suggested that some alteration should be made in the sizes of the half-sovereign and the farthing, to prevent the laitter from being passed for the former; and also that every coin should bear its denomination on its face.

said the Mint proposed to try whether it was not possible to secure that the colour of the farthing should be in the first place entirely different from the colour of the half-sovereign. ["Hear, hear!"] Vote agreed to.

asked whether anything had been done with regard to the Fair Wages Committee, presided over by the hon. Member for East Donegal, and also whether the complaints of the printing operatives of Ireland in regard to the Queen's printers, Dublin, had been attended to.

said the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for East Donegal only dealt with the wages paid in the stationery department. The new Committee that was now sitting would deal with all the Government departments. Whenever any tenders were now invited for Government contracts the Fair Wages Resolution of the House was brought more prominently under the eves of those who tendered than hitherto, and the Treasury took care that the Resolution was strictly carried out by all contractors. That applied to Ireland as well as to England. Questions were raised before the former Committee as to the printing in Ireland connected with boards of guardians, in which it appeared the Resolution was not carried out; but, of course, these were not Government contracts. Vote agreed to. 7. £80, Supplementary, Lunacy Commission, Scotland.—Agreed to.

said he found on referring to the original Estimate that there was an increased expenditure in connection with the levying of processes in County Courts. He desired to know whether that was distributed over all the country, or was it to be ascribed to special circumstances arising in particular localities?

said that, though he was not responsible for the Vote, he could give the hon. Member the information he desired. The charges were very varied, and only a small portion of the Vote was connected with the Welsh question. Vote agreed to. 11. £2,030, Supplementary, Register House, Edinburgh.

said that for a long time the clerks employed in this office had had a deep-seated grievance with regard to their scale of pay as compared with that in the offices in London and Dublin. There was a discussion on this question two years ago, and he should like to know whether the Government had considered the matter.

said that, as to all Second Division clerks, the scale was the same throughout the United Kingdom; but with regard to all other officials, the scale varied according to the cost of living in the town concerned. But, although the rate in Edinburgh might differ from that in London and Dublin, he had not been able to satisfy himself, having regard to the comparative cost of living in the different towns, that any injustice was done. Vote agreed to. 12. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £12,938 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission."

said that some time ago the Chief Secretary promised. Return with regard to the recent appointments of temporary Sub-Commissioners. The hon. Member for East Mayo had asked the Government to postpone the Vote until the Return was in the hands of hon. Members; but, very unreasonably, the Government had refused this request. As it was, the Committee was asked to vote this money in the dark. They knew nothing about the persons appointed, and he protested against the Vote being taken in these circumstances. It was not a question whether the gentlemen appointed belonged to one Party or another; but they ought to have a practical knowledge of the work they were called on to perform, and they ought to understand all about the value of land. He moved to reduce the Vote by £5,000.

said that he could not understand why the Government had refused to postpone this Vote until the Return was available. The Chief Secretary very well knew that these new appointments of assistant lay commissioners had given the greatest dissatisfaction in Ireland, and especially in Ulster among the Unionist tenant farmers. He did not state his personal views, because he knew nothing at all of the gentlemen appointed, except their names. He protested against the action of the Government in forcing this Vote on before the Return was issued; and he was only expressing the views of the constituents of the Attorney General for Ireland and of the Ulster farmers generally. The appointments had been condemned at meetings of both parties and at united meetings.

said that the appointments of the new assistant lay Commissioners had given great dissatisfaction among the landowners. These new Sub-Commissioners were reducing rents at enormous rates, without giving any reasons for the reductions. Were they appointed by the day or by the year, and did their appointments depend on the number of cases which came in? Were they paid the same salaries as the quasi-permanent Commissioners, or were they paid smaller salaries which would not be so likely to attract men of independence? The appointment of these temporary Sub-Commissioners might be a necessity, but it was a deplorable necessity. He joined with hon. Gentlemen opposite in expressing great anxiety to see the qualifications of these gentlemen, about whom strange stories were told from time to time. There ought to be an opportunity given of going into the matter fully.

thought that it would have been more convenient if the hon. Member for North Galway and the hon. Member for East Mayo had raised this question in reference to the appointment of these Sub-Commissioners when the Estimates for the next, financial year came on for discussion, by which time the Return would have been made and the matter might have been fully gone into. The unfortunate Chief Secretary for Ireland had to make some 40 or 50 of these appointments, and, no matter how conscientiously those appointments were made, they were necessarily subject to considerable criticism. He could assure the hon. Members opposite that he had spared no trouble in making these appointments in order to select the best men for the positions, and he should be sorry to say how much of his time had been occupied in interviewing the hundreds of gentlemen who had applied for the appointments. Complaint had been made that comparatively few of those who had been appointed were acquainted with the Ulster custom. It must, however, be remembered that a large proportion of the new appointments were in reality reappointments of Gentlemen who had previously held such posts, and who, therefore, were well acquainted with the Ulster custom. The figures before him showed that out of the 44 new appointments 25 were reappointments, 17 of whom were from Ulster or who had experience of fixing rents in Ulster. Of the 19 new appointments seven were from Ulster. This was exclusive of those who already held their posts when the present Government came into office. In answer to a question from one of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, he had to say that the appointments were for a year with the exception of four, whom he might term a emergency men "—[ironical cheers and laughter from the Nationalist Benches]—who were appointed by the day. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary took credit for having made so many reappointments of these Sub-Commissioners, but those were the men who were old hands at cutting down rents, and he should have thought that that was a good ground for never employing them again. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] What had occurred in Ireland during the last few months justified the doubts that had been expressed as to the justice of the legislation of last year. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had drawn a moving picture of the mental sufferings he had undergone in making these appointments. Rut if the right hon. Gentleman suffered so deeply under this infliction, he should like to ask what the feelings of the Irish landlords must have been when they knew that the right hon. Gentleman was engaged in Dublin Castle in appointing to the offices of Sub-Commissioners some 40 gentlemen, whose one and only object would be the further reduction of rents? In Ireland at the present, moment, as far as he knew, the only qualification necessary for a Sub-Commissioner, who probably knew nothing about agriculture, was that he should be able to go to a farm, look at it, and, hearing that the rent had been reduced on a former occasion some 20 or 25 per cent., make a further reduction of 35, 40, and sometimes 50 per cent. The result, therefore would be that in some cases the rent would be reduced altogether by about 70 per cent. The House would see that at the present moment a system of absolute and deliberate confiscation was being adopted. The House, therefore, would understand that the Irish landlords looked with some suspicion upon the appointment of these Sub-Commissioners, who would have to decide whether they and their families should be allowed to remain in Ireland or be turned out of the country. He knew that the Government had expressed their opinion that a final settlement of the Irish Land Question could only be arrived at when the dual ownership ceased to be, and when the time arrived when public money would buy out the present landlords in order to put new landlords in their place. There was, of course, a cheap and easy way for the British Exchequer to settle the Irish Land Question, namely, by appointing a lot of Sub-Commissioners who were to understand that their appointments would depend upon the influx of Irish tenants into their Courts, and who, having received more or less their cue from the Government, the Sub-Commissioners would proceed to reduce the rents by 40, 50, 60, and sometimes by 70 per cent. In that case the Irish landlord who had no margin to live on would be an easy man to deal with. That might be an admirable plan, and might commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to his right hon. Friends the Chief Secretary and the Leader of the House, who thought that this was a final and happy solution of the Irish Land Question. But the House could not suppose that such a policy could commend itself to the Irish landlords. The recent action of the Land Commissioners in Ireland was to his mind absolutely inexplicable. Without giving any reasons at all they had reduced rents 40, 50, and even 70 per cent. ["Hear, hear!"] The Irish landlord was now in this happy position. He knew that at any time some of these gentlemen might come down and hold a Court, and he had not the least idea as to whether, when they had performed their functions, he would have a penny left to pay his passage out of Ireland. Was this realised by the House of Commons? The Irish landlords were a class who did not deserve this sweeping condemnation at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. ["Hear, hear!"] Their position was one against which the good sense and sense of justice of the House must in the end prevail. He did not object to the Vote, but he appealed to Her Majesty's Government to see whether they could not in some way create in Ireland a court presided over by men whose position would be permanent, and not dependent upon the fact that their decisions might bring an influx of new tenants into their Courts. ["Hear, hear!"]

said the Chief Secretary was bound to appoint these Commissioners by the law of the country, and he was sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not wish the head of a department to be guilty of an illegality. He had never heard of reductions of 60 or 70 per cent. being made by the Commissioners, and he would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether it was not a fact that the tenants of Ulster, including his own constituents, were up in arms against the decisions of the Commissioners?

That is only natural to an Irishman. [Laughter.]

supposed it was natural for a tenant to expect a large reduction and for a landlord to resent it, but when the hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of the dissatisfaction among landlords it was just as well that the Committee should know that the dissatisfaction of the tenants with the insufficiency of the reductions was practically universal. ["Hear, hear!"] Agitation, disturbance, legislation, and the Sub-Commissioners had on the whole produced smaller reductions in Ireland than had voluntary arrangements in England.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the interests in farms in Ireland sell for a larger sum than they do in England?

said that had nothing to do with the matter, and there could be no comparison of the sort because of the simple and fundamental fact that all the improvements were made by the tenant in Ireland and by the landlord, speaking generally, in England. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think there was something odious and repulsive in the system of payment by the day of gentlemen employed in the important work of reducing rents in Ireland, but he would suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite should join in the movement general among tenants in Ulster for allowing the compulsory purchase of his land by the tenant, and they would very soon get rid of these Sub-Commissioners. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet had said that the Sub-Commissioners had acquired the name of Sub-Confiscators.

said that the person who suggested that name to him was the late Lord Cairns.

said it would remain in the minds of the Irish people a very delicate historical question whether the title of founder of the Land League should be given to his hon. Friend near him or to the right hon. Gentleman whose occupation of the office of Chief Secretary was one of the chief causes of its foundation. [Cheers and laughter.]

said that, taking the whole of the revision of rents by the Sub-Commissioners down to last year, the average reductions were only 21·5 per cent., whereas voluntary reductions of 40, 50, and even 60 per cent., or three times as much, had been given in England. It was not only unfair but most unreasonable for the representatives of the landed interest to come down to the House and condemn the reductions given by the Sub-Commissioners. He feared that speeches like that of the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh might have an intimidating effect upon the Assistant Sub-Commissioners, who were liable to be dismissed at any moment.

observed that in almost every case the appointment was for a year at least.

said that, at any rate, these gentlemen desired to retain their posts, and premature attacks upon them were greatly to be deprecated. The Return showing their qualifications ought to be supplied as soon as possible.

said that he was in possession of a good deal of information concerning the Commissioners who had been appointed, and he had reason to believe that the selection had been very well made. One gentleman had been appointed from his own division, having been recommended by himself, by the hon. Member for North Down, who was closely connected with the landlord interest, by the Marquess of Londonderry, and all the leading landlords of the division, and by the tenant farmers of the district, 200 of whom signed a memorial in his favour. He believed that when the qualifications of these Commissioners were submitted to the House it would be found that there was nothing to say against the appointments.

hoped the Chief Secretary would consent to postpone the Vote. At present the Committee were without information about the qualifications of these gentlemen. They could not tell whether the appointments were good, as the hon. Member for East Down averred, or whether they were bad, as the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh declared.

explained that all he had said was that nothing was known about, them.

referring to the Chief Secretary's statement that 17 out of 24 gentlemen appointed had knowledge of Ulster, asked for how long they had been in that province.

replied that they were either natives of Ulster, or had had experience in valuing land there.

said that if hon. Members opposite went to a division he should vote with them, as a protest against the way in which the Commissioners had done their work. If they proceeded as they had begun, a very large number of landlords must inevitably be ruined. These Commissioners were given no instructions to guide them in fixing rents. It was supposed that they had regard to the prices obtainable for agricultural produce, but, as a matter of fact, rents were being reduced at a rate entirely unwarranted by the prices prevailing in recent years. Upon what grounds had these enormous and unjustifiable reductions been made? The prices given for tenant right were increasing every day. The more the rent was cut down the higher, apparently, became the value of the tenant right. There was no analogy between the case of England and that of Ireland. Would they find a man in England ready to give a large sum of money for the right of taking a farm in Cambridgeshire, Wiltshire, Essex, or any of the other distressed counties? The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool had referred to tenants' improvements, but the highest prices paid for tenant right were paid in cases where there was grass land, and where there were no improvements at all. The existing state of affairs in regard to rent reduction was unsatisfactory and unjust, and must be reconsidered by Parliament if the landlords of Ireland were not to be reduced to absolute ruin.

wished to draw attention to the amount assigned to School Boards under Section 97 of the Education Act. The amount was £19,680. It seemed to him that that sum was inadequate to meet the undertaking given to School Boards by the Education Department under the Circular of 1881. According to. Return obtained by the right hon. Member for Rotherham, the total amount due last year to School Boards in the country under Section 97 was in England £27,523, and in Wales £7,192, making a total of £34,715. The Vote passed last year for this item was only £26,400. That left a deficit to be made good by Supplementary Estimate of £8,315 on the year. The Circular of the Department of 1881 gave an undertaking to School Boards that they should be entitled to a grant under Section 97, not only for the current year, but also for the year immediately preceding. He found that the amount of unclaimed grant for last year under the Section in question was, in England £10,388, and in Wales £4,334, or rather more than half the grant due in the Principality. The total of unclaimed grants for last year, therefore, was £14,722. The payment, therefore, of these grants for the second year, under the Circular, together with the deficit of £8,315 on last year, made up a total of nearly £4,000 greater than appeared in the Supplementary Estimate. That was the first point on which, he wished for an explanation. Then there was the further point—that the amount of unclaimed grant was a minimum amount. It was probable that other School Boards had come on the list for these grants, so that the amount might be still greater. It had been the policy of the Department to keep the School Boards directly concerned in the dark about it. The subject, he might say here, was not at all one of a party character, for successive Vice Presidents of the Council of both parties had pursued the same course. No information was given to those necessitous School Boards that they were entitled to claim the money. He contended that Section 97 of the Act imposed no time limit whatever in respect to this grant. According to the wording of that section, any School Board which could establish the fact that. 3d. rate on their assessment would not produce 7s. 6d. per head of the children in average attendance, was entitled to the grant to have that amount made up, and as the section laid down no time limit the Boards could claim it for any past year. Since the matter was discussed last year a good many claims had been sent in to the Department based upon this view of Section 97, and the Department were asked to take the question into consideration. The Vice President dealt with it in a frank spirit last Session, and admitted that the circular of 1881 did not constitute a statutory bar to the claims for arrears—that if a School Board could show a legal claim the circular would be of no value to set aside that claim. Well, a number of those claims having been sent in, the Department consulted the Law Officers of the Crown, and afterwards addressed a letter to the School Boards informing them that the Law Officers had advised the Department that such claims "should not be entertained." Very considerable importance might attach to the wording of that legal opinion, and he invited the Vice President to give the Committee some further explanation as to its precise meaning. He was placed at some disadvantage by the discussion taking place on that day, because he had a question on the Paper next week, asking the right hon. Gentleman for some explanation of a case relating to a particular School Board, the Sutton-in-Ash-field Board, in which the terms of the Circular of 1881 were set aside by the Department, and in which the Department assigned to the Board in question, not only the amount due under the section for the current year, and for the school year immediately preceding, but also the arrears for a third year. In this instance, therefore, the Department admitted the principle and the right of claim by the School Board. In the particular case to which he referred, the School Board, as he understood, became aware of their ability to make the claim under Section 97. They sent in their claim for arrears, and, as he was informed, the officials of the Education Department replied that the circular of 1881 barreil all such claims, and that, therefore, the Department was not legally in a position to entertain any claim except that for the current year. The School Board thereupon drew the attention of the Department to the wording of the Act, and to their position as a necessitous School Board, as deputation from the Board then waited on the Department at Whitehall in 1885. And, finally, the Department said that, after considering the case, they would admit the arrears claim of the Board for a third year, the three years being 1883, 1884, and 1885. Now the matter was one of importance to a large number of people in many parts of the country. The total amount of such arrears claimed by the poor School Boards concerned was not small, and, supposing the opinion given by the Law Officers of the Crown was not so clear and decided as to constitute an absolute bar to the claims, he thought those School Boards were entitled, as a matter of right, to the generous consideration of the Department. ["Hear, hear!"] They had been practically kept in the dark, as he had said, with respect to the claims, and there was a large sum now fairly due to them. Even if the claims for arrears could not be recognised by the Department in view of the opinion expressed by the Law Officers, still he urged that the position of the School Board in question constituted, under the circumstances, a strong reason for the Department dealing with them in a broad and generous spirit. ["Hear, hear!"] He had quoted one instance in a which the Department had recognised the claim for the arrears, and he saw no reason why the same consideration could not be extended to School Boards in many other necessitous districts. He begged to-move the reduction which stood in his name.

said that, the promises contained in the circular of 1881 would be fulfilled to the letter, and every Board School would receive the amount to which it was entitled. The hon. Member seemed to think that the Estimate of £19,680 would prove to be too small to meet the claims of the School Boards, but he would point out that the Estimates had been carefully prepared by officials of experience, and it was believed that the sum asked for would meet all such claims as would mature and become payable before March 31 next, and that was all they had to do in those Supplementary Estimates. With regard to arrears, that was not a question for him, but rather for the House of Commons and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Committee of Council had no jurisdiction at all. The Committee of Council had intrusted to them by Parliament certain sums of money, and they were bound to pay them according to law. When they were in doubt as to the payments they ought to make, they fortified themselves with the opinion of the legal advisers of the Government. In this particular matter the Committee of Council had consulted the Law Officers of the Crown, and, as the result of the advice which they had received, they came to the decision that they could not entertain applications from necessitous Board Schools for grants beyond the current year and the preceding year. Of course, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer saw fit to put on the Estimates a sum of money for paying all the arrears, it would be the duty of the Committee of Council to make the payments accordingly; but, as the case now stood, they were not able to pay out of the sums voted for the current year more than the grant for the current year and the arrears for the year preceding. The right hon. Member referred to the case of the School Board of Sutton-in-Ashfield, where two years' arrears were paid. He thought that must have been a payment made by. Liberal Government, because he did not think such a payment was ever made in his time. If the hon. Member would put a Question down for next week, he would answer it, and if there were any particular reasons why Sutton-in-Ashfield was treated different to other places, he should be glad to give him an explanation. So far as the Government was at present advised, while they would fulfil to the letter the engagements of 1881, and while they would ask Parliament in the coming year for sufficient provision to meet the case of all School Boards which applied for the arrears to which under the circular of 1881 they were entitled, they considered that the provision which was now being asked for was ample to fulfil those obligations, and he hoped, therefore, the Committee would vote that sum.

said the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that this was a question for the House of Commons and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a most important one. He would venture to ask the House to consider it very carefully, because it affected the interests of a very large number of Boards of the poorest character all over the county. He certainly thought this was a case in which sentiments of equity ought to prevail, and if the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown precluded the Committee of Council from dealing with this matter according to an equitable view of the case, then the House of Commons, as the right hon. Gentleman had himself said, could take the matter into its own hands. He could not believe that the Government would, at a time like the present, refuse such a reasonable request as was now made. He felt a special interest in this question, because a very large proportion of these arrears were, unfortunately, due to the School Boards in Wales. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would, on that ground, bring the weight of his influence to bear on the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to have these grants made. If the Government declined to take this course, he hoped the House would take an independent view of the matter.

said he was sorry to hear the somewhat uncompromising line which the Vice President had taken up in this matter, because he was sure there was no desire on either side of the House to make any party capital out of the subject. He hoped that the Vice President would, on looking at this matter more carefully, see his way to make some suggestion to the House by which these poor districts might be able to claim the money to which they were unquestionably legally entitled. He understood the position the Vice President took up was that the Law Officers had advised that the claims beyond the current year and the year before were not legal. He could not say, judging by the terms of the circular letter, that the opinion expressed by the Law Officers was a very strong one, and he thought that, considering that public attention had been drawn to the matter, and that there were now a considerable number of these claims, they might fairly ask the Vice President to give his further and special attention to it, and see if the decision the Law Officers had arrived at might not be modified or altered. If it was not modified or altered, then they might press the Vice President, to see whether, by legislation, or in some other way, he could not come to some just and satisfactory solution of this matter. If the arrears were paid beyond the current year and the past year in one case, it was done either legally or illegally. He could not think for a moment that a Vice President, whether he was. Conservative or Liberal Vice President, would commit an injustice, and if it was an illegality, it ought not to be permitted. It must be assumed that the Committee of Council, since they took legal advice, acted in a proper and legal manner; but if they were able, in the case of a single school, to give arrears beyond the past year, then it was clear that, under certain circumstances, they could do so in other cases. If, when the Vice-President came to consider the matter, he found that in one case arrears had been granted, that would go far to destroy the value of the legal opinion on the ratepayers' claim. The right hon. Gentleman would, he hoped, deal with this matter in a just, and even generous, spirit. The point of the case was, that it was not brought to the knowledge of these districts that they were entitled to this money, and there ought not to be any legal quibble in the way of their obtaining the grant.

did not think the Education Department came out very handsomely in the discussion of this question. It appeared that the School Board were entitled to the money from the Education Department, but were kept in ignorance of the fact, and when, later, the Boards made the discovery, the Department said that, though the ratepayers of a few years ago were entitled to receive it, the ratepayers of the present day were not. The facts being what they were, and especially if the statement made in regard to the school at Sutton-in-Ashfield was correct, then the Department might well strain a point in favour of the schools. He hoped that two assurances would be forthcoming, first, that the Sutton-in-Ashfield case would be inquired into, and, if the facts in regard to it had been correctly stated, a similar course would now be pursued; and secondly, that in coming legislative proposals on behalf of Board Schools this matter would be satisfactorily dealt with. He did not think it was becoming in a great Department to do anything which bore the appearance of sharp practice, and this term might, he thought, be applied to the way in which this matter had been dealt with.

said the Committee had been told that an opinion had been given by the law officials, but the right hon. Gentleman did not convey to the Committee the exact terms of that opinion, and this, he thought, should be done. The question was, whether School Boards were entitled to these arrears or not, and upon this the Committee were entitled to some guidance. He called the attention of the Committee to the section under which the claim was made. When. School Board satisfied the Education Department that certain conditions obtained, such School Board was to be entitled to this particular grant. Thus the legal claim was established; and, he supposed, a School Board could, within the year, sue the Department or the Treasury for the amount. Was that so or not? The words were specific—"shall be entitled"—and if it was as legal obligation at all on the part of the Treasury or the Education Department, then, certainly two years was not the limit of the claim, the Statute of Limitations allowