster pace than nature intended. Teachers have more, freedom in the choice of subjects and methods, and examination, where practicable, by sample gives more opportunity for the inspection, as distinguished from the examination, of the school. The Inspector has thus more time to examine the processes at work in the school, and to bring, where occasion offers, his varied experience to bear on the improvement of subjects that are susceptible of more intelligent handling."

It was believed that the danger of this change in the system was that, the teaching of the elementary subjects would suffer by the abolition of individual examination; but, so far from suffering, the education of children in elementary subjects is much better than before. Dr. Stewart, the Head Inspector of the Northern Division, in his Report, states—

"My colleagues are agreed that the standard subjects are on a sound footing, and are making steady if slow progress. I am disposed to speak more strongly of the progress made in my own district. I believe a deal of it originated in our excellent city infant departments. There the beginnings of pleasantly modulated, clear, and audible reading, and of tasteful and even artistic writing arose. Mr. Macleod thinks there is an increased number who work all the sums correctly. My own experience has been similar. Not only are the sums worked with greater speed and accuracy, but they are set down in a more tasteful and businesslike style. All this we are fully entitled to expect, for, with the freedom of classification and with arithmetic as the test subject, the teacher's duty is to place the boy in the class where he can work his sums satisfactorily."

Let me tell the Committee that no less than 81 per cent, of the schools have been pronounced "excellent for organisation and discipline." Out of 540,000 children, 357,000 have been classed as "good," and 148,000 as "excellent." As an incentive to excellence a special honour has been instituted, and an order of merit given to those children who have made the utmost use of opportunities, and have learned everything elementary schools can teach. These are not pecuniary rewards, but neat little certificates which are greatly prized. Already we have issued 2,346 of these certificates, and in the words of the gentleman who invented the idea—

"It must be remembered that the value of such pupils to the country is not, measured by their numbers only, and that the benefit which accrues from their having obtained an adequate education extends far beyond the individual pupil immediately concerned."

Now, Sir, with regard to the Highland schools, they continue to engage the careful attention of the Department. They have been rightly treated with exceptional generosity by the State. In the insular parts of the Highlands one-seventh of the cost of education comes from local resources, and in the rest of Scotland nearly one-third. Under Articles 19 and 21 of the Code nearly £7,000 a year is earned by certain Highland counties more than in the rest of Scotland. In this estimate, £2,000 has been taken to meet the exceptionally distressed condition of the School Boards in certain districts, which in the past, as hon. Members from Scotland know, have been rescued by the bounty of the State from a distressed and what was almost a hopeless position. The effect of this is very good. In Lewis the average attendance has increased by 26 per cent., and in Skye by 48 per cent., over what was the case in the year 1888. But this attendance is kept up under remarkable difficulties. There are districts which were quite unprovided with roads, or even with a substitute in the shape of decent footpaths, and the very approaches to schools were dangerous. But this year the Government allotted £10,000 to improving the footpaths of the Highlands, with a special view to education, and the Scotch Office tried to see that the money was spent for the purpose for which Parliament intended it to be spent. Now, Sir, I want to say one word about night schools. In the opinion of the Government, and I have no doubt of the House, these night schools are founded on the principle, not only of tilling up defects in the elementary education of unfortunate persons, but to give to persons not able, in the work of life, to go through the regular round of secondary education, a real and solid knowledge of and interest in the higher branches of mental cultivation. This has been very well expressed by Dr. Ogilvie, when he says—

"It is recognised that the future of the evening schools depends on their advanced programme, and there is everywhere an earnest desire to foster and develop them, and make them attractive sequels to the day schools. They promise to become the permanent secondary schools of the working classes."

These evening schools, which are so congenial to Scotland, which hung heavily for a time, have taken a fresh start. In the year 1891 there were 207 evening schools, and in the year 1892, 257. In the year 1891 there were 16,613 scholars, and in the year 1892 there were 19,000. That is the progress made already, and the Code which I have had the honour of lying on the Table will give it, I hope, a great and marked impulse. The age of scholars at night schools will be continued over 21. The Inspector's General Report on the schools is to take the place of individual examination, and visit without notice is to take the place of announced visit, whilst the giants in a good school will he sensibly larger. All this is as in the English Code, but there are certain differences in our New Code which will tell in favour of simplicity, and obviate the necessity of keeping those minute registers which, as everyone who is acquainted with elementary education knows, are the curse, though, perhaps, a necessary curse, of carrying on the system. I should be grossly ungrateful if I said anything in depreciation of the English Code, for we owe it very much indeed. We have adopted their Schedules of subjects, modified carefully, and I think wisely, to meet Scottish needs. We have printed even their detailed schemes of education with the necessary changes; but I want to put in one word of explanation here. Managers, I hope, will remember that these schemes are only suggestions, and if each subject is reasonably well taught they may teach it according to their own knowledge and their own lights, or may even select other subjects than those mentioned in the Code.

Is the Code printed?

It is in type. It will be a question, I should think, of a day or two. As to pensions, we have received from the Treasury our proportionate share of increased grant. At present, in addition to what was absorbed by teachers who were in office before 1851, who have a statutory right, there was only £920 a year given to most necessitous cases. We have now received an additional sum of £830, which almost doubles our means of assisting those teachers who have a claim on our sympathy and gratitude. In the New Code for night schools we have learned something from England, but there are matters in which England might take a leaf out of our book. The great success which has attended the Scottish Act of 1890 for the education of blind and deaf-mute children will be very gratifying to the Representatives of a country which has been the pioneer in this matter. The State now undertakes, either through taxes or by local funds, the education and even the maintenance to the age of 16, of children who are in this unfortunate state of body. The payments for the actual teaching of the children are made by the Department in the Estimates in the case of some 500 to 600 scholars. The other day £600 was paid to one great institution—namely, the Deaf and Dumb Institution, Glasgow, and there are two admirably conducted institutions of the same class in Edinburgh. That is not all. Under the Act, payments for the maintenance of 129 children at these institutions, at the rate of from £10 to £15 per annum, have been made by School Boards, so that the parents of these poor children have their full share, and more than their full share, of the money which has been voted and given by the State in consequence of the great educational movement which has marked the last 20 years. And now one word on the burning question of fee-paying schools. I rejoice to say that Scotland has taken full, and is taking every year more full, advantage of the great benefit which she was the first to claim, and that Scottish people more and more assert their right as citizens to obtaining that free education for which, as citizens, the pay. In 1890, 87 per cent, of Scottish children enjoyed free education. In 1891, 92 per cent. enjoyed it. This last year there were 638,000 free scholars to 28,000 paying fees, or nearer 96 than 95 per cent. Without saying anything ungracious, I would ask hon. Members to compare that with England, and they will see, I think, that our method of dealing with free education in Scotland—the spontaneous outcome of private Scotch Members' initiation—has been, at any rate, conspicuously successful. There still were 42 schools which charged fees, and these were among the best schools in Scotland, and when I had the honour of taking Office I set on foot careful inquiries. One point I asked for information upon was as to the number of vacant places at these fee-paying schools; schools, it must be remembered, which had been built out of the rates, and which, therefore, ought to be fully utilised by the ratepayers. I found that while the accommodation in these schools was for 25,600 children, the average attendance was 16,756. Now, in Glasgow, in the fee-paying schools, the places were 7,369, and the attendance was 4,821, and this attendance had gone down very much indeed since the schools outside were free, and was still going down fast. Glasgow began with 10 fee-paying schools. They came down to eight, then to six, and a couple of months ago the School Board, which had been elected to support fee-paying schools, came to the conclusion that with fees fast falling off they could support them no longer. The School Board abolished fees in five of the schools out of the six, up to and including the Sixth Standard, and have resolved to convert the sixth into a much-needed high school for girls. That is the way in which this question must be settled—by the people of the locality themselves becoming alive to their own highest interests. There is a community near Glasgow which has reserved four fine schools for fee-paying pupils. In those schools, out of 4,200 places, only 2,068 are occupied. I do not doubt that the same experience which has convinced the School Board of Glasgow will have the same effect elsewhere, and that ere long the 95 per cent, of free scholars in the elementary schools of Scotland will rise to 99 per cent., or will embrace all the children who frequent those schools. And now, Sir, one word about the work that the Education Department has done in secondary education. Sixty-one higher and endowed voluntary schools are now inspected by the officers of the Department, and to make the relations with these schools practical and effective five years ago the Government instituted the leaving certificates given after searching examination. That certificate has had since then a great success and a most remarkable development. In 1888 there were 972 candidates for leaving certificates; in 1892, 5,175; and in 1893, 7,148. The papers that were answered by the candidates respectively in those years were 4,300, 18,691, and 24,240. This certificate is accepted by the Oxford and Cambridge Universities as equivalent to responsions and little go, and even distinguished people who have gone through Cambridge may know that the little go is no trifle. They are accepted by Edinburgh, Glasgow, and St. Andrews for the preliminary examination for the three years' course; by the Lords of Council and Session for the purpose of the Law Agents Act; by the General Medical Council; the Institute of Accountants; the Society of Solicitors, and a long list of dignified and important Bodies who are only too glad to accept the guarantee of an examination conducted by adepts in the result of which they have the highest confidence. This examination enables the Government to keep a close watch on the merits and defects of secondary education. The result is, on the whole, most satisfactory. Mathematics and classics are creditably, sometimes excellently, taught. There is, something to seek as far as modern languages are concerned which may be attributed to uncertainty of system rather than defect of zeal, and I have asked a very competent gentleman to report on the teaching of modern languages in the schools of Belgium and Switzerland, especially on the point whether that system is founded on seeking to attain conversational facility, or through educational discipline and literary practice and cultivation—in fact, whether a classical education, as far as time allows, can and should be got out of the modern languages. But, Sir, I have said enough, I think, for the purpose of laying before the House the new points, such as they are, and explaining the progress in the older parts of the system included in this Estimate. Of the vast amount of silent and normal continuous work that has been going on for so many years with ever-improving methods and ever-increasing energy and experience I say nothing, and it needs no praise of mine. The education of Scotland is the outcome of Scottish history, and the express image of Scottish character; and I trust that the House will cheerfully, and readily, and even promptly, vote the money on which the efficiency of that education depends.

thought the Members of the Committee would feel very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the extreme lucidity of the statement which he had made, and he felt sure that on the Opposition as well as on the Government side there would be a disposition to be satisfied with the general progress which he had indicated, and with the general administration of the Department which fell under the right hon. Gentleman's cognisance, and of which he had indicated some of the features. At the same time, he felt also they were under very great and most unmerited disability in discussing this subject as it ought to be discussed. Up to that moment they had not seen a copy of the Report—an advantage which was not denied to English Members. He believed, technically speaking, the Report as to Scottish education was placed on the Table the previous night, but, of course, that meant placing upon the Table a dummy Paper; and they were, therefore, obliged to discuss this great and important question without knowing what they had to discuss at all until they heard the right hon. Gentleman's statement. He could not but regard that as a great disadvantage and a great pity. He did not indicate who was to blame in the matter, but if the subject were to be adequately discussed they ought to have had the Report before them. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman, in point of lucidity, left nothing to be desired; but there were certain points he had not touched upon, and as to which it was necessary they should have some information. The right hon. Gentleman told them he did not see any particular difference between the cost of the various classes of schools; and, therefore, without opening up the subject of denominational education, at any rate, they had to congratulate themselves that so much of Scottish education as was denominational did not seem to be hampered by any bad management, and, in fact, upon this question of economy both in England and Scotland, the economy seemed to be rather in favour of the denominational than the Government system. The next point touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman was the fact that greater liberty had been given to the teachers to map out the particular curriculum which the scholar was to follow, and he was extremely gratified to hear the unstinted praise which was accorded by the right hon. Gentleman to the method which was undertaken, certainly as an experiment, a few years ago. There were some at that time who did not entirely agree with it; but he thought the statement of the right hon. Gentleman must be taken as a meed of unqualified praise. He thought he should not be doing justice to one who was deserving of much praise in this matter if he did not recall the few sentences that were pronounced in the discussion that took place some years ago by the late Lord Advocate (Mr. Robertson), who, in heralding the introduction of the system, said its initiation was really due to the energy and constructive ability of the gentleman who, more than any other, had the control of the development of the Scottish educational programme by virtue of his official position—namely, the Secretary of the Scottish Education Department. The next question his right hon. Friend had dealt with was the question of the High- land schools. They were glad to find the average attendance had progressed by such leaps and bounds since the year 1888. He did not know if the right hon. Gentleman attributed that progress to any special reason. He spoke, of course, of what had been done as regarded making better roads, and all would agree that that was well-spent money; but that he understood was a work which had been done quite recently, therefore the increased attendance so far was due to some other cause than that, and it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman would explain the cause, because it undoubtedly might disclose some method or benefit which they might apply in other places. He was also pleased to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about the education of blind and deaf children. They who lived in either of the two great towns of Scotland were familiar with the interest taken there in that subject, not only in the Institutions which the right hon. Gentleman referred to, but also in the case of Donaldson's Hospital, which was one of the best Institutions for the blind and deaf to be found. As to the subject of fee-paying schools, he would, for reasons which the Committee would presently appreciate, rather hold over his observations on that, because it was cognate to another matter upon which he should otherwise have to trouble the Committee in a few moments. For the same reason he should defer his remarks upon the observations of the right hon. Gentleman on secondary education. There were some matters on which, as they had not got the Report, he thought the Committee were entitled to more information. One great subject of interest had been the progress of attendance in Scotland, and the right hon. Gentleman had read them out certain figures showing the progress as indicated by the number of scholars in attendance in 1872 as compared with the present year. There was a prophet in that House whoso voice he was sorry to say was temporarily silenced—he meant Mr. Caldwell—who used to assure them that these figures were illusory; but the right hon. Gentleman had shown them that such was not the case. But there was another question as to that progress which was equally interesting, and which had nothing to do with the change that took place in 1872. Of course, there was a great change in 1872 from the old Scottish parochial school system to the system of Board schools under the Education Act. But there had been a change in another way since those days. He referred to the introduction of free education, and certainly one was anxious to know now whether the Department were in possession of such statistics and had got such experience as would enable them to pronounce an opinion more or less certain as to what the tendency of free education had been in really stimulating the anxiety for education as evidenced by the fact of the numbers that betook themselves to that education. In the Report of 1891–2 statistics were given as to the numbers, and then the Report went on thus—

"Looking to the magnitude of the question, and the number of circumstances which may affect it, it is scarcely yet possible to pronounce as to the effect which this scheme may have upon the successful enforcement of the compulsory clauses. But we are convinced that, as a general result, it has not only increased the number on the books, but also added considerably to the average attendance. Meanwhile, we can only repeat, the hope that Scottish parents will show their sense of the boon conferred by a constant and vigorous effort to make the school attendance of their children full and regular."

He should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether the hopes expressed in this Report of 1891–2, that the new scheme of free education would add considerably to the average attendances, had been realised. In 1888 the figure of increase in attendances was 1·55 per cent., in 1889 it was 1·27 per cent., in 1890 it was 2·22 per cent., and in 1891 it was 3·90 per cent. This increase might be accounted for by the fact that one result of paying no fees had been that very much younger children were sent to school; but it would not be altogether just to include the attendances of children under five years of age in estimating the increase in attendances. The Committee would like to know whether there had been an increase on the percentage of 1891? Again, in reference to the method of collective instead of individual examination, which had been introduced into the Code in 1886 as an experiment, and in respect of which the Report of 1891 did not sound any confident note, the Committee would, he thought, desire, if possible, some fuller information from the right hon. Gentleman upon the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had not dealt with the question of Training Colleges at all. He believed that these Colleges were extremely well worked, and that the denominational element was of so mild and indistinctive a character that it did not injuriously affect them; but he was anxious to know whether the system was still entirely satisfactory? Another question of interest was the subject of evening continuation classes; but here, again, he most bitterly regretted the absence of any Papers before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that, as a matter of fact, he had put a Code dealing with the subject upon the Table; but, if so, that was admittedly a new departure, and it was a great pity that no opportunity had been afforded for discussing it. It was said that this Code resembled the English Continuation Code; but there were some portions of the English Code that were open to the criticism that they went beyond the scope and object of these Scotch, continuation schools. That Code included such subjects as "the public life and duties of citizens," and directed the teachers to select such part of that subject as was most appropriate to the circumstances and needs of each particular school. The Syllabus said—

"The teacher will select that part which is most appropriate to the circumstances and the needs of the school and the locality. … The object of the teacher should be to proceed from the known and familiar, such as the policeman, the rate collector, the Board of Guardians, and the Town Council, to the history of and reasons for our local and national institutions and our responsibilities in connection with them."

And it was added—

"Good illustrations am I diagrams and pictures will be of great service in teaching this subject."

They might introduce magic lanterns. If they were to deal with subjects which included the whole scope of political life they would be introducing controversial matters. He thought he had shown the difficulty that lay in the way in relation to this branch of the question. He wanted next to deal for a moment with the question of secondary education. He was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that under the system of secondary education he hail found that the leaving certificate examination which was introduced by the late Government had been attended by excellent results. As to the money devoted to secondary education, he wished to say that Scotchmen were certainly not satisfied with the position in which the administration of the fund of £60,000 was left by the action of the Department.

rose to a point of Order. He wished to know whether the question of this fund had not been already dealt with? Had it not been made the subject of a Motion during the present Session? Apart from that, there was no mention of it in this Vote.

said, he only proposed to deal with the question of administration by the Education Department, and he submitted he was quite in Order.

ruled that the question of administration could be discussed.

said, in that case the Report must come within the scope of discussion.

said, the question of administration might be discussed in its entirety.

said, he did not know how otherwise he could raise the question if not now.

said, it might be done on the salary of the Secretary for Scotland.

said, he had made some careful inquiries about that, and he had been told that if he raised the question in that way he would probably be ruled out of Order.

said, they had the Report, and he thought it was hardly possible be could be out of Order.

was understood to ask whether the subject had not been dealt with on a previous occasion?

said, he had given his ruling, and he thought the question of administration could be discussed.

asked a further question, which could not be heard in the Reporters' Gallery.

said, the question of the certificate had nothing to do with it.

said, he would not wander beyond the limits of proper discussion. He believed the Department had gone wrong in the matter by trying to give in to the clamour of certain sections, and they wore exceedingly sorry that the Department did not stand up to the Report of their own Committee, the Members of which were taken impartially from both sides of the House. He hoped that by next year the Department would re-consider the position in regard to this matter. Then there was the question of the 9d. limit, which, being a technical matter, might not be quite understood in all parts of the House. This limit arose in this way. In 1872 the existing system was introduced. In 1876 an English Act was passed dealing with elementary education in England; but in Section 53 of that Act it was enacted that certain provisions in the English Act should be grafted upon the Scotch system. In fact, under the Act of 1876 the 9d. limit, in accordance with the opinion of the majority of the Law Officers of the Crown—the English Attorney General, the Lord Advocate, and the Scotch Solicitor General being agreed, and the English Solicitor General dissenting—was read into the Scotch Education system. The point next mooted between the Controller and Auditor General and the Department was as to the meaning of the word "ordinary." Another opinion was consequently taken from the Law Officers, and they laid down that "ordinary" did not mean in respect of ordinary education, and did not mean average payments, but meant simply ordinary payments. That supplied the practice, which went on until 1889, when the first subvention was obtained from Parliament towards the relief of fees. Then the point was raised by the Controller and Auditor General as to whether in calculating the 9d. payment from the scholar the fee alone was to be taken, or whether in the case of schools that had got fees the amount given by Parliament in relief was to be included in calculating the 9d. The opinion of the Scotch Law Officers was taken, and they hold that the relief of the fee grant was not to be so calculated. The matter went before the Committee on Public Accounts—a Committee which, as everyone knew, did good work in the House. He had never heard, however, that it was any part of the functions of that Committee to give an opinion on law. On finance their opinion was unrivalled. In 1891, however, they indicated that the opinion of the Scotch Law Officers was not in harmony with the intentions of Parliament. The Committee on Public Accounts did not go further then; but this year—and he was sorry the Member for North Aberdeen. (Mr. Hunter), who was familiar with this subject, was not in his place—they went a great deal further, for they repeated the doubt whether the opinion of the Scotch. Law Officers was in harmony with the intentions of Parliament, and expressed regret that the opinion of the English Law Officers as well as of the Scotch Law Officers had not been taken on the subject. He had no objection to the opinion of the English Law Officers, being taken; but he did object to the suggestion of the Committee that, in the meantime, future payments should be made at the risk of the accounting officer. He (Mr. Murray) wanted an assurance from the Secretary for Scotland that he was not going to dislocate the system in Scotland at the instance of the Committee on Public Accounts. It seemed to him that all the Committee had to do was to see if the payments were legal, and whatever their view as to its being in harmony with the ideas of Parliament they had no business to make the recommendation that until a new opinion was taken the payments should be made at the risk of the accounting officer. No one could expect that that official—who in this case happened to be a paid Secretary of the Education Department—would take on his shoulders this great and burdensome payment. He regretted that the Government had put them in the position of having to discuss this question in the absence of Papers—particularly so far as the evening schools were concerned. At the same time, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman opposite for what he had done in explaining the matter, and, as Scotchmen, he was sure they were all proud to see that the progress of education in, Scotland was such as it was.

felt obliged to reiterate what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down as to the difficulty in which they had been placed by not having the Papers before them. He desired, with regard to Articles 133 and 134 of the Education Code, to ask the Secretary for Scotland a question. Article 134 said that the Scotch Boards, with the sanction of the Scotch Education Department, might maintain a certain number of schools in which fees were charged to infants in all or any of the Standards. The preceding article said that in State-aided schools no fees should be exacted from scholars who were between five and 14 years of age. He wished to contrast that with the Statute under which free education was given to England. He wished to know if be was correct in the inference that Scotland had not been placed on the same footing of equality as England? Under the English Act it was the duty of the Education Department to take stops to secure proper accommodation for the education, without fees, of children over three and under 15; but in Scotland the limit was fixed between five and 14. He should like to know if there was any valid reason for this difference, which was very considerable? He had not had time to properly consider the Reports sent in. They had come in detachments. That relating to the Western Division—in which he (Mr. Cochrane) was interested—gave particulars as to the infant department and the good work being done. It stated that the numbers of infants in the schools had largely increased, and attributed that increase to the abolition of fees. It was, therefore, a great advantage that children in Scotland could be educated without the payment of school pence. The Report went on to say that children went to school at an earlier age than formerly, and the infant room in many of the schools was quite full. Infants in Scotland were largely sent to school, and he wanted to know why they should not have the same right as English infants to education without the payment of fees? In describing some of the drawbacks in the county he represented the Western Report said that all the infants were put together, and the teachers only got unqualified assistance. Was there any reason why there should not be proper accommodation and proper assistance in these schools? In one school in Kilmarnock there were too many infants put together, and an inadequate amount of class room for sectional work. The Report for 1891–2 stated that the relief of fees had largely increased the attendance of children of early years, and brought into attendance many children under school age. How was it that this matter had not been attended to? In 1891—on the 9th July—a Debate was raised by Mr. Caldwell, and the Secretary for Scotland spoke in a sympathetic manner of the want of uniformity between the Scotch and English Regulations. He said—

"We already know a great deal as to Scotch opinion on this subject. Experience has shown that Scotch parents are anxious that their children between three and fire years should go to school. The parents, it is found, are sending them in largely increasing numbers, as stated in the Report of the Scotch Education Department, yet the Government propose that children between three and five years who can now attend school free should in future be liable for fees. Human nature and the circumstances with regard to parents and children are the same in Scotland as in England, and the same causes which induce parents in England to send their children to school below the age of five years will lead Scotch parents to do the same."

And he finished up by saying—

"Let us complete the good work by asserting that 15 shall be the age up to which a child shall be sent to school without its being a burden to his parents, and enabling him to reap the benefit of that education which Parliament has given."

The Solicitor General for Scotland at that time pointed out that the gift of free education to Scotland had been quite recently made, and it was desirable that a little time should he given for gaining experience. He (Mr. Cochrane) submitted, however, that sufficient experience had been gained. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland had had a year in which he could carry this out, and perhaps he would explain why it was that in this matter Scotch children had not been treated like English children.

did not want to make a speech on education, but there were two or three questions he should like to ask, if they were in Order. In the first place, he desired to know whether the question of the retiring pensions of schoolmasters in Scotland had been further considered; secondly, he wished to know whether the Government, in developing secondary education in Scotland, had paid special regard to the claims of the Highland counties, and whether it was contemplated to give increased facilities for teaching the children in the Highlands in their native tongue—Gaelic? He was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman opposite throw cold water on the practical methods suggested in the English Code for the English schools. He thought that the Kindergarten system—teaching by aid of models and drawings—was more impressive, and likely to be more lasting. Therefore, instead of deprecating the Gladstonian van, as the hon. Member opposite did, he would suggest the addition of the village circus! He thought that the increase which had taken place in the attendance at Scotch schools since 1889 was due to free education, for Scotland, however industrious, was practically a poor country, and when it was remembered that for many years she had been called upon to pay to the Imperial Exchequer £1,500,000 per annum more than her just share of taxation, no wonder she had some difficulty in giving elementary education to her children. With free education she had a better chance. Scotch education had been in the van of English education for 300 years at least; and he had no doubt that, under the able management of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Department, Scotland would continue to assert her proud position.

said, they had to thank the right hon. Gentleman opposite for having given them some useful information; but beyond that they were arguing the matter almost in the dark, except as to certain Reports which had just been laid on the Table from different parts of Scotland. At the same time, it was satisfactory to know that in regard to these Reports there appeared to be a large and good work done. For example, instead of paying the capitation grant for individuals in elementary schools the whole school obtained the grant according to the success at the inspection. He observed that in the Report in connection with the Eastern Counties of Scotland Dr. Kerr said—

"We have now had a complete year's experience of the operation of the New Code, about the stimulative effects of which, through freedom of classification and the substitution to a large extent of class for individual examination, my colleagues are unanimous. The tendency to overpress the dull and unduly keep back the quicker pupils has been removed. In my own district this has been matter of careful observation, and my distinct impression is that this discretionary power has been, on the whole, judiciously used. In the infant and junior classes, especially, the advantages of freedom of classification have been observable. The teachers, instead of aiming at one or two objects as ends in themselves, have felt themselves at liberty to develop in all directions the mental' moral, and physical capabilities of the pupils, while accuracy and advancement in reading, writing, and arithmetic have not suffered, but in many cases improved."

In regard to infant classes, there could be no doubt that they were making marked progress in the country. He himself noticed—taking considerable interest in these matters—that the infant schools were the best attended of any schools throughout Scotland. The reason of that was that the parents knew that the children were being well looked after as well as well taught. The teachers took great trouble in training the little children, until, as a matter of fact, they were better taught than the classes immediately above them. The progress made in the infant classes, in his opinion, was due to the adoption of the Kindergarten system. He thought that, in other respects, they might adopt German methods, which were calculated to form a fondness for school life among the young people. They owed a deal to Germany to the way in which they educated the touch and formed the ringers of the little children. In the continuation and evening schools, as the right hon. Gentleman had told them, there was great improvement. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted figures to show that, instead of 6,000 pupils attending the schools two years ago, there were now about 19,000. That, at all events, was most satisfactory. Where they failed to get hold of the pupils was in the country districts. It was all very well to have continuation and Sunday schools in towns to which they could attract a number of young persons at the end of their day's work—young people who were only too glad to go into a shelter, especially when they could there have the mental training they so much desired. But in the country places, where the distances were long and the roads were bad, especially in winter, there was great difficulty experienced in having any continuation schools at all. He would suggest that some method should be adopted of inducing pupils to attend such schools. He thought that a little less should be given to urban schools, and a little more to the country schools. Last year in the Highlands no less a sum than £10,000 was given by the Scotch Department for the making of footpaths, so that little children might attend school in something like comfort-There were large tracts of country in the county he had the honour to represent where there were no roads whatsoever. In the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright there were shepherds who were anxious to send their children to school, but who lived four, six, and eight miles from a school or from a hamlet, and, therefore, had to get their children educated in the best way they could. They were put to considerable expense in the matter, and if Parliament could see its way to assisting these poor people, say, by paying half the expense they were put to, it would be of incalculable advantage. He was aware that this could not be done at present; but if assistance was given to parents in the Highlands, why should it not be given to those in the Lowlands? One parish he could name was 106 square miles in extent, with a small population of between 300 and 400. This parish was as badly off as any part of Skye or Ross-shire, or of the Highlands. With regard to class subjects, when dealing with from 50 to 80 children it was almost impossible to deal with them all on the same level; but if they wore divided they could be more easily dealt with, and the tuition would be more acceptable to their minds. Of course, a few more teachers might be required; but if a little more money were allowed for the staff of the schools the results would not only be favourable to the schools, but also to the pupil teachers. If the staff was larger the teachers could be better educated. At present the pupil teachers were very badly educated. It was all nonsense to say that they were well educated. If they were to be good teachers hereafter Parliament must insist upon their being well trained. The pupil teacher received a small pittance of £5, £10, or £15 a year, and for that had to give all his time to teaching—that was to say, it was not until the school hours were over that his turn for instruction came, when he was tired and worn out. He (Sir Mark Stewart) was glad to think that specific subjects were gaining ground. He was aware of the difficulty they stood in in the country as compared with the towns. He had hail some experience of cookery classes, and was bound to say they could not confer a greater boon on rural populations than by teaching young girls how to cook. But, at the same time, he thought that in order to keep up the interest of these classes something more should be taught than the mere drudgery—than the peeling and cooking of a potato. He toped that, as far as they could, the Education Department would permit of specific subjects being taught in connection with cooking. In regard to agriculture he was glad to think that in the Southern part of Scotland the proportion of pupils who had continued their study of specific subjects at the third and more useful stage at which they generally left off was on the increase. In Standard I., in 1890, the numbers were 153; in Standard II., in 1891, 52; and in Standard III., in 1892, 19. The more they increased this scientific teaching the better it was for the pupils and for education generally. He was sure that all hon. Members who had paid any attention to this matter would agree with him when he said that hitherto the Agricultural Department had paid too much attention to mere technical education, as in dairying, for example, and had neglected the more scientific branches of instruction—that was to say, in lectures and explanations. No doubt something was being done in this direction, but more theoretic teaching was required With regard to free education, he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the opinion of the Department as to its success in the way of bringing more children into the schools? Dr. Kerr, on this subject, said—

"It is probable that the stimulus supplied by this novelty has ceased to operate, so far, at least, as sending very young children to school. There is besides now less motive for a full attendance at inspection. But after taking these causes into account it is apparently safe to conclude that free education has not produced more regular attendance, and discouraging to find a decrease in IV. to VI. and such a small increase in ex-VI. pupils."

That, no doubt, was a very discouraging fact, and he should like to hear what had been done in the past year generally—for this statement only applied to one part of the country. Had free education proved to be that success which many of them hoped and believed it would be? Was education at a standstill, and not that go-ahead concern they would like to see it? Another point that deserved attention was the marked decrease of male teachers and the marked increase of female teachers. Although it had not an important bearing at present, it would have an important bearing ere long. There might be reasons for it which the Committee could not see or understand; but why was it the fact that so many young women were coming forward and so many young men were holding back? Was it because salaries wore not high enough? In many parts of Scotland it was thought that the status of teachers should be higher. They must give the teachers something more than salaries to depend on; and he hoped that some assurance would be forthcoming that pensions would be given. As to secondary schools, under the Minute of last February certain schools must have been hit very bard. Under the last Minute there were far more rural schools that would be hit still harder, and the general opinion was that the first Minute ought to be acted upon rather than the second. He thought, speaking as a county Member, that in the rural districts they were in danger of losing what they had hoped to gain. Looking at the basis on which they must make certain new departures, he was afraid that in the great majority of schools they would get nothing at all. The money would always go to the large centres, where it was really least required. No doubt there would be a great deal to show for it, and there would be a great many pupils; but how were they to educate the rural population? They knew that depopulation was going on in the rural districts, but were they doing anything to prevent it; were they doing anything to induce the young people to remain in their districts? They could not get education at home now, and were bound to go into the towns, and yet they were taking away from the rural schools that which had been given to them, and were heaping it on to the burgh schools, that had a plethora of riches in comparison to the poor, poverty-stricken rural schools. Hon. Members knew very well that it was difficult to raise a higher rate than at present, even to promote the good cause of education.

wished to ask a question on the subject of the inspection of secondary schools. He desired to know whether it was not the case that the Inspectors of these schools had so much other work to do that they could devote very little time to inspection? He believed that one of the Inspectors was a Professor of Divinity, that one was a secondary schoolmaster, another was a retired schoolmaster, and another was one of Her Majesty's Inspectors. The system of inspection at present in operation was not continuous. Inspectors made their visits at the end of the Session, instead of dropping in during the Session. Under such a system it was impossible to deal with the curriculum and the method of teaching, which, of course, were matters of great importance. He understood that the standards of examination varied every year on account of the changes made in the Examiners, and that a pass in a country school was easier than in a town school, so that it sometimes happened that those who failed in towns were better informed than those who succeeded in the country. He suggested that a Board of Examination of a permanent character should be established. He had heard, with astonishment, the tone of disparagement in which his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Graham Murray) had referred to the teaching of the duty of the citizen. As far as he had been able to grasp the details of the English Code, they seemed to him to exactly correspond with the teaching that was being given with enormous success at present in America.

said, the present Debate furnished one of the many glaring instances of the gross negligence of Scottish Business displayed by the present Government. The English Members considered it extremely hard that they had to discuss their Report on Monday, inasmuch as it had only been presented that morning; but the wretched Scotch Members were expected to discuss a Report they had never seen, and that was only presented in dummy on the previous evening. There was no excuse for so gross a neglect of Scottish Business, because it so happened that there were in the Cabinet six Members who were closely connected with Scotland, five of them being Members of the House of Commons, and one (Lord Rosebery) a Member of the House of Lords. If those six gentlemen could not force their views on the rest of the Cabinet it was certainly rather curious, more especially as they had at their back the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, who was the man who chiefly arranged business in the House of Commons. The interest of the Scottish Members of the Cabinet on Scottish Business had been shown by what had been witnessed that afternoon. No doubt the Secretary for Scotland, the Lord Advocate, and the Solicitor General for Scotland, had been unremitting in their attention to the Debate; but not one other Member of the present Government had paid any heed to it, except the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. E. Robertson). Two Scotch Cabinet Ministers came in about five minutes ago, but they had paid no attention to the Deflate. As the Report was not in the hand* of Members, he had, since the Secretary for Scotland spoke, got a copy of the English Code, and he had been able, in the short time that had since elapsed, to glance at a few of its provisions. He noticed that in the English Code Welsh was a very prominent feature; and, further, that good illustrations, diagrams, and pictures—he presumed of the policeman, the ratepayer, the Board of Guardians, and the Town Council—would be of great service in teaching the duties of the citizen. He also found that children were to be taught how a Bill became an Act of Parliament. As the Scotch Code would be more recent than the English Code, he would suggest that the Secretary for Scotland should arrange to have children in Scotland instructed in the modern method of forcing a Bill through the Committee of the House of Commons. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman very much for the way in which he had spoken of the past, as the right hon. Gentleman had referred in the most generous terms to the action of his predecessors. He (Mr. Hozier) wished to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention again to the case of the Bowling Public Hall, respecting which he had already put some questions to him. Several years ago this hall was built by public subscription, and vested in a body of Trustees. The Trustees handed over the ball to the School Board of Old Kilpatrick, with the primary legal obligation in the covenant of "teaching the elements of English education in the building for all time to come." About five years ago the School Board gave up using the hall for teaching purposes, and then, in the opinion of the Trustees, the property went hack to them. A few years ago the School Board were approached by the Trustees, and asked to hand hack the hall. The School Board asked for the instructions of the Department, who at once ordered a sale of the ball. In view, however, of the various conflicting interests, they in April of last year instituted an official inquiry. The outcome of that inquiry was that in April of this year the Department issued an Order that the hall should be exposed for sale by public auction "under reservation of all rights, obligations, and burdens of the original deed of trust." Three days before the sale the School Board received a letter from the Department countermanding the instructions for the sale. This letter was followed by a letter from the Secretary for Scotland himself and a telegram from the Department ordering the School Board at once to return the previous letter and instructions. Directions had since been sent to the School Board that they were to give the property for nothing to a perfectly irresponsible body of inhabitants. All he wanted to know was what had made the Secretary for Scotland change his mind between the time when he authorised the sale of the hall and the time when he stopped the sale—in other words, who had got at the right hon. Gentleman?

said, it was rather surprising that the hon. Member who had just sat down should complain of Ministerial neglect of Scottish Business, when there were no fewer than six Scotch Representatives on the Treasury Bench.

asked whether his hon. Friend was satisfied with the conduct of Scotch Business by the present Government?

said, he would reply to that question in the affirmative, and he would point out that when the late Government was in Office it not un frequently happened that Scotch discussions took place when there were only one or two Members on the Treasury Bench. He was not aware of the title of the hon. Gentleman opposite to continually lecture hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of House, especially those who sat on the Treasury Bench. Both the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire and himself had weeks ago placed questions on the Paper, and received satisfactory answer's from the Secretary for Scotland with regard to these continuation schools. Great complaint had been made that the Report of the Scotch Education Department was not before the House. That was undoubtedly to be regretted; but those who were acquainted with questions of this nature knew that it was owing to exceptional circumstances that that Report was not before the House. Apparently the serious ground of complaint on this head was that there was so little fault to be found with the administration of the Scotch Department. Those who had been present that day must have seen that the greatest difficulty had been found in obtaining grounds for serious objections to the administration of the Department. Although those Reports were undoubtedly useful for the information of School Boards and Education Committees, and for the teachers, Scottish Representatives knew from their visits to Dover House that there was no Department more carefully and efficiently conducted than the Scotch Department of Education. Many of them did not need to refer to these Reports. Some of them in various ways were connected either with School Boards or Educational Trusts or College Councils, and they know how carefully and attentively the Department was conducted. As he had said, they were greatly pleased that the Scotch Education Department was acting on the same lines and principles as the English Education Department. With respect to Training Colleges, there was one point on which he wished some information from the Secretary for Scotland. In many cases it was an advantage to teachers to go to these Training Colleges. They were anxious, especially in large cities like Dundee, that the facilities for the training of teachers which were possessed in these Colleges—more particularly in the University College at Dundee, which was one of the best-equipped and best-conducted local Colleges in the country—should be taken advantage of. They had Professors of great eminence and ability, their time was not fully occupied, and the resources of that well-endowed Institution were ready to be applied to the lessening of taxation, as they would be if teachers were to avail themselves of the advantage of the College. He hoped that, as the demand for teachers was continually growing, the resources of that institution would be taken into account. A Professor of Teaching in the University of St. Andrews would be only too glad to place his services at the disposal of the Education Department for the College of Dundee. In reply to the question of the hon. Member (Mr. Hozier) as to whether they were satisfied, for his part he begged to assure him that without depreciating in any way the conduct of the Department under the previous Government, they knew that it was being conducted on the same lines now, and that it was doing everything in its power to bring the educational system of Scotland up to date and to make it as efficient as it possibly could be made.

I asked my hon. Friend whether he was satisfied with the general conduct of Scotch Business by the present Government, and he has not answered it yet.

said, he thought the Secretary for Scotland and the permanent officials were to be congratulated on the condition of education in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman had said he hoped he would get a speedy vote; it would have helped towards the getting of a speedy vote if they had had the Report before them. In the first place, he was very glad to hear of the success of the standard examination tests; he was extremely glad to find that this year the Inspectors were able to give a clear and decided opinion as to the complete success of that reform. He was also glad to hear of the success of the merit certificate; but he wanted to know whether the 2,000 who had recently passed were confined to certain schools or districts, or were distributed over the entire country? He was sure a great deal of encouragement was given to children by the distribution of such certificates. In the matter of what might be taught in evening continuation schools, he differed from his right hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench. So far as regarded the teaching in these schools of the duties of citizenship, that was a very important part of what should be every man's education. It had been neglected to an almost incredible extent, and he believed it would be quite possible, without introducing politics, to teach something of the duties of citizenship, just as in Scotland they taught religion, according to "use and wont." As to fee-paying schools, that question should be settled by the people of the locality, according to the best interests of the locality; but while such schools existed, they should be treated fairly and generously. They were doing real good work, and he most strongly deprecated their being harassed in the manner some hon. Members had attempted to harass them. It was a very great pity that by a sort of side wind a matter was introduced into Scotland at all which was never intended for Scotland, and that had worked very serious inconvenience to some of the best schools in Scotland. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman whether, in considering the question of getting rid of the 9d. limit, he would not also endeavour to get rid of the 17s. 6d. limit? That pressed very hardly on many of their schools. It should either be raised, or the Inspectors should be given some latitude in saying how the schools, which deserved all they could get and ought not to have anything taken away from them, should be managed. Then in regard to leaving certificates, he wished to know what had been the result of throwing open the leaving certificate examination to State-aided schools on the Universities and other Bodies that were willing to receive the children? He approved thoroughly of what had been done in this matter, but he asked that the examiners for these leaving certificates should make individual Reports, so that their names and their individual opinions might become known in the same way as would the Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools. Further, he should like to know what would be the action of the Department in carrying out the Minute of the 1st of May? Was the provision as to giving the grant intended purely to deal with the initial starting of the scheme or with the working of the schools from year to year? What power would the Department have to say that a scheme which was satisfactory, say, 10 years ago, was not being carried out now in an efficient way, and that consequeutly the grant must be withheld? Was the Department laying down any general principles as to the right of supervision it was to have, or was the matter to be settled by arrangement in each scheme? He commended the action of the Glasgow School Board in dealing with their pupil teachers in a manner that would ensure them time in which to forward their own education, and asked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Department might be able to put pressure to get the same system introduced in other parts of the country? As to Training Colleges, the present position was not a very satisfactory one. It was true that they were nominally denominational, but not in reality denominational. In Glasgow Free Church Training College, for example, there were only 55 Free Church students and 105 of other denominations: and the same thing was true of all the other Colleges. In all the Training Colleges in Scotland there were only 464 students of the Bodies to which the Colleges belonged, against 393 of other denominations, so that not far off half belonged to other denominations. Some kind of assimilation of the Colleges was needed in order that the best students might be chosen throughout, and that system which allowed entrances to one College of students with low marks might be got rid of. The very early age at which children left school was a crying evil on Scotch education. Had the Department been able to make an impression on that problem, which was one of the most urgent character? It was one of the most important that could be submitted to them. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had said nothing on that question, or the question of what the Department were doing in regard to technical education. The hon. Member concluded by hoping that in future they would have the Reports in their hands when the Estimates were taken, as under such an arrangement they need not raise so many questions in the House.

said, the hon. Member for Inverness-shire had urged upon the Secretary for Scotland the desirability of paying greater attention to the teaching of Gaelic. They all wanted to see the Gaelic language preserved, but he did not see how it could be taught in schools to the exclusion of English. In Dr. Stewart's Report, speak- ing of pupil teachers and of candidates examined for admission to Training Colleges, he regretted that very few candidates were forthcoming from the Highlands and Islands, and that only Skye supplied any candidates at all, and he added—

"Undoubtedly, the inhabitants of these Islands are handicapped by their ignorance of English, but there are other causes at work as well."

said, that what he desired was not that Gaelic should be taught to the exclusion of English, but as a medium for better acquiring a knowledge of English. Where there was no English, it appeared to him that teaching it through the mother tongue would enable the children to acquire a better knowledge of it.

said, there was also the question of an appeal by teachers against the decisions of School Boards in regard to themselves. He suggested the desirability of finding some kind of Court of Appeal to which teachers might go in cases where they were dismissed by a very small majority of the Board. It seemed to him the only course feasible was to allow them to appeal to the Scottish Education Department; but that was only a rough-and-ready way of dealing with the matter. If, as had been hinted the other day, legislation was introduced to deal with this question in England, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take care that it was dealt with in Scotland at the same time. With regard to school attendance, the hon. Member for Inverness-shire said he thought the attendance was better in consequence of free education; but from all the Reports to hand, he thought they might safely say that all the Inspectors were unanimous in reporting that free education had practically made no I difference in the attendance at school. Something more was wanted to induce parents to send their children to school. What they required was some system by which, to use a colloquial expression, they could "get at" the children. In one of the Reports for the Northern Division the Inspector gave it as his opinion that what was wanted was that children should be compelled to make a certain number of attendances at school before they were allowed to leave. Dr. Stewart, in his Report, gave an instance of how this might possibly work, stating that a few weeks ago, in one of the large schools, the attendance was larger by 200 than on the day before. Mr. White, another Inspector, gave it as his opinion that if it were enacted that no child should be employed who did not make a certain number of attendances after five years of age, parents would see it to be their interest to keep their children regularly at school after five years of age. He (Mr. Whitelaw) thought that a system of that kind would not only induce parents who were habitually neglectful to send their children to school more regularly, but would also induce the children who wished to go to school to attend. There was a difficulty about buildings in mining districts where the population shifted; and it seemed to him that instead of the Department insisting upon an increased area per child, in every school where some alteration of the building was made, in districts where the population was shifting, some relaxation of the rule might be made by the Department. Something must be done to overcome the difficulty of the scarcity of male pupil teachers, and he hoped the Department would give its attention to the matter.

said, he would like to say a few words on the question of Training Colleges. He did not propose to move an Amendment on the question, but he must commend the subject to the attention of the Secretary for Scotland. The Training Colleges were most expensive. They cost about £36 a year for each male and female student, a sum which was considerably beyond that which University education cost in Scotland; and not only was the system more costly, but it was unquestionably less efficient. He believed that at the present moment the public opinion of Scotland was if not altogether ripe, at all events almost ripe, for a transfer to the Universities of the training of teachers. So far as the Training Colleges were concerned, it was a mere question of compensation. Arrangements, he thought, could be made by which the transfer could be effected. If the change could be accomplished, there was no doubt that it would greatly raise the position of teachers in Scotland. It would add immensely to their efficiency, and would also strengthen the Universities for the work they had to perform. He recognised that the Secretary for Scotland had scarcely had time to deal with so difficult a question, but he hoped he would seek for opportunities before next year of considering the question.

said, it was well known by the Members for Scotland that the Board schools there were purely denominational schools. Ministers came in to examine them in the Catechism. That made it impossible for Catholic children to attend those schools; but while it was impossible for the Catholic children to attend those schools, the Catholic ratepayers contributed to their support. He appealed to the Secretary for Scotland and to Scottish Members on both sides as to whether it would not be fair that the Catholic schools should receive some share of the local rate to which the Catholic ratepayers contributed? He also asked whether there could not be something provided in the Code in the shape of temperance teaching as well as teaching in regard to the rights and duties of citizens?

said that, notwithstanding the somewhat rosy view which the Secretary for Scotland had taken, substantial grievances still existed in Scotland in regard to educational questions, and one of those grievances was, he thought, the fact that while of the total Imperial expenditure on education as much as £2 3s. per scholar was paid in Ireland, having regard to the average attendance, only £1 16s. per scholar was paid in Scotland. He admitted that there had been a considerable increase in school attendance since the introduction of free education, but he believed that it applied in most part to the lower standards. He would like to receive from the right hon. Gentleman a statement as to the number of children in attendance at the various schools in Scotland under five years of age. He strongly deprecated a very large increase in the number of these children coming to the schools. However beneficial such a system might be in the large towns, it was impossible in rural districts to got these young children to the schools, and they would have a corresponding disadvantage in the rural districts in the amount of fee-grants. He was bound to say that the operation of the 17s. 6d. limit had been rather to encourage School Boards to extravagance than to habits of economy, and he would be glad if the Secretary for Scotland, after inquiry, introduced a measure to do away with the 17s. 6d. limit. In 1873, when 15s. was the fixed limit, the grant per head in average attendance in Scotch schools was only 11s. 10¾d.; in 1876 it was 14s. 3¼d.; in 1879 it was 16s. 11d.; and in 1880 it was 17s. 2d. Last year it was over 20s., and he understood that it was estimated at 21s. for next year. This raised questions of considerable importance. He wished to know whether, supposing through the action of a County Committee a school received £100 out of the money voted by the Local Taxation (Scotland) Act, the money would be treated by the Department as part of the school's income coming from a source other than the Parliamentary grant, and whether the earning capacity of the school would be raised accordingly? With regard to the question of pupil teachers, the difficulty was a pressing one, for it was almost impossible for some of the country School Boards to get them. But the prospect of a teacher was not a bad one. In 1870 the average remuneration earned by male teachers amounted to about £101 16s. 7d., and in 1891 it amounted to £ 133 14s. 6d. He was afraid the cause for young men not coming forward was the difficulty experienced in getting ahead after they had gone so far on their course of study and work. He thought that a remedy might be found in a wider and more open system in connection with the Training Colleges; and if the Authorities interested in the question could not take up the difficulty, he hoped the Secretary for Scotland would have the courage to take it up. The question of Training Colleges in Scotland was brought very prominently before them this year by Dr. Kerr, who, in his Report for 1892, stated that in 1891 there were in the whole of Scotland over 3,000 pupil teachers; about 1,000 came forward each year to the Training Colleges. In July, 1892, 1,003 candidates presented themselves for examination. Of the 915 of both sexes who had been pupil teachers, 84 per cent., and of the 88 who had not been pupil teachers, nearly 48 per cent, passed the examination.

"A place in the first or second class is necessary for admission to a Training College. The number of male candidates who were so placed is 152, and of female candidates 426. On comparing these figures with those of 1891, I find (1) that the number of pupil-teachers who were successful is 4 per cent. smaller, and of those who had not been pupil-teachers 6 per cent, larger than in the previous year; and (2) that the number of successful candidates, 152 males and 426 females, should have been 190 and 495 respectively had the level of last year been reached. I have no reason to think that either the papers were more difficult or the marking more severe. This probably points to the expediency of a general adoption of the plan in which, to the best of my knowledge, the G lasgow Board has set the example—namely, that the pupil-teachers should, in general terms, teach one-half of the day and be taught the other. Room will be found in the Training Colleges for the 152 qualified male students, that being the number of places left vacant by the outgoing students; but for the 426 qualified female students, there are only 274 vacant places, so that 152 will either enter the profession through the side door provided for acting teachers, and without the advantage of a Training College course, or seek other employment. The majority, as a rule, take the former alternative. But to this large number of untrained teachers must be added the 175 who failed to reach a first or second class in the July admission, many of whom remain in the profession, being qualified to act as assistant teachers, though not admissible to a Training College. This untrained element is undesirably large. Its diminution is a question for settlement by the Treasury and private enterprise."

Then further on Dr. Kerr said—

"It is not suggested that these anomalous results occur in the same College or are due to favouritism. The explanation is that the Colleges are entirely separate, and that a student is lucky or unlucky according as she has chosen to enter a College where her competitors are few and ill-prepared, or numerous and well-qualified. But in view of the fact that the Colleges are to the extent of three-quarters of their expenditure supported by Government grants; and that, so far as the Presbyterian Colleges are concerned, denominationalism has so largely disappeared as to be almost left out of account, it is exceedingly desirable that some plan should be adopted by which merit in an examination common to all candidates should receive approximately fair recognition."

It seemed to him that statements of that kind made by such an authority as Dr. Kerr would commend themselves to the Committee, and he hoped the views which had been put forward would induce the right hon. Gentleman to place the Training Colleges in a more satisfactory position than they were at present.

said, that the Bill that was passed did not give to Scotland the same sum that it gave to England. The English Bill gave 10s. per head, but in Scotland they only got 11 per cent. of the money to be spent in England. The facts proved that they in Scotland were not getting a fair equivalent. Last year the estimated number of children for whom money was taken was 567,000; but actually there had come forward only 549,000, and he did not think there had been a satisfactory explanation as to the discrepancy. At any rate, if they in Scotland had got 10s. per head, as in England, they would have got £9,000 more than they received by the 11 per cent, arrangement. This year, however, the result would be better, he expected, because they were estimating for 2,000 children less; while in England they would have 200,000 of an increase. As a matter of fact, nevertheless, the 11 per cent, calculation would give them, in the money now to be voted, £272,000, or £10,000 less than the total on the basis of 10s. per head. This year they were going to lose in the Vote £10,000. He had always fought against this 11 per cent., because he was never satisfied that that was the fair proportion paid by Scotland, and the fact that during the present year a Return had been issued crediting Ireland with £350,000 more for Excise than she ought to have been credited with strengthened his doubts on the subject.

hoped he should be excused for introducing a matter which was entirely one that dealt with a local question of great interest—namely, the very strong desire of the Maryhill and Springburn School Boards to be amalgamated with the Glasgow School Board. This was an arrangement which, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, would bring great benefits both to Springburn, Maryhill, and Glasgow, and would add but a very small cost to the Glasgow School Board and Glasgow ratepayers. This desire for amalgamation had only sprung up since the area of the City of Glasgow had been extended, and these School Boards claimed that the boundaries of that area should also be the educational boundaries. He spoke more especially for Springburu, and the Springburu Board had put forward certain reasons why they considered this amalgamation should take place. One was that the line which divided Springburu from Glasgow for educational purposes cut off from it the better classes of houses and left the houses which were almost entirely occupied by the working' classes, and a further reason was that that particular boundary line divided a district which was to a very great extent inhabited by migratory working classes, and consequently the continuous removal from one side of the boundary to the other interfered with the continuity of the education of the children. He would only give one other reason why attention should be paid to this matter, and it was a financial one. In the 20th annual Report on the accounts of Scotland he found the rate of assessment in Glasgow-was 7d. in the £1, in Maryhill it was 11d., and in Springburn it was 15¼d. which latter was an enormous amount for any district to be rated with. In 1890–91 the rate of Springburn was only 10¼d., thus showing that it had increased by 5d. This assessment produced in 1891–2 in Glasgow £74,172, in Maryhill £4,000, and in Springburn £950, so that the total for the whole of flu: extended area would be £79,122. If these various School Boards were amalgamated, the produce of an assessment of 1d. in the £1 would be: Glasgow, £10,596; Maryhill, £363; and Springburn, £62. If they deducted 1–11th of £363 and £62, as the amount paid by landward portions of Maryhill and Springburn from the amount produced on 1d. assessment in Maryhill and Springburn, the total produce of such assessment by the amalgamated boards of Glasgow, Maryhill, and Springburn would be £10,983. If these districts of Maryhill and Springburn were amalgamated with Glasgow, a rate of only 7¼d. in the£1 would produce the sum of £79,122. He thought that showed what a great benefit would be conferred on the districts of Maryhill and Springburn by this amalgamation. The rates which were in Springburn (15¼d.) and in Maryhill (11d.) would be reduced to 7¼d., showing a reduction of 8d. in the first case and of 3¾d. in the second, whilst all that would be done against such a benefit would be the imposition of the trifling sum of ¼d. on the present Glasgow rate. He thought that, in view of the circumstances, the people of Glasgow would not object very strongly to paying this farthing considering the great boon they would be conferring on their fellow-citizens, and he expressed the hope that the Government would give careful attention to this matter.

The discussion has ranged over a large variety of topics, and here I must say I leave the hon. Member for Dundee. I do not think the discussion has been either uninteresting or unpractical, and in saying so I would specially commend, if I may say so, the admirable speech to which we have just, listened. What I shall say will not add very much to the number of topics which were taken up, and the burden of replying to which rests upon the Secretary for Scotland. But I am anxious to say this in reference to a practice which seems to prevail in certain quarters—namely, of holding Members to an opinion unless they get up, when it is expressed in this House, and disavow it. I am unwilling to be bound by any such rule, and, therefore, I feel compelled to say, with reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen, although I am not going into the question of Training Colleges, that I do not agree with his premises, and I entirely dissent from his conclusions. But although I join in the expression of thanks which I think has been well merited by the right hon. Gentleman for the elucidation he gave to this somewhat dry subject, I must say I must also join in the feeling that if is most regrettable that this Committee should be asked to discuss a Vote of what is rapidly becoming one of the large spending Departments of the country— a Vote amounting to £968,000 without having before us the ordinary Departmental Report, and without anything more before us as material for discussion than the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which, however able and however clear, cannot possibly take the place of a Departmental Report to which the Committee has been accustomed in previous years in a matter so charged with facts and figures. I think it would have tended very much, in the first place, to have shortened the discussion if we had had this Report before us, because we must all feel that, to a large extent, we have had to ask for information; and hope I shall not, in asking for any additional information, fall under the ban of the hon. Member for Dundee, who seemed to think that our position was rather that of fault-finding. He seemed to congratulate himself and the Committee on the fact that those on this side of the House have had so little to find fault with in the past six or eight months. That is not our position. Our position may be that of critics, but not that of searching for faults, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to say we have any fault to find, because we may have called attention to various items in his administration, and have offered such criticism on others as is open to us. I say such criticism as is open to us, because in one of the most important items which is before the Committee we have not those opportunities of criticism which the Committee or the House has with reference to other classes of items. It is a source of regret to me that, whatever Government is in power, such topics as we have had to discuss twice over, upon the Minutes of the Council on Education, must be discussed after the hour of midnight, and it is because we have not adequate opportunity after that time of discussing the most important change which is brought about in the Minute of the Department relative to secondary education that I am glad, Sir, you gave us another opportunity, which I trust we have not abused, of, at all events, mentioning that subject. There are two matters with reference to that particular topic as to which I wish very much the right hon. Gentleman would enlighten the Committee. One of these is, how far he has got in the re-organisation which was promised of local advisory and administrative the Committees? Questions have been raised on previous occasions which would have been dealt with if this Report, which we have not got, had been printed and laid before the House. Questions were raised as to the amount of representation on these Committees as between the School Boards and Local Authorities, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us satisfactory assurances that that matter has not broken down, but, on the contrary, is being put in a way which will lead to its being settled. The other matter is this—Promises were made in another place by a distinguished Member of the Government, when this topic was under discussion, which I understood had the endorsement of the right hon. Gentleman, in reference to a modification of the scheme embodied in his Minute of the 1st May, more in the direction of following previous Minutes which he had abandoned. I think the main respect in which he promised to alter that later Minute was that a certain lump sum was to be paid—I do not know on what principle it was calculated—to the Local Bodies before the main distribution took place. I trust we shall be able to hear —as no doubt we shall see when we get the Report—how that proposal is to be carried out. Now, Sir, there is one other topic already mentioned as to which I feel bound to say a single word, and that is that which was so clearly and well dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend on my right (Mr. Murray). The Report of the Public Accounts Committee is a document, of course, of this nature—that one can only deal with the statements and suggestions made therein when the relative Vote comes up for discussion on the Estimates. And I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman comes to answer the many questions which have been put to him he will not omit to give a categorical answer to the question my hon. and learned Friend put to him on that subject, because it does seem to me rather extraordinary that a Committee on Public Accounts should not only take upon itself—as that Committee did—to interpret in its Report what it presumed to be the intention of the Legislature, but also to say that if the intention of the Legislature were so-and-so, and had not received effect, then there was urgent need for fresh legislation. I think that is altogether beyond the purview of the Public Accounts Committee. But, at all events, whether it is so or not, the legislation which is pointed at is a matter for the Government of the day, and I humbly think it does not properly fall within the purview of that Committee at all. There are two other particular matters which I am anxious to lay before the Committee, each of which, I am afraid, will lead to a question to the right hon. Gentleman. But, before I do so, I desire to say a single word of explanation with reference to the matter of continuation evening schools, and the proposals which have been made recently in England and, I believe, adopted in Scotland, as to teaching the duties of citizens. I do not believe there will be any difference between us on the matter of principle as to the propriety and the advan- tage to be derived from such tuition. I, for one, would, in the highest degree, commend that as a proper subject for instruction, but, at the same time, I think the hon. Member for Dundee completely missed the point that was made on that topic by my hon. and learned Friend. His objection was not to tuition upon a certain class of subjects, but to the suggestions which were made in a certain document touching the corresponding subjects in England, and the mode in which that teaching was to be carried out; and I must say I shall look with interest to the Code which is said to be in preparation or to have been laid on the Table— though none have seen it—with reference to Scotland in the same Department. I hope and believe it will not be open to the objections to which the Code in England seems to be obviously open in certain particulars, and, among others, those mentioned already by more than one speaker. The two matters with which I conclude are rather matters of detail, but it has been found convenient to use this general subject for the purpose of directing attention to such matters of administration. One of them has already been entered upon, and I am not sure I am entitled to call upon the right hon. Gentleman to deal with it in any practical shape; but I do desire to urge it upon his careful consideration, and that is with reference to the question of the dismissal of public school teachers. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has considered that matter with particular reference to a case which arose in the month of December last in the East of Scotland, and which has already, I think, been alluded to by an hon. Gentleman behind me. It was a case, so far as 1 can discover, where there was no unfitness or inefficiency on the part of the teacher who was dismissed by five to two by the School Hoard, and who is without appeal. I am aware, of course, that the Department must act according to Statute. This case gave rise to so much feeling in the neighbourhood that there was an indignation meeting o the ratepayers, and it has also been very severely animadverted upon by the local association of the Educational Institute of Scotland. I must say I think this is a matter well worth the right hon. Gentleman's consideration—although, like a previous speaker, I have no suggestion to offer— and I sure we shall be satisfied if he would assure us the matter has had, and is receiving, his attention. The other matter is of a somewhat humble kind, but one whose importance to the community cannot be over-rated; and that is the question of cookery and classes in domestic economy. I cannot imagine anything which goes nearer the comforts of the future population of these islands than that there should be a good, well-organised system in that direction, and I would commend to the right hon. Gentleman a statement which I believe he has had before him, and as to which, it may be, we shall hear something in the forth coining Departmental Report—as to the propriety of fixing a minimum of instruction to be received by those elementary school teachers, and of students who require to become qualified to teach cookery and domestic economy. I believe that some difficulty is likely to grow up through the want of any recognised or authorised Body for the granting of certificates to such teachers. I observe that in the Reports of two Inspectors, Dr. Kerr and Mr. Ogilvie, they speak favourably of the movement; but, at the same time, I think it will be seen that if this is to be allowed to be set on foot without sufficient organisation, not only should we not get that good which might be obtained from proper tuition in these subjects, but the thing would be very apt to become disorganised. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some assurance that, although one is disappointed to see this matter is not dealt with in the Code issued at the beginning of the year, he will keep it in view, and possibly deal with it administratively in some other way.

I may say, at the outset of my reply, that I feel very much I have been treated with great consideration to-day. I do not think it possible to have had the Reports laid on the Table at an earlier period, because they would have been imperfect; and the state of things has arisen, not by the fault of the Education Department, but from the arrangement of the business of the House of Commons. I regret very much that these Reports were not before the House. The material was before the House in the shape of the Statistical Returns, which I have always thought the most interesting portions of the publications of the Department—and also the extremely excellent and Special Reports upon which the General Report is founded, and no one who has listened to the discussion this afternoon can doubt that the Scottish Members thoroughly understand how to use the material which they have already in their hands. I will show my gratitude in the best way I can—namely, by referring to all the points which have been brought forward to-day in the most succinct and sufficient manner I can command; but I will just answer the questions put to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh University and by the hon. Member for Inverness-shire with regard to secondary education. They asked me what is the supplementary pecuniary arrangement which would be made next year with regard to the distribution of the grant? There is only one change that will be made, but it is an important change, and one which I have already explained in the House in reply to a question. Of the £57,000 for next year a sum of £200 will be paid over to every county irrespective of population or valuation, as a sort of dividend before the division of the estate, and that will be paid over accompanied by the recommendation and suggestion of the Department that it should be applied to the endowment of the upper class schools; but in case that suggestion is not adopted it will none the less be paid over for the primary reason that this is done in order to place in a somewhat better position those counties which suffer from a lack of population. I will now take the questions put before mo by the hon. and learned Member for Buteshire, He asks what is the cause of the increase in the attendance in the Highlands. I believe there are two principal causes. One is that a very large amount of money has been spent by the State upon Highland education in the manner I previously described, which has enabled the Highlands to get very much better equipment for their schools. And I am bound to say there is another consideration, and that is the exertions of Mr. Robertson, the Chief Inspector, one of the best and most able public officers with whom I have had to deal, and who has shown not only educational but very great administrative power in the advice he gave on other matters connected with the Highlands, and especially on the advice which he gave, first, with regard to the £10,000 voted by the Treasury for footpaths, and then as to the localities to which that money should be applied. The right hon. Gentleman asks what is the recent increase in the percentage of the attendance of these children? And I have been asked, what is the effect of free education upon the attendance? That is a matter in which hon. Members must do what they are perfectly competent to do—collate the information for themselves from the Reports of the Chief Inspectors that have been laid before them. How much the increase in the average attendance has been promoted by free education can only be guessed at, and guessed most effectually by those who have a practical experience and, to a certain degree, by those who have read what is written upon the subject; but that guess cannot be absolutely conclusive. In the last Reports the Department has not expressed itself with any certainty in the matter, because absolute certainty has not yet been arrived at. So far as figures are concerned, the average attendance rose between 1889 and 1890 by 2·22 per cent., and between 1890 and 1891 by 3·90 per cent., whereas in the two previous years it had only risen by 1·55 per cent, and 1·27 per cent, respectively. There can hardly be any doubt those figures were considerably affected by the institution of free education. Between 1891 and 1892 the Department was considerably disappointed to find that the rise in that period was only 1·71 per cent., so it may be said to have fallen back to what it was before free education was set up. With regard to the Training Colleges, I am very glad to say that the connection between the Training Colleges and the Universities is becoming much closer in the shape of attendance on University classes. No less than 169 students in the Training Colleges have gone through the course of Latin, Greek, Mathematics, and Logic in the course of the past year. Students in Training Colleges are still, to an overwhelming degree, pupil teachers. The hon. and learned Gentleman—nay, both the hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, have had a word to say about the scheme of subjects in the English Code, and especially they have made some rather effective remarks upon the method by which the Department propose to teach men to be good citizens. I am afraid many of us in this House may have a limited idea of the duties of citizenship. The age being raised to 21, the question may be asked whether it is not rather dangerous to set up a system of teaching people of adult age how to be good citizens? For myself, I think the first duty of a good citizen would be to vote Liberal, and, no doubt, hon. Members opposite consider the first duty would be to vote Conservative. ["No, no!"] Well, if hon. Members take that remark seriously, I will not press it, for it is a matter which under no administration will enter into the curriculum of the night schools. The scheme for teaching the duties of citizenship which has been laid down most, admirably by the English Department, altered—I hope judiciously—to suit the needs of Scotland is a scheme I am perfectly ready to employ. It is said that there is something ludicrous in the idea that they should begin the teaching of good citizenship by teaching men their relations to the municipal and parochial officers. But one of the ablest masters of the principles of elementary instruction used lo tell me he always began to teach geography by teaching the conformation of their own parish, and after he had taught them that he proceeded to the country and then to the Kingdom, and so expanded the subject of education. Politics iii the broadest sense—that is to say, the duties of citizens to the State and their fellow-citizens—is very judiciously taught in the scheme laid clown by the English Department; and I am not at all afraid, for my part, that it will degenerate into that partisan teaching to which I referred in a light conversational manner a few minutes ago. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me a question upon a matter with which he has had great acquaintance, and into which he went at considerable length and considerable detail—that is, the question of the 9d. limit and the relation of the Department to the Committee on Public Accounts. Into that question I am not going to enter, as it is a purely legal question, a question that requires a man to be a lawyer in order to give an opinion upon its merits; but upon the administrative point, I may say we are advised that until the opinion of the Law Officers has been taken on the point raised by the Committee on Public Accounts the decision on the Committee on Public Accounts is binding on the Department, and we could not go outside it and set that opinion at defiance, especially when it would be accompanied by placing the responsibility upon a gentleman (the Secretary of the Scottish Education Department) whoso claim on Members of this House has been recognised, I am glad to see, in every speech that has been made. It must be remembered that, this is not a Scottish question only; that England is in the same plight as we are, and even, I believe, in a more serious condition; and, until this question has been settled for Scotland and for England, I must say that, as a Department, we are bound to hold our hand. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochrane) quoted a Debate from Hansard of two years ago, in which the question was raised of making the age in Scotland three years and 15 years, as in England, instead of five years and 14 years for Scotland, and which alteration was demanded by a certain number of Members, including myself. At, that, time we tried to make it three years and 15 years, but were outvoted. There is just this to be said about it—there would fie no gain for Scotland as a nation, no monetary gain, by the change; because, of course, we should only have the same sum of money to spend over the whole extent of Scotland, and our fee grant depends, not on the number of Scotch scholars, but on the number of the English scholars; but I am glad to think, though it is not obligatory, that Scotch children under live are, as a matter of fact, in the most part educated free. But I agree there is nothing in the speech of mine that the hon. Member read out which I am not bound to make good as the Secretary for Scotland in charge of the Education Department. I will look into the matter as soon as possible, and I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for reminding me of it. As to the teaching of Gaelic, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness-shire (Dr. Macgregor), and in the counties in Scotland in which he takes especial interest it is a specific subject, and no less than 2,287 pupils obtained the grant for proficiency in this special subject last year, and 1,602 children are at this moment being taught by Gaelic-speaking pupil teachers. Then, Sir, as regards the Inspectors of secondary schools, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire regretted the change of Examiners for leading certificates. I may say my hon. Friend is mistaken in saying the Examiners are constantly changed. The Examiners for Latin and Mathematics have been the same for some years, and the hon. Baronet opposite seemed to think there was a different standard for different schools. But the fact is, the same papers are sent round all the schools, and I cannot say I should regret that there should be an occasional change of Examiners, in order to bring new blood into the system of final examinations. This is done by such Universities as Cambridge and Oxford in the Mathematical Tripos, and with very successful results. The hon. Member for South Lanarkshire (Mr. Hozier) is mistaken in thinking that it was entirely under his suggestion that the increased grant was got for the pensions to teachers. Already the Department had made application to the Treasury, or, at any rate, had used their influence in that direction; but I fully agree the hon. Member had no public notice of it, and deserves every credit for the zeal he showed in the matter. As regards the Bowling Public Hall, that is a question on which I am bound to say I think the School Board have come to a right decision. It was originally subscribed for as a public hall for the use of the community; and the Trustees, in making it over to the School Board, absolutely divested themselves of their trust, the School Board naturally taking their place. When the School Board had no longer any use for the hall their first idea was that it should he sold, and that was acquiesced in by the Department; but when we found there was a great desire on the part of the people of Bowling to have the use of the hall we withdrew that sanction; we thought the value of the hall to the public, for whose use it was originally built, was much more to the people than the paltry £50 that would have been got for it. The change, in the view of the Department, was acceptable to the great majority of the people at Bowling, and was acceptable to the School Board, who showed considerable energy in carrying out the instructions by which the property was put into the hands of Trustees. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Sir J. Leng) has referred to the interesting question of the training of teachers at the Universities. I can only say that that subject shall receive my careful attention; but I think that whatever is done at Dundee would have to be done for every University alike. The hon. Member for Partick (Mr. Barker Smith) asked about the merit grant. It is now obtained by about 100 schools, and the application for it has been spreading very fast indeed. As regards the question that my hon. Friend the Member for North Monaghan (Mr. Diamond) referred to, I am afraid I cannot enter into that largo subject at this moment; but I fully recognise with him that Roman Catholic children are, as he described it, in a disadvantageous position in Scotland, as compared with Roman Catholic children in England. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. G. A. Whitelaw), Maryhill and Springburn cannot be taken in, unless the whole space brought within the limits of the Municipality of Glasgow is included, which will involve a diminution of the School Board area of Go van. If Govan agreed the Department would sanction the amalgamation of these Boards. Now I think I have gone through every question that has been raised, and I earnestly hope that hon. Members will allow us to take this Vote.

said, he regretted the determination of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the 9d. limit, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman quite appreciated the position. When the Government were in possession of the opinion of the Law Officers of the past that certain payments were legal it seemed to him that in that position of affairs it was not fair to cripple the practical administration—and he hoped the hon. Member for Dundee (Sir J. Leng) would take note of this—it was not fair to hamper the practical administration in order to get a second opinion of Law Officers which might or might not concur with the first.

said, he desired to call attention to the continued depression in agriculture; and to move—

"That this House regrets that, notwithstanding the severity of the depression to which attention was called in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, Her Majesty's Government have not thought it their duty to entertain the proposals which have been made during the Session, or to take other action to lessen the difficulties and to improve the condition of the Agricultural interest."

He hoped the House would find an apology for ids action in the importance of the subject. At the moment it was impossible that this House could discuss any matter of graver magnitude to the community at large, or of greater national concern, than the prevalence of distress j among the agricultural community. The case he ventured to submit was no sentimental or sensational grievance; it was real and substantial. They did not expect the Government to have applied any heroic or drastic remedies, but he thought they had reason to complain that the Government had not attempted to mitigate the evil, or to lessen the difficulties which they had acknowledged to exist in this matter. The question of agriculture was mentioned in the Gracious Speech from the Throne; and the hue, well-sounding, sympathetic words employed were emphasised by the fact that the Government chose a young and inexperienced Member representing an agricultural constituency to move the Address. No wonder, then, that hope and unbounded charity towards Her Majesty's Government was aroused in the breast of every agriculturist. But great disappointment was created when it was learned that this unwonted expression of sympathy was only to take the form of a general inquiry—a general inquiry into all agricultural grievances, which was exactly what no agriculturist wanted. Such an inquiry meant delay, whilst they wanted something immediate, and something which would be practical; and he must denounce the conduct of the Government as a deliberate attempt to shunt and shelve the question on which awkward promises had boon made in the rural constituencies. It was for these reasons that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division (Mr. Chaplin) moved an Amendment to the Motion for the appointment of a Committee, his object being to limit the scope of the inquiry, and so hasten the remedies to be applied. Now they were told, at the fag-end of a somewhat memorable and, at the same time, wearisome Session, that they were to have a Royal Commission. The only possible practical effect of such a Commission would be to postpone for three years any remedy which could be devised. It was like asking for bread and being given a stone. But why was not this Commission appointed before? The Prime Minister, when challenged the other day, was obliged to admit that on certain days of every week during the Session the Government could have moved for a Committee. We had the answer of the Prime Minister that any discussion on the appointment or reference to a Committee to inquire into this calamitous state of things (though it would only have entailed a single night's discussion) I would be pure waste of time. The Government, he added, were not prepared to devote any portion of the Session to a pure waste of time. But the Government had devoted the whole of the Session to what they on that side deemed to be a pure waste of time. Such a statement from the Prime Minister, however true an exposition of the utter indifference of the Government with regard to agricultural matters, was most unfortunate, most damaging, and most mortifying to the rural supporters of the Government; and had the rural constituencies understood at the last Election that agricultural matters were to be deliberately postponed while Her Majesty's Government were running the farcical comedy of Home Rule night after night through the House of Commons, hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen would not have been sitting on the Benches opposite. What was the use of a Royal Commission? It would be costly, protracted, and voluminous; and there was no security, even if it ever reported, that its recommendations would be carried into effect. They had had Royal Commissions one after the other, and yet no Government had ever attempted to carry out many of the recommendations which they had made. Take, for example, the case of the Poor Law. A Committee of the House of Lords in 1850 had reported that the relief of the poor should be a national object, and that all descriptions of property should be made to contribute their fair quota. This opinion was confirmed by the Luke of Richmond's Commission, which recommended that the cost of the maintenance of the poor—and they drew a distinction between the indoor and outdoor poor—should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Yet no steps had been taken by any Government to carry this recommendation into effect. The Prime Minister was no believer in Royal Commissions. In 1869 he refused a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole question of local taxation upon the ground that the matter would ill brook delay, and Her Majesty's Government were themselves determined to be the most active form of Commissioners. If they could act heroically then, why not now? They were in a better position. They had a Minister of Agriculture, there was a Board, and a whole army of officials. It was perfectly possible for the Government, had they wished, to have made an inquiry on their own account into many of the matters now affecting the agricultural interest, and to have brought forward some remedy which would, at any rate, have mitigated the evils which they believed to exist. He was not favourably impressed by the very first action of Her Majesty's Government, because they took the opportunity, when agriculture was at its very lowest ebb, to reverse the policy of their predecessors, and to turn the Minister of Agriculture out of the Cabinet. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Gardner) would agree with him that, had he been included in the Cabinet, he would have been in a far better position to cope with his other colleagues. Since 1879 the farmer had had a long struggle against adversity. Seasons had been bad, but the chief factor had undoubtedly been the unparalleled fall in prices, owing to the pressure of foreign competition. In 1885, the total value of wheat, barley, and oats sold in England and Wales was £39,031,000; in 1892 the value dropped to £31,019,000,or a decrease of about £8,000,000 from grain alone in the income of the farmers, while the decrease would be far greater during the present year because prices had fallen still lower, and there was every reason to believe that a larger area had gone out of cultivation. This, moreover, was the only country where shorter crops did not mean higher prices. In 1885 the total wheat crop was only 9,500,000 quarters, and the average price 32s. 10d.; while in 1892, when the total crop had dropped to 7,000,000 quarters, the average price dropped to 30s. 3d. There had been a falling off in the gross revenue of the farmers during the current year,, I as compared with the average of the five preceding years, of no less, than £33,577,000, or 14s. per acre. In June, 1890, the total capital employed in farming in the United Kingdom was £405,200,000; in June, 1892, it was £331,600,000, making a decrease of £73,600,000. Still more serious had been the fall in the value of live stock, because in recent years live stock had been the sheet anchor of the farmer. In June, 1890, the value of the live stock in the United Kingdom was £248,000,000; in June, 1892, it was £179,000,000, or a decrease of nearly £70,000,000. This was not a landlord's question. It was equally a tenant's question, and was fast becoming an agricultural labourer's question. Up to the present the agricultural labourer had been better fed, better clothed, and better housed than in past years. But there was every reason to believe that if the present depression continued there would be a decline in his wages, and that at a season of the year when he would be most injuriously affected. He had said enough to show that the present state of things was almost unprecedented. They had had bad seasons before, failure of hay, low prices, and so on, but never an accumulation of all these evils, and this when the agricultural classes were in such an impoverished condition. On all sides were to be seen the depopulation of the country-side, migration into towns, and the keen competition of the agricultural labourers with the working men of the towns. But the evil went further, for nearly all the small shopkeepers of the small towns depended upon the agricultural community living around them; and the depression had had the effect of seriously reducing their incomes. He would strongly impress upon the Government that the position of the yeomen also was exceedingly difficult at the present time. He sometimes wondered how it was that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were always advising the return of the yeomen to the soil and the growth of a peasant proprietary, were continually crying out for fresh burdens on the land, and would never give any relief whatsoever from those burdens. What had the Government done to relieve the distress which they had admitted? Year after year, month after month, and day after day the case had become more urgent, and yet the House had sat for six mouths and nothing whatsoever had been done. Inside or outside the House the feeling of dissatisfaction was growing. All agriculturists were agreed that the subject of local taxation should be entered into, and all needless burdens removed. They were not advocating Protection, though gentlemen opposite must acknowledge that the pressure of foreign competition was far greater than the supporters of the repeal of the Corn Laws led them to expect. The pressure of foreign competition emphasised the fact that those needless burdens ought to be removed. The repeal of the Corn Laws had affected not only the ability of the land to bear those burdens, but the justice and equity of the burdens themselves. If it was just that a class which enjoyed special fiscal advantages should also bear special fiscal burdens, it was equally true that when those advantages had been taken away the burdens ought to have been removed. Such relief would come with peculiar grace from gentlemen opposite, because all fresh impositions upon the land since 1846—police, lunatics, highways, education, and sanitary—had been imposed by them. Of the taxes which had been imposed upon the land since 1846 gentlemen opposite had never removed a single one. It was true that agriculturists had had very great relief during the last few years: but for that they were indebted to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had provided the funds. But the rates were still increasing. They not only had new rates, such as the education and sanitary rates, but the highway rates, owing to the abolition of turnpikes, were far more serious than before. They never contended that it would have been possible for the Government to re-model the whole of their local taxation, but they could have followed the precedent set by their predecessors and made personal property contribute a, just quota. At the present lime there was every reason why this should be done. Of late years land, its products and its amenities, were decreasing in value, whilst all other descriptions of property were increasing. In 1881 land assessed to Income Tax was valued at £51,000,000. In 1891 it had fallen to £41,000,000. The total amount of profits from trades and professions assessed under Schedule D in 1881 was £255,000,000, whilst in 1891 it had increased to £351,000,000. It was an economical mistake to put exceptional burdens upon any one class of property, because it prevented the circulation of capital, discouraged improvements, and operated as a restrictive tariff in favour of the foreigner. They had impressed upon the Government the necessity of slaughtering imported cattle at the port of disembarkation in order to prevent the introduction of disease, and Bills had been brought in on both sides to prevent foreign food from being fraudulently palmed off as English. That would not have been Protection. There was no desire to prevent the free introduction of foreign meat, but they wished to enable the purchaser to know what he was buying. Such a measure would operate equally in favour of the consumer and of the producer. They had also impressed upon Her Majesty's Government the gross inequality of the Income Tax, land and houses being assessed upon an excessive valuation arbitrarily fixed. They had to pay, not only upon the gross value of their incomes, but upon incomes which were never received. There was no allowance for bad debts, agencies, or insurance. What was the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to these representations? He put another 1d. on the Income Tax. With regard to swine fever, they impressed upon the Government that it was a matter which affected very much the farmer and the poor man; but the Government were not prepared to extend to them any sympathy. What eager desire had they exhibited to show their sympathy to this class upon whom they showered their blessings only at Election time? The Government pleaded the inconvenient season of the year, and prided themselves upon the fact that 289 pigs less had been attacked this year than last. They also urged that it was impossible to act, owing to the miserable impecuniosity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was glad, however, to find that there had been a death-bed repentance. It was not likely the House would have seen the Motion the Government had put upon the Paper if it had not been that the Motion he was submitting obtained the first place for that evening. He hoped, now that the Government had taken action, they would push the matter forward, and, if necessary, put pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Attention had also been directed in the House to the questions of the transfer of laud and of railway rates on agricultural produce. The cost of laud transfer ought to be made as simple and cheap as the transfer of Consols, whilst a Royal Commission had strongly recommended that all preferential rates as between home and foreign produce should be done away with. How was it the Government had not taken any action upon the Resolution with respect to agricultural holdings passed in the House not long ago? It was certainly possible that many of these measures might not be adequate remedies for the distress which existed; but that was not a sufficient answer to bring against those who advocated this Resolution. If these remedies had been accepted Her Majesty's Government would at least have shown sincerity, and would have done something to mitigate existing evils. But his case went still further than this. Her Majesty's Government were the responsible parties to deal with this matter, and not they (the Opposition). It was not the duty of the Opposition to suggest, but it was the duty of right hon. Gentlemen opposite to act. Why had they not acted? He believed it was because the subject was too dull, too prosaic, too commonplace. They preferred legislation of a more heroic character—of a more dramatic character. Constitutional changes were more congenial to them than industrial and social questions. To imperil an Empire, to destroy a Church, to overthrow a voluntary system of education in this country—these were their favourite pastimes. Their only excuse was the impeenniosity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, however, could find £750,000 to run the Home Rule show. But they were unable to find a single 6d. to remedy the present disastrous state of things in agriculture. The people of the country would begin to realise that not only generosity, but even sympathy, ought to begin at home. While the Government had sat wringing their hands every other country had been doing something for agriculture. France had opened out forests to pasture, reduced railway rates, and voted 5,000,000f. to Agricultural Societies. Germany had prohibited exports and reduced railway rates. Bavaria had opened out forests. Austria had reduced the rates for fodder on the State railways, and had recommended reduction to private railways. In conclusion, he only wished to say that he based his justification of the Resolution upon the utter, and he might almost say studied, neglect and indifference of Her Majesty's Government to this question. Whilst the distress had been increasing absolutely nothing had been done. Not only had they rejected all suggestions, but they had made no counter-proposals. They had given no encouragement; they had expressed no sympathy, and given no assistance. It was not a class question, because all classes were equally affected by the condition of the agricultural interest. Thanking the House for its indulgence and attention, he concluded by moving the Resolution.

said, he rose to second the Resolution, out of sympathy for agriculture, and certainly not as wishing to join in a Vote of Censure against the Government of which he was a supporter. He regretted most sincerely that nothing had been done for agriculture, because he came, he was sorry to say, from a county full of distress, where many worthy, industrious, careful men, through no fault of their own, were being ruined, many of them asking themselves, sometimes with tears in their eyes—"What shall I do? I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed." From being comfortably off they now saw no haven of shelter before their eyes but the workhouse or the grave. Looking back over the comparatively narrow vista of 20 years, he felt as though he had then lived in the Garden of Eden, for in those happy days the fanner had a pleasure in his business and made a fair income by his industry. He went on his farm a happy man; he went home a cheerful and contented man, and his aim was to increase the produce of his farm, and to cultivate it like a garden. The landowner possessed a property which was supposed to be the securest in the country. The labourer saw his employment constantly increasing, his wages rising, and his general independence improving year by year. Alas, what a contrast there was to-day! The farmer, with no relaxation of industry, was now unable to make both ends meet; his heart was full of care; he saw bankruptcy staring him in the face, and his farm, especially if it. belonged to him, was like a millstone hung round his neck. The landowner saw his rent vanishing and the value of his property constantly diminishing, while the agricultural labourer's chance of employment was getting smaller and smaller, and his wages were getting lower. Land was neglected or vacant, and cottages were standing deserted. Contrasting the past with the present, it seemed as if some demon had risen from the pit, and, waving his hand over the fair fields and happy country homes, had blighted them with a curse. But this was not the first generation on which such a calamity had fallen. This century had seen some very remarkable ups and downs in agricultural affairs. It had contained two periods of remarkable agricultural prosperity, and also two of very great distress. The first period of prosperity began a little before the last century went out, and continued unbroken for 14 years, and then, with slight variation, down to 1819 or 1820. The second period was from 1853 to 1878—nearly a quarter of a century. The first period of agricultural distress was more severe than the present. It began in the "twenties," lasted through the "thirties," and into the "forties"—about another quarter of a century. The second period of distress began in 1879, and, alas! continued and increased still, and would he much added to by the drought of the present year. The first great period of prosperity occurred partly under Free Trade and partly under the Corn Laws of 1815, while the second quarter of a century of prosperity was entirely under Free Trade. The first period of distress occurred under a system of very high Protection—Protection amounting almost to prohibition; while the second period, which the country was suffering from now, was under Free Trade. But there was one thing he would point out that was common to both of these periods, and that was that the distress had been in times of low prices, and the times of prosperity in higher prices. He was persuaded that one key, and one alone, unlocked the mystery of the cause of these periods of ups and downs, of high and of low price's, of prosperity and of distress—namely, great alterations in the supply, and consequently in the value of money. Facts were stubborn things. He would prove his assertions by facts. The first period of prosperity was coincident with the era of paper money—of money made with the printing press; the second with the era of the great gold discoveries, the largest output of metallic money the world ever saw. The first distress followed the return to the metallic standard, and the second followed the falling-off of supplies of gold and the increased demand for it, due not to any natural cause, but to legislation against silver. These facts were in direct contradiction to the teaching of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, when they discussed agricultural distress in February last, advised them

"to think more about agriculture and less about bi-metallism."

He said—

"Low prices were not the result of any monetary system."

To suppose

"that the fall in prices was due to a restricted currency was really, in his opinion, one of the greatest delusions in the world."

It was, perhaps, presumptuous for a plain farmer to differ with a great authority like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and especially to try to teach him political economy; but he (Mr. Everett) must endeavour to do it. He was very confident that he had in the right hon. Gentleman a very intelligent and teachable pupil. The words of the right hon. Gentleman were in direct opposition to facts, to history, and to the greatest authorities on questions of this kind. Whether general prices were high or low, the key to them was to be found in the abundant or the smaller supply of money. That was the great factor in the case. He was supported in this view by Adam Smith, who had said—

"The quantity of goods or labour which a given quantity of gold or silver will exchange for depends always upon the fertility or barrenness of the mines which happen to be known about the time when such exchanges are made."

Mr. J. S. Mill had said—

"That an increase of the quantity of money raises prices and a diminution lowers them is the most elementary proposition in the theory of currency, and without it we should have no key to any of the others."

John Locke said—

"The lessening of the quantity of money makes an equal quantity of it exchange for a greater of any other tiling."

Hume said—

"It is the proportion between the circulating money and the commodities in the market which determines the price,"

And Ricardo—

"That commodities rise or fall in price in proportion to the increase or diminution of money. I assume as a fact that is incontrovertible."

The Chancellor's statements, therefore, were contrary to all authority. The truth was it was so long since his right hon. Friend had left school that he had forgotten his A. B C. Much or little money was the key to the higher or lower level of prices. Their present disease was low prices, and a remedy would be more money. If a horse was lame in the foot it was no use doctoring his shoulder to cure him. Let them look at the terrible distress which afflicted agriculture and trade also, earlier in the century—and ample materials existed. Such a look would confirm this contention. Four Select Committees had sat to inquire into Agricultural Distress—that was to say, in 1821–2,1833, 1836, and a Committee of the House of Lords in 1837. Their Reports, and the evidence given before them, and the Debates of the times, showed that the larger or smaller supply of money went to the very root of prices and of prosperity or distress. The Select Committee of 1821–2 was presided over by Sir Thomas Gooch, a predecessor of his in the representation of Suffolk. The Act ordering a Return to the metallic standard had been passed in 1819, and many connected the fall in prices and trouble with that Act. The Committee, however, passed a Resolution that they would not inquire into this view of the cause of the situation. Said Mr. Attwood, a Member of the House, speaking of this—

"I remember, in April. 1821, that I was examined before the Agricultural Committee of the House of Commons. They told me openly and publicly that they had passed a Resolution that they would not inquire into the currency part of the question, and that I must confine my observations to the agricultural part of it. 'Good God!' said I, 'gentlemen, what are you? Are you not a Committee appointed by the House of Commons to inquire into the cause of the distress of agriculture?' 'Certainly,' said they. 'And what is the distress of agriculture? Is it not the low price of agricultural produce?' 'Undoubtedly,' said they, I rejoined, 'Is there any other distress in agriculture, except the low price of agricultural produce?' 'Certainly not.' 'What is the low price of agricultural produce? Is it not the small quantity of money or currency which agricultural produce commands in the market?' 'Most certainly it is.' 'Why, then,' said I, 'do you mean to say that you have passed a Resolution declaring that you will not inquire into the very subject which you are expressly appointed to inquire into?' I could get no further answer to this."

Though they passed this Resolution they could not, however, keep clear of the question. The Committee presented three Reports—in June, 1821; in April, 1822; and in May, 1822. In these Reports they spoke of—

"The unparalleled prosperity of agriculture down to 1814."

They admitted with regret that the complaints in the Petitions which had been referred to them as to the existing distress were founded on fact; that the returns from an arable farm were by no means adequate to the charges and outgoings. The fall in prices they agree explained the trouble. They expressed the hope

"that either from the savings of more prosperous times, or from the credit which farmers, past punctuality of payment may command, farmers possess resources which will enable them to surmount the difficulties under which they labour."

They touched upon questions referred to in the Petitions such as tithes, rates and taxes, warehousing of grain, Corn Laws, &c.; but they saw no adequate relief to be had in dealing with any of these. As to Protection, they said—

"The ruinously low prices of agricultural produce at this moment cannot be ascribed to any deficiency in the protecting power of the law. Protection cannot be carried further than monopoly."

No corn was admitted, then, while the price was under 80s. a quarter. On the change in the value of money they said—

"Your Committee, however, cannot but ascribe a proportion of the depression in prices … to the measures which the restoration of our currency had rendered necessary … an effect which has been aggravated … by the endeavours of other countries to revert to a metallic currency simultaneously with ourselves. They deeply lament the derangement which the fluctuations of the last 10 years in the value of the currency had occasioned in all the transactions of life, together with the individual loss and suffering unavoidably produced by the return to a fixed standard."

They also said—

"The departure from our ancient standard in proportion as it was prejudicial to all creditors of money and persons dependent on fixed incomes was a benefit to the active capitals of the country. And the restoration of the standard has been in its turn proportionately disadvantageous to the productive classes of the community, and also attended with embarrassment to the landowner having mortgages and fixed charges to meet, fixed when land bore a higher value in reference to the impaired value of money."

Following the Report of that Committee the Small Note Act was passed, which gave some relief while it lasted. The Committee of 1833 was presided over by Sir James Graham. In their Report they referred to the hope expressed by the former Committee, and said they

"With deep regret express the fear that the difficulties alone remain unchanged"; that the "Savings are gone, or greatly diminished"; the "credit failing," and "the resources generally exhausted."

They went on to say—

"Less labour and capital are being applied to the soil. Ancient corn lands, especially clay lands, are going out of cultivation.

"This arises from low prices and inadequate profit of cultivation."

They agreed with the Committee of 1821 as to the effect of the currency changes, and referred to the decay of yeomen farmers, which they considered due to the fall in prices and to the altered value of money. They quoted from the Report of the Committee of 1821 their remarks as to the cruel effects of, first, the depreciation of money, and after of its appreciation, and pleaded for the desirability of steadiness of price. They said—

"Fresh experiments in the value of money must affect the price of agricultural produce, shake public confidence, and lead to the derangement of all settled contracts, and they ought, after past experience to be viewed by the Legislature with peculiar caution."

It would have been well if this had been remembered before Germany changed her standard in 1872, America hers in 1873, France hers in 1874, Austria hers in 1892, and India hers now. Before the Committee of 1833 the following testimony was given. Mr. Joseph Sandars, corn merchant, Liverpool, said—

"During the depreciation of the currency from 1797 to 1819 there was a period of very unusual prosperity amongst farmers; the Bank Restriction Act of 1797 was reversed in 1819, and we have seen a descending scale. … I think agriculture has not reached the bottom of that scale."

"The distress was very materially aggravated by the Act of 1826, which repealed the Act of 1822 permitting the issue of £1 notes."

Mr. John Cramp, of Thanet, farmer and valuer, said—

"How do you think prices have been lowered so much?—By the diminution of the circulating medium. What has lowered agricultural produce has lowered everything else."

Mr. William Smith, near Derby, farmer and agent, said—

"All this insolvency is owing to the fall in prices."

"Not a more industrious set of men living."

"Their property swept away by the Act of 1819."

Mr. Henry Burgess, Secretary to the Committee of Country Bankers, said—

"If the metal which is standard becomes scarce that will produce an alteration in prices.

"The Acts of 1816 and 1819, taken together established a lower range of prices permanently.

"The Act of 1819,"—the main cause of the fall in prices, as well agricultural as manufacturing. "Nine out of 10 of the great manufacturing works in Lancashire, he had been told, "had changed hands through insolvency. The witnesses, examined before that Act (of 1819) was passed, were mainly persons concerned with commercial affairs in London, such as Exchange brokers, loan contractors, and London bankers. Many of these hail interests directly opposite to the interests of the productive classes."

He was afraid these were the classes with which his right hon. Friend below him took advice now. Who did he send to represent him at the Brussels Conference? Representatives not of industry, but of money. The Select Committee of 1836 was presided over by Mr. Shaw Lefevre. It was a most influential Committee, including Sir R. Peel, Lord John Russell, Sir James Graham, and Lord Stanley. It took a great body of evidence, but did not report. The Chairman prepared a Report, but the Committee could not agree on it. Distress had increased rather than diminished, that was affirmed by many of their witnesses. John Langhorn, banker, Berwick-on-Tweed, who was a witness called, said—

"No relief would be afforded to the farmer except through the relaxation of the currency.

"Distress of 1810 removed by increased issues.

"Distress of 1819–20–21 relieved in 1823–4–5 by increased issues."

"He looked upon the raising of the standard of 1819 as an act of naked injustice."

Lord Ashburton (Mr. Baring) said—

"Price is regulated by the demand and supply of the article to be measured, and also by the value of the article of which the measure is made. Price is a certain portion of that metal (or other article) which is established by law as the measure of value."

Richard Spooner, M.P., banker, said—

"I consider the main cause of the present depressed state of agriculture to be low prices occasioned by our monetary system."

"The price of everything is regulated by the quantity of circulating medium."

None of these witnesses, it would be seen agreed, with the doctrine laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in February last. The fourth Committee (of the Lords) sat in 1837, and did not agree to any Report. It took a great deal of evidence as to the effect of the Currency Laws on prices. Here were a few samples: Mr. John Lewin, large farmer and miller near Wickham Market, Suffolk, said—

"We have always had better prices when the currency has been expanded, and when it is contracted they are lower. … I have watched for 20 years the Bank circulation; the issue of country notes expands and contracts with it. (Banking was free then.) When the Bank of England has increased its issues, our prices have got up; when they have been contracted, our prices have gone down."

Mr. Pattison, M.P., a Governor of the Bank of England, was asked—

"How do you account for the great fall in prices since 1820?"

He said—

"It is owing to the change from a paper to a joint metallic and paper circulation.

"Have you any doubt that the contraction of the currency reduced all prices?— I believe that the alteration of the currency had an effect on prices."

The Earl of Radnor said—

"I attribute the general fall in prices to the contraction of the currency which followed the Act of 1819."

Mr. E. S. Cayley, M.P. for Yorkshire, said—

"My firm conviction is that the necessary consequence of Mr. Peel's Bill was to reduce the price of wheat in this country from 80s. to 40s.—Answer 3640."

Lord Ashburton said—

"The more he considered it, the more he felt the question of the currency to be one not only of the utmost importance, but as the one in which were involved all the distresses experienced by the country, and also their remedy."

He would now give a few quotations from speeches in the many Debates on distress in those times. Sir James Graham, in a speech in the House of Commons on a Motion to forbid the circulation of Scotch £1 notes in England in 1828, said—

"The gentlemen opposite had contrived to reduce the price of corn lower than it had been since the Revolution. The miracle was produced by a very simple process—namely, that of tampering with the currency, from which the landlord is sure to be the first to suffer. The value of money was heavily increased, while all contracts remained at their nominal amount. The change bore down the amount of the landlord's receipt for his produce, while all the fixed charges and incumbrances on his estate were increased. He was forced to pay in a currency 30 per cent, higher than that in which he had borrowed, and the consequence was that he must retrench, abandon the hospitality and liberality of his ancestors, and live like a niggard and degraded man, and squeeze his tenants like an oppressor, or the monied man walked in and took possession. A decrease in the quantity of money is the first step in the high road to ruin."

Earl Stanhope, in the House of Lords in 1830, in the Debate on the Address, said—

"To what is the universal distress owing? It is to be ascribed to the erroneous basis on which our currency has been placed since 1819. Prices have not fallen in agricultural produce only; the depression has been continuous and universal ever since the Act of 1819 passed, and especially since the suppression of small notes took effect in the beginning of last year. Such a universal and continued depression can be ascribed only to some cause pressing alike upon all branches of industry, and that cause is to be found in the enormous contraction of the currency which has taken place."

In the Debate on the distress of the country in March, 1830, Mr. Western, M.P. for Essex, said—

"It was to the change in the currency that we were to attribute our distress."

Mr. Hudson Gurney said—

"To me it does seem perfectly clear that the one and only source of all our difficulties, and of all the distress that press so large a portion of our population to the earth, is the affair of money—the great and inconceivable error of making gold their only standard."

Mr. Attwood said—

"The conduct of the Government respecting the currency had operated as a confiscation of the property of the landed man for the benefit of the monied man."

Sir F. Burdett said—

"The fatal Bill of 1819. Subsequently to that measure there was a Motion for a Committee by the hon. Member for Suffolk (Sir T. Gooch) which was obtained, and a partial relief was obtained for the existing distress by the issue of £1 notes."

He mocks at the worship of the "golden idol."

"They sacrificed the agricultural interest, the shipping interest, and the commercial interest, to the public creditor, to placemen, and to pensioners."

In the Debate on agricultural distress on May 25, 1835, on a Motion of the Marquess of Chandos, the Earl of Darlington seconding, said—

"So desperate was the condition of the agriculturists that it was, in his opinion, the duty of the House to brave all difficulties, and go to the root of the evil. It would be found that the contraction of the currency was the root of the evil."

The famous Mr. Cobbett said—

"The real cause of all the agricultural difficulties of England was the change which had taken place in the value of money. Therein lay the true source of the national misfortunes. … The original moving power by which their distress had been occasioned was the well- known currency measure of the right hon. Baronet near him."

Mr. Benett said—

"He agreed with Mr. Western that the causes of the agricultural distress, and the sources of relief must be sought for in the currency question."

Daniel O'Connell said—

"There was such a place as Ireland; agricultural distress was as great, if not greater, in that country than in England. They had been during the Debate wholly forgotten. The remedy proposed by the noble Lord (relief of taxation) was only like clipping or paring the thorn in the field. One remedy—the only sure remedy—was passed over—namely, one that would have the effect of mitigating the horrors of the Gold Currency Bill. If no one else would, he would put in his claim for that scheme, which was better than all the other schemes he had heard that night proposed."

On Mr. Cayley's Motion for a silver standard on 1st June, 1835, O'Connell said again—

"A more destructive Bill, a more iniquitous Bill, than that of 1819 had never been introduced. There never had been a Bill more fatal to this country or so fatal to Ireland. There was no pressing necessity for that measure. It appeared to him to have been concocted in insanity, and for no other purpose than to make a mighty experiment on the power of human suffering to see what weight it would bear. He remembered persons having valuable interests in land leased to others who had also interests, and all were swept from the face of the land by the effect of that Bill as by a plague or pestilence.

"The monied interest had a strong motive for upholding the present system."

Mr. Wodehouse said—

"All other remedies would prove utterly ineffectual. He had been one of the Committee who sat in 1822 upon agricultural distress, and he had been one of a small minority who were opposed to the adoption of their Report on the ground put forward by Mr. Huskisson, that it did not sufficiently take into account the altered value of money. He was convinced that the present state of the currency had already done incalculable mischief, particularly to those connected with agriculture, and still threatened to overwhelm them with immeasurable ruin."

Mr. Richards said, their distress

"was entirely caused by the Bill of 1819.

Sir R. Peel declared

"that the Bill did increase the distress of the country to a certain degree I do not deny. It was impossible to escape … After 20 years of. … Inconvertible paper. … Without.

"By depreciating the standard the prices of all commodities would be raised."

And the last quotation he would give was from Lord John Russell, on the Corn Laws. In 1843 he said—

"In 1815 a new policy was adopted, and 80s. was established as the price at which foreign corn might be admitted. An important change, however, occurred in 1819, which really affected the price of corn. The attempt to keep up the price of corn at 80s. entirely failed; for the right hon. Baronet, in 1819, introduced a change in the currency and restored the standard of value."

What was the effect? Why, five years before 1820, wheat averaged 80s. 9d., while in five years after 1820 it averaged only 57s. 3d.

"It was not any alteration in the Corn Laws that produced the alteration in price; it was the change in the monetary system,"

said Lord John Russell. Was it not clear that change in the value of money was the key to the distresses and agonies of those sorrowful years? Contraction of money was the disease, low prices the symptoms; the consequences general industrial ruin. Jevons said—

"Money rose 140 percent, in value in those years; prices fell 60 per cent."

Low prices did not bring a blessing, but exactly the reverse. The second great revival of agriculture began soon after the great gold discoveries under Free Trade, and continued a quarter of a century. It was coincident with the largest increase to the metallic money of the world recorded in history. A general rise in prices took place soon after the new discoveries began, as the tables of the average prices of commodities clearly show. And with that rise came extraordinary industrial prosperity. If the Prime Minister, with his great powers, made himself conversant with the facts, he would not speak of gold as of fixed or immovable value when, as a matter of fact, it had greatly altered in value in the way of decrease after the great gold discoveries, and of increase in the last 20 years. A great and continuous fall in prices was the cause of the great distress from which the agriculturists were now suffering, a fall due to the growing value of gold. Since that fall commenced a Royal Commission (of 1879) on Agricultural Depression had been appointed and had made its inquiry, and most of its recommendations had been carried out. There was a Commission on Depression in Trade and Industry in 1885. Then a Gold and Silver Commission in 1886, which recommended more money, whilst there had also been several Monetary Conferences, evidences that something was wrong with money. Now anohter Commission was proposed. He ven- tured to predict that, unless the fall in prices was stayed, nothing that that Commission would do would be of any good. The hon. Member who had preceded him had spoken of the great loss agriculture had sustained by the fall in prices. Mr. W. C. Little, in The Farmer's Almanack of the present year, showed that the gross value of the agricultural produce of Great Britain was now £35,000,000 a year less than the mean of the years 1865 to 1875. An enormous loss to fall annually upon one single industry in the country. Land had fallen in value £20 to £30 an acre. Well, this was the disease. What was the cause of the fall in prices? To those who were acquainted with the facts (which, unhappily, lay out of sight to most people) the cause—or, at any rate, one great cause—was perfectly clear. In the gold standard countries money was, for the second time in the century, steadily rising in value. Why this was the case was also very plain. With a continually increasing population and production of commodities, there had been a large decrease in the supply of gold, as compared with the past, and, worse still, legislation in country after country against silver had been artificially enormously increasing the demand for gold. The natural effect produced was that gold had risen in value and prices had fallen. When these changes begun some astute persons saw the cloud arising, and spoke of it. Lord Beaconsfield spoke of it in the House of Lords in 1879, and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) spoke of it in the House of Commons as long ago as 1883. Lord Beaconsfield said, "Gold is appreciating every day, and as it appreciates the lower become prices." Mr. Goschen attributed part of the agricultural distress then beginning to be felt to the same fact. He should like to make a few quotations from Mr. Giffen's interesting book, Prices and Incomes Compared, published in 1888. Mr. Giffen there said he predicted in 1879, in a paper he read on "The Fall in Prices since 1873,"

"That we were in the presence of the phenomenon known to economists as the appreciation of money."

He added (page 38)—

"We can say positively now that the recent change from a high to a low level of prices is due to a change in money of the nature and in he direction of contraction."

After setting forth the facts, he writes—

"The inference seems conclusive that since 1873 the alteration in the economic movement has been in money, and to this must be ascribed the change in prices which has occurred."

On page 41 he said—

"The rising prices of commodities between 1850 and 1873, although commodities were increasing as much as they have done since, were maintained by continual additions to the stock and efficiency of money. Since 1873 the movement of additions to the stock—which was a very pronounced one—has been arrested, if there has not been an actual withdrawal from, or diminution of, stock uncompensated by any increase in the efficiency of money. Consequently, the fall of prices since 1873 is explained by the check to the previous movement."

Later on Mr. Giffen said that if (as he had shown to be probable)

"the supply of new money is not equal to quite keep things at an equilibrium, then we may have a long-continued fall from generation to generation."

The effects to follow were given in the following passages:—

"The weight of all permanent burdens increased.

"Debtors pay more; creditors receive more.

"It prevents those who have debts to pay gaining by the development of industry, as they would otherwise gain.

"The weight of the gold debt of a country like India enormously increased.

"Spells ruin to individuals and classes.

"The probabilities appear to point to a further … run upon gold."

He even suggested that—

"We may have to devise a substitute for money that will be more stable in value."

He well said (page 55)—

"Many mischiefs might have been avoided if all concerned had realised 10 or 15 years ago what was likely to happen in money, and good will be done now if possibilities are kept steadily in view."

The Daily News of June 27, 1893, said—

"Every country which forsakes silver for gold inevitably throws more work upon gold, and increases its value in relation to merchandise—in other words, prolongs the depression of prices in the great markets of Europe and North America."

Similar opinions were held by thinkers in Germany and in the United States. At the Silver Convention at St. Louis, in November, 1889, Mr. Senator Stewart said—

"The fact that money is gone up and property down is felt throughout the land. Every farmer in the great valley of the Mississippi feels it; every wealth producer in the East feels it too; every mortgagor is suffering from this fraudulent change in his contract. The weight of the farmer's mortgage is becoming heavier every day, while his power to lift it is constantly diminishing. Despair is upon him; he and his family are suffering; hope is taken away. It takes more bushels of wheat, more bales of cotton, more hours of toil, to pay his debt by 30 or 40 per cent, than when he contracted it."

The truth was that the pound sterling in England and the Colonies had been changed from an honest pound of steady value into a cruel oppressor of the producer continually reducing prices and profits, and so reducing the employment of labour and forcing down wages. It had become to unfortunate debtors an instrument of extortion of the worst Shylock type. The Government had stood by and seen producers here and in the Colonies robbed. India had pleaded in vain for assistance in the reduction of the continually-growing burden of her Debt, and the English farmers had made the same plea without being listened to. At the Brussels Monetary Conference recently the attitude of Great Britain was unfriendly to the proposal to restore the currency to what it was before. At the present moment the Government were dealing a double blow—to the poor ryot in India on the one hand, increasing the toil he would have to give for his money, and to the poor farmer in England, increasing his toil, on the other. What he wanted the Government to do was to treat money (whether silver or gold) as a friend to the people, not as an enemy. He wanted them to help to restore the currency, which had been tampered with. There was, in his opinion, no other remedy to our depression. This was a life and death question with the English farmer. If he was wrong in his views, he was, at least, honestly wrong, but he was persuaded he was not wrong. It was far from his wish to blame the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardner). He did not wish to hurt the Government, only to mend it. For the sake of his suffering neighbours at home, he had embraced this opportunity of pleading their cause. The Government might, by adopting the views he had advocated, bring about greater prosperity, not only to agriculture, but to all classes of the people. If, instead of treating money as an enemy, they would look upon it as a friend, if with free ports they would give also free mints, they would bring blessings upon the country, they would fill up the Exchequer, they would remove agricultural depression, and they would effect an enormous amount of good.

said, he was sure that every Member who approached the question would have a feeling of the deepest sympathy with the agriculturists of this country, who were suffering very severely from the depression which now existed; but he must demur to one or two of the propositions put forward by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lopes). The hon. Member said, in the first place, that the supporters of the Government did not tell their constituents that they intended to pass the Home Rule Bill this year. The hon. Member must have grievously misread his opponents' addresses and speeches if he thought any such thing. He (Mr. Lambert) did not grudge the time spent in passing the Home Rule Bill, because he believed that measure would so relieve the work of Parliament that they would soon have time to attend to those duties which so urgently needed seeing to at home. He believed the division of rates between landlord and tenant was a non-controversial reform. It was recommended by the Richmond Commission, and hon. Gentlemen opposite did not dare to oppose it, although when they were in Office they did not pass it. The hon. Gentleman opposite rather taunted the Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Gardner) with not having a seat in the Cabinet. He (Mr. Lambert), on the other hand, congratulated his right hon. Friend on his patriotism. It was said that the late Minister for Agriculture refused to take Office at first, because he was not offered a position in the Cabinet, and his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gardner) was to be congratulated on having shown, at least, as much patriotism as his predecessor. The cause of agricultural depression was foreign competition caused by increased production in foreign countries. This had conduced in Great Britain to cheap food. He would ask hon. Members opposite, especially those representing borough constituencies, whether they were prepared to say that cheap food was not a blessing to this country? The present Government was asked to cure all the ills that agriculture was heir to before they had been 12 months in Office. Was agricultural distress more acute now than it was a year ago? [Cries of "Yes!"] And what was the reason? The weather. If hon. Gentlemen opposite could control the weather they would be very desirable men to have to conduct the agricultural operations of the country. He had been unable to follow the conclusions of the hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division (Mr. Everett). He (Mr. Lambert) confessed that the subject of bi-metallism was rather beyond his comprehension. It seemed to him that if greater prosperity would be produced by making the ratio of silver to gold 15 to 1, the result of making the two metals of equal value would be to get 15 times more prosperity. No doubt the farmers' produce had diminished in value owing to the depreciation of silver, but the working classes sold their labour for gold. Not only had gold appreciated, but wages had increased, so that working men had received more than formerly, and what they had received bought more of the necessaries of life. If it was intended, by placing an artificial value on silver, to increase the price of food, that was nothing less than Protection, which he felt sure the country would not have for a single moment. The question of bi-metallism had already been settled by a large majority in the House of Commons. The Mover of the Resolution had said he wanted to obtain a reduction of taxation. He (Mr. Lambert) was against all rates and taxes on principle, and hated and detested them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin), speaking at Lincoln on January 21, 1893, said—

"Many large measures would be dealt with in the coming Session. He thought they ought to devote their energies to obtaining a Parliamentary Inquiry without delaying the whole question of the burdens on land, and the exact proportions of taxation which ought to be borne by landed property on the one hand and personal property on the other."

Why, then, had the right hon. Gentleman refused the inquiry which had been offered by the Government again and again? A Parliamentary Inquiry having been offered, he should like to ask whether, supposing all rates upon land were abolished, the landlords would not immediately raise the rents? For himself, he was against all rates and taxes on principle. But would hon. Members opposite agree with the landlord that the rents would not be increased? If the tenant farmers wore to support the Conservative Party they would not obtain an amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act. When the Agricultural Holdings Act was before the House in 1883 the right hon. Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin) voted in 13 out of 14 Divisions against the tenant farmer. He must protest against putting all the blame for agricultural distress on the present Government. Foreign competition was the cause of it, and the acuteness of the distress this year over that of last was owing to the weather. As to the speech of his hon. Friend on bi-metallism, he failed to see how that would remedy matters, whereas it meant Protection, and the country would not stand it. The Government had proposed a Committee of Inquiry, which was blocked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin). What was the reason for his attitude? He would be glad if he would explain that. He (Mr. Lambert) rather thought he knew the reason.

:I did not block it.

said, he would ask how it was, then, that the inquiry was not going on?

I have explained half-a-dozen times why I placed my Amendment on the Paper.

said, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to give him a reason for the attitude he had taken up. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was afraid of what the Committee would recommend. Their proposals might be too Radical for him. The right hon. Gentleman would not care to have an outside tribunal interfering with rents. The House of Lords was very much interested in agriculture. Why had they not prepared a Bill and sent it to the House of Commons? He maintained that the Department of the President of the Board of Agriculture had not failed. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gardner) had done everything in his power to mitigate the agricultural depression and meet the farmers as well as he could. Anything that would make food dearer in this country would not be palatable to the working classes. He considered the true remedy for agricultural depression lay in the producer and the consumer being brought closer together, in the tenants having greater security for their capital, and more freedom in cultivation, fair rents, and farms more suitable to their capital; and he should vote in support of the Government in negativing the Resolution.

said, this Debate had been looked forward to with the greatest interest. Farmers in the country had been waiting and waiting; the depression had been getting deeper, and something was expected from the Government with regard to their interests which had been so long and grievously delayed. He thought they were justified in asking the Government why they had turned a deaf ear to the prayers of the farmers and labourers, who were looking forward to a time, not only of depression, but to a time of poverty. In the Debate on the Address the Opposition were told that they did not propose any remedies. But on that occasion he said it was not the duty of the Opposition to propose remedies. Had anything tangible been proposed by the Government for their acceptance? Only a Select Committee to inquire, not into one definite suggestion of relief, but into the whole question of agriculture and its depression. That was nothing more nor less than an abominable sham. Such an inquiry would have lasted one, two, or three years, at the end of which time the present Government would not have been responsible for what was going on. Then a Royal Commission had been proposed. The Board of Agriculture cost the country over £57,000 a year. The farming interest was in a state of depression; the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that he had not a penny too much, and vet a Royal Commission was to be appointed, which would cost at least £25,000, to ascertain facts which the Board of Agriculture could put the Government in possession of in a few months. The Government had in that Department the best men who could give advice with regard to the question; but because the Government did not wish to give instant relief a desire was shown to postpone the subject. He believed that the tenant farmers understood the meaning of these Select Committees and Royal Commissions as well as the fact that the Government would not give them that relief which was sought. Now it was known what the professions of the Government and its supporters during the last Election were worth, and when the time came again to solicit a renewal of their confidence the Government would be brought face to face with their broken promises, and would not be returned by a majority to the House.

I think the accusation made against the Government of not carrying out the policy embodied in the Speech from the Throne comes rather strangely from hon. Gentlemen opposite. At the time the Speech was delivered it was hoped that the House would proceed to inquire into the subject by means of a Select Committee; but, owing largely to the action of hon. Members opposite, this Committee was not appointed. I would call attention to the character of the Resolution which has been presented by the hon. Member. The Resolution conveys an attack on the Government in terms studiously vague and ingeniously comprehensive. It enables all sorts of men holding opinions absolutely opposed to each other on the subject of agricultural distress and its remedies to join together in a general attack on the Government. I would like to know from hon. Gentlemen opposite what steps the Government have failed to take, and what are their sins of omission? I do not believe that any hon. Gentleman opposite will get up and say honestly that he knows more than three recommendations of a heroic and specific character for dealing with agricultural distress. These are:—First, the reform of our fiscal system—in other words, Protection; secondly, reform of our currency—in other words, bi-metallism; and, thirdly, reform of our climatic conditions—in other words, better weather. I think all of these recommendations are equally impossible under present conditions. Lord Salisbury, speaking this Session in the House of Lords in the Debate on the Address, said there were only two remedies for agricultural distress—the one the weather and the other prices. One of these you cannot alter, and the other you will not alter. The right hon. Member for Sleaford has testified that, as far as he is concerned, he thinks there is only one remedy, and that is bi-metallism, because he objects to any inquiry except one as to prices. As to the proposals which, as the hon. Member has pointed out, have been made during the Session, the Government has waited with expectancy—and I myself almost with longing—to hear what are the recommendations from hon. Gentlemen opposite who pose before the country as being the special friends of the farmers. I admit with regret that the majority of the farming interest in this country are disposed to support hon. Gentlemen opposite. But this distress is admitted to be as bad as ever it has been, and there is a wicked Liberal Government in power which neglects the interests of the farmers. Why have not hon. Gentlemen come forward this Session and pointed out what is to be done? They have brought in Bills dealing with swine fever and with the marking of meat. But will any sane man in the House say that these Bills represent everything that ought to be done to meet the agricultural depression? The Government have been most anxious to bring in a measure dealing with swine fever when the state of business of the House permitted. That Bill was brought in yesterday, and I hope hon. Members opposite will allow it to be considered as soon as possible.

What are the provisions of the Bill?

I should not be in Order if I were to go into that now. It is not before the House. But I may inform the House that it is a Bill which proposes to transfer to the Board of Agriculture the business of dealing with swine fever, which at present is in the hands of the Local Authorities. This is one of the proposals which the Government are accused of not bringing forward. I pass now to the question of marking foreign meat. The hon. Member attacked the Government because they did not accept at once a proposal of this nature. I am glad to see the late President of the Board of Trade in his place, and I would be surprised if the right hon. Gentleman gets up and says that he would be prepared, as a Minister in a Conservative Government, to accept a proposal for the marking of meat without due consideration beforehand. The Government were accused by the hon. Member of not dealing with this question, when, as a matter of fact, the Government assented in the other House to the appointment of a Committee to inquire not only into the marking of foreign meat, but into the marking of all foreign and colonial produce. The hon. Gentleman must have been aware of that fact, but he was careful to suppress it when attacking the Government. Then there is the subject of railway rates. The President of the Board of Trade has done all he could for the benefit of agriculturists in this direction; and at the present moment the First Commissioner of Works is presiding over a Committee which is endeavouring to see what can be done for the protection and benefit of agriculturists. The Government have also given attention to the subject of the adulteration of fertilisers and feeding stuff's. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford, during the late Government, brought in a Bill on that subject; but, unfortunately, he was unable to get it through the House. I had the honour of introducing a measure on the same subject this Session; the House has accepted its Second Reading; it has been referred to a Grand Committee; and there is every possible chance of the measure, which will be of great use to agriculturists, becoming law this Session. It has also been said that some reform of the Agricultural Holdings Act is essential for the benefit of the tenant farmers. I have always entertained that opinion. It certainly does not lie with hon. Members to accuse the Government of indifference with regard to the Agricultural Holdings Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford especially argued that this very measure should be referred to a Select Committee. Now, what do we propose to do?

I did not say the measure—for there was no measure before the House—should be referred to a Select Committee. What I said was that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the subject.

Certainly, that is what I say. The measure to which I refer is the Agricultural Holdings Act, which is the law at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to refer the matter to a Select Committee. But we propose to refer it to a Royal Commission, which is better than a Select Committee, because a Royal Commission can continue its work when Parliament is not sitting, and will place us in a position of being able to formulate legislation on the subject in the ensuing Session. Then there is another matter. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member complain because the Government did not accept a Resolution for closing the whole of the ports of this country against foreign cattle. What necessity is there for such action at the present moment? Foot-and-mouth disease, which has cost the agriculturists of this country millions in the past, is almost, I may say entirely, extinct, and the cases of pleuro-pneumonia have fallen from 472 in 1891 to 13 in the first 28 weeks of this year. I feel proud, as President of the Agricultural Department, to be able to tell the House and the agriculturists that as regards the diseases under our immediate control, we have practically a clean bill of health. As I have said, there is no practical, instant remedy for agricultural distress. That was admitted at the great Agricultural Conference held last year at St. James's Hall. The Government now propose a Royal Commission to inquire into that subject. We do not make this a. Party question. We ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to join us in this matter for the good of agriculture. As far as we are concerned, we think the condition of agriculture too serious to be made the shuttlecock of Parties, or the ground for a partisan attack on the Government. We now propose a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject. We hope that Commission will be appointed; that it will not be such a lengthy matter as the Duke of Richmond's Commission, which sat for three years; but we hope that it will be a, small and effective Commission. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will have nothing to do with a Select Committee. Are they now going to hold back from the Royal Commission; are they going to join with the Government in an honest endeavour to adopt effective remedies for distressed agriculturists; or are they going to slam the door in the farmers' faces? I hope that they will not do so. I trust that the Royal Commission will be appointed shortly, and that hon. Gentlemen, both in the House and outside, of all shades of political opinion and of all positions in agricultural life, will join with the Government in the inquiry which we propose to institute. I have said that no kind of heroic measures are possible in dealing with agricultural distress at this moment; but I consider that the Royal Commission will give the farmers an opportunity of laying their grievances and proposing remedies before that non-Party tribunal, with the result that, as I hope, the Government will be in a position to make in the next Session propositions which may prove to be of practical benefit to those who are engaged in the cultivation of the soil, and which will afford some measure of relief to the greatest, though, I regret to say, by no means the most prosperous of our industries.

said, the Minister of Agriculture had accused the Conservative Part) of not having given their attention to the question of the relief of agriculture. But that was the first opportunity they had had of discussing the matter this Session. The Government had put down a Motion for the appointment of a Committee, but they would not give a single evening for its discussion. In fact, the Prime Minister said the other night that the matter was not worth discussing, and that such a discussion would have been a waste of time.

I beg the hon. Gentleman to quote the words I used. I said nothing whatever of that nature.

said, that that was what he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say.

Till the hon. Gentleman quotes me he has no right to make such representations.

said, that he was at the time only speaking from memory; but, fortunately, he was now able to quote the report of the right hon. Gentleman's words, which were as follows:—

"The discussion on the appointment of the Committee would have been pure waste of time."

And he added—

"We were not disposed to devote any portion of the Session to pure waste of time."

That is so; on the appointment of a Committee, under the circumstances and for the purposes for which it was desired. We desired the appointment of a Committee.

said, that he must, of course, accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. He, however, still stood by what he had stated in the first instance. It had been entirely borne out by the quotation from the right hon. Gentleman's speech which he had since been enabled to read to the House. If the Government had desired to appoint a Committee, the whole matter might have been got over in a single evening. He believed, however, that the whole thing was a sham put forward to delude the agricultural population. The Minister for Agriculture had referred to the Bill he hail introduced as to swine fever. But the right hon. Gentleman had been urged in the House day after day and week after week to introduce the Bill, and strong representations had been made to him outside by the Central Chamber of Agriculture to deal with the matter, so that the Bill was only put forward now under pressure at the end of the Session. It was not for him, as an agriculturist, to look a gift-horse in the mouth, and, if the Bill wore a good one, he hoped it would be passed into law. It was said that the late Government were responsible for passing a very bad Bill dealing with railway rates. That subject, however, was dealt with by a Commission, who took evidence and appointed the various rates; so that the House had no opportunity of discussing them beforehand. It was said that the number of rates were some millions. It was a matter with which the House could not cope, so that it had to be entirely left to the Commission to fix the rates. He wished to point out that the extraordinary low prices which now prevailed in agricultural produce were not due to overproduction. The acreage under wheat, for instance, had during the last 10 years decreased by 865,000 acres. He would remind the House that during that time the population bad increased by 3,000,000. Last year the United Kingdom produced 7,000,000 quarters of wheat, while 14,000,000 quarters were imported. That was a matter for very grave consideration, not only by the House, but by the country. We had to import twice as much wheat as we produced, and if by any evil chance Ave had to go to war the country would have reason to regret very much that wheat had gone out of cultivation to such an extent. It was said that the labourers were not feeling the depression. But they were how beginning to feel the depression. He could assure the House that, owing to the failure of the hay crop, labourers could not get the high wages they hail been getting. There were now a great many of them out of employment, even in the midst of the summer, and they were willing to harvest the crops at a lower rate than he ever remembered. The hon. Member for Devonshire had said that the owners of laud were in a better position than the tenant farmers. He did not hold that opinion. The owner of the laud had to stick to the land, but the tenant farmer had only to give a notice to quit and out he went. The landlords were endeavouring to farm the land themselves. He himself farmed as much land as anyone in the country. The tenant farmers, finding that they could not make a living out of the laud, were naturally leaving it, were taking up other occupations, and it was a great loss to the landlords to lose these tenants, who had always been considered the backbone of the country. Another matter of great importance to agriculturists was the question of the reduction of the burdens on land. That question had been before Parliament, off and on, during the whole Session; but the Government did not attempt to do anything in that way. It was suggested that they should bring in a Bill to distribute the rates equally between owner and occupier; but that would be no good, for the rates would still have to come out of the land. What they did want was to have the rates reduced. Under the late Government the Chancellor of the Exchequer had reduced them by giving large contributions in aid of local taxation. Why could not the present Chancellor of the Exchequer do the same? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, if he had a surplus, would devote it to reducing the rates. He wished to show the House how unfairly agriculturists were rated. A doctor or shopkeeper in a country town making £500 a year merely paid rates on his house, which was probably assessed at £50 a year. A farmer to make £500 a year had to farm 500 acres—he was sorry to say that many farmers did not make £1 an acre—and not only did he pay on his house, but on every acre of his land, and if the 500 acres were assessed at only 10s. an acre he would have to pay on £250 a year, though only making the same income as the shopkeeper. That was to say, he paid about five times as much in rates as the professional man earning the same income. That was surely most unfair. The hon. Member for Norfolk bad suggested as a remedy the cutting up of large farms into small holdings. Every landowner would gladly do so if he could, but where could he find the money for the necessary buildings? If the Government said that large farms ought to fie cut up into small holdings they ought to advance the money at a low rate of interest, as they had advanced it to Irish agriculturists, and then the landowners would most gladly do it. The Minister for Agriculture during the late Government was continually urging the redemption of the tithe rent charge on an equitable basis. But since the right hon. Gentleman had got into Office nothing had been heard of the matter. The fact was that the whole of the time of the House had been so taken up by one object that agriculture had been forgotten. He could only hope that some good would come out of this Debate, that it would not be a pure waste of time, and that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a surplus he would give some relief to distressed agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, when I have a surplus I shall be extremely happy to give it to everybody, especially to anyone in such a deserving position as the agriculturist is acknowledged to be. I beg the hon. Member to believe that I am not without sympathy and feeling for the great agricultural distress, which has this year been aggravated beyond even what it was before. But I have been watching during the Debate, as in former Debates, to find what were the ideas—I will not say the proposals—of hon. Members who are intimately connected with agriculture as to the best way of dealing with the depression. The hon. Member who has just sat down complained that there has not been time enough given to agricultural discussion this Session. But one night was given during the Debate on the Address; and now a second night has been taken; yet I confess I failed altogether to ascertain what hon. Members opposite desired on the first occasion. What are the measures which hon. Members would propose if they were in a position to do exactly as they liked? Nobody has stated them to-night. With reference to minor matters, such as swine fever, the Government have entertained proposals; and though the hon. Member complained that steps have been taken very late, they are in abundance of time; for the proper time to deal with swine fever, as was stated in the Report, was at the end of the year. The hon. Member has spoken of railway rates. Is there any complaint against the Government for their conduct in this respect? The hon. Member said, "Oh, that was referred to a Committee"; but all the questions with which you have proposed to deal have equally been referred to a Commission or to a Committee. Then what did the hon. Member say ought to have been done? He referred to the redemption of tithes. If that was a good thing, why did not the late Government deal with it in their Tithe Bill? The hon. Member also referred to the reduction of burdens. That is one of the principal questions we desire should be inquired into by a Commission or a Committee. Great light has been thrown on the question of the burdens of the land. Many hon. Gentlemen do not concur in the conclusions contained in the Report which has been published by the President of the Local Government Board; but if those conclusions are disputed, they must be inquired into. It is impossible to call upon the Government to act upon the assumption that the statements in that Report are unfounded. I am very much surprised to find in Hampshire that the rates in this hard year have been higher than ever before. That is the result of the policy of subsidy which has taken from the Imperial Exchequer £7,000,000 a year. Yet the Government are asked to proceed further in the same direction. If more money is to be found, where is it to come from? Who is to pay? The Exchequer? But the Exchequer is supplied by taxation, and who are you going to tax in order to give this additional relief? The hon. Member said that he envied the lightness of rating and taxation of professional men. Is it, then, from the professional men that this money is to be raised? Will hon. Gentlemen place that before the country as their policy? I do not wish to argue the question in a controversial manner, but I think the Government have a right to ask what are the proposals which they have not adopted? The only hon. Mem- ber who has made a really definite proposal was the hon. Member behind me, who has profound convictions, knows what he wishes, and says what he means. But he must forgive me for saying that I do not share my hon. Friend's convictions altogether. He said the only time when there was real prosperity was in the time of a great war, when we are furnished with printing-press money. My hon. Friend thinks that if only enough money could be manufactured, if money could be made a friend instead of an enemy—which might be done by the printing press, everything would go well and there would be high prices. The question is, does the country want high prices? For my own part, I do not. The weather has also been referred to, and this year, it was said, in consequence of the weather, many labourers have been thrown out of employment. Would they have been better off if, in addition to their other misfortunes, prices had been higher? I have seen labourers who remembered the days of high prices; and did they get high wages? When wheat was 120s. a quarter wages were 1s. a day. Those were the days of 7s. or 8s. a week. It is, therefore, deluding the labourer to tell him that by making prices high you would give him high wages. Remember that it was immediately after the repeal of the Corn Laws that the great rise in the wages of the people of this country took place. Since 1845 the wages of the agricultural labourer have increased by nearly 50 per cent. Where they then got 9s. a week they now get 12s. or 13s. I believe that the fall in the prices of agricultural produce has been due to the great competition that has been brought about by the increased facilities of intercommunication between all parts of the world. I do not think the beneficence of Nature has become the common property of the people of this country. That is the cause of the lower prices, not only of the produce of the earth, but of all common commodities. The labourer gets not only his bread cheaper, but also his sugar, his tea, his clothes, his lights, his fuel, and everything that is necessary for his existence and for the comfort of his life. These things are 20 per cent. cheaper than they used to be. When you consider that, and also bear in mind that there has been an increase of 50 per cent, in the purchasing power of the labourer's wages, you will understand what has been the improvement in the condition of the masses of the people in consequence of the policy which began with the repeal of the Corn Laws. What is it you wish to be done? I know my hon. Friend wishes bi-metallism; but the majority of the House have pronounced against bi-metallism, and the Government cannot be blamed for not introducing a policy which the House has condemned. [Mr. CHAPLIN: No.] I know that the right hon. Gentleman avoided the word bi-metallism—["Oh, no; we never mention it!"]—but the House quite understands what is meant by the Resolutions which are associated with the right hon. Gentleman's name. Well, if you do not mean bi-metallism, do you mean Protection, and if you do will you say so? If I were to ask the Leader of the Opposition how he means to raise prices as against the consumer, the right hon. Gentleman would tell me that bimetallism would raise prices. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: No; but it would prevent their fall.] Then right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite are satisfied with prices as they are, and all they desire is to prevent their fall. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not my view.] I admit that with my less intelligent mind I ought not to attempt to develop any scheme framed by the right hon. Gentleman. One ought never to attempt to expound a creed in which one does not believe. I, therefore, will not attempt to explain the creed of bi-metallism. But how do hon. Gentlemen who say that low prices are the bane of agriculture propose to raise them? I have heard no suggestion from hon. Members opposite on the point, and I think it extremely hard that they should condemn the Government for not making a proposal for raising-prices when they do not explain themselves how it is to be done. If there are matters like the question of rates which hon. Members think can afford relief, the Government are perfectly ready to consider them, and it is, in fact, for that very purpose that we propose a, Committee or Commission. It has been said that the Committee ought to be confined to two or three particular questions. What are they? Ought bi-metallism to be one of them? Or Protection? [Cries of "No!"] Then what are the subjects which, according to hon. Members opposite, ought to be inquired into with a view to relieving the agricultural industry? If any remedy should be suggested that could be adopted with fairness to the rest of the community, no man would be readier to welcome it than myself. We are fully conscious of the sufferings of the agricultural interest, which is almost the greatest interest of this country. The whole community are deeply concerned in the prosperity of this interest, by which I mean the landowner, the labourer, and the farmer. If there be any palliative measure that can be propounded the Government will be most anxious to consider it. I do not regard this as a Party Motion at all. ["Oh!" and "Hear, hear!"] An hon. Member interrupted me. Oh, it is you (indicating Mr. Jesse Collings)—then I am not surprised.

rose amid loud cries of "Order, order!" and said: I rise to a point of Order, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman says, "It is you—I am not surprised." I beg to say that statement is absolutely untrue. I made no sound whatever. At the time—

It is sufficient if the right hon. Gentleman says he did not interrupt.

The right hon. Member can have all the advantage of the statement he has made. The right hon. Gentleman has wasted time, but I will not waste any more. All I can say is that if any practical suggestion be made from the other side of the House the Government will be most desirous to consider it.

Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman, while professing the greatest anxiety to allow me a few moments, has succeeded, with singular skill, in allowing me, I think, exactly five minutes. Amid the gloomy surroundings of agriculture at the present moment, there has been, at all events, one feature in the course of the Debate which I think both sides will recognise, and that is the admirable speech in which this Resolution was proposed, and those among us who had the good fortune to remember the career of Sir Massey Lopes in this House during many years—he being one of the most prominent and distinguished of the agricultural Representatives—will be glad to see that many of the qualities of the father have been transmitted to the son. In the few minutes at my disposal it is difficult to know exactly to what part of the Debate to turn. The right hon. Gentleman closed his observations by asking what remedies hon. Members on the Opposition side had to propose. I think we are entitled to ask again, even if it be for the last time, what the Government had in their minds as a remedy when with great pomp and circumstance, at the commencement of the Session, they announced the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into agricultural distress? The hon. Member for the South Molton Division referred to the fall in prices as a cause of agricultural depression. I admit that is a great cause. But the hon. Member asked whether those on the Opposition side of the House wished to see a change in the level of prices, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer argued on much the same lines. The Government and their supporters told the House over and over again that they knew that the fall in prices is the main cause of agricultural depression. What an unmitigated sham, then, is the inquiry they are proposing! We now know what the Government mean when they express sympathy for agriculturists. The result of the Debate does not depend on the Opposition side. We are in a minority in the House. It might do much for agriculture if the Resolution were successful; but the result depends on two things. It depends, first, on the conduct of Liberal agriculturist Members; and, in the second place, it depends on the Irish vote. If Liberal Members, representing agricultural constituencies, who have always been so loud in their professions of sympathy, will act up to them now, then the agricultural interest will he strong enough to override the Irish vote and teach Her Majesty's Government a lesson they will not easily forget. But if they continue in their adhesion—I will not call it slavish adhesion—to the policy of a Minister who has been prepared to sacrifice every English interest at the bidding of his Irish supporters, the agricultural interest, like every other interest in this country, will be overridden by the Irish vote. At least, it shall not be said of us that in this time of great trial we did not do our best, on one of the few opportunities left open to us, to press and urge on the Government the claims of what is the greatest and, undoubtedly, so far as the Government are concerned, the most studiously-neglected interest in the country.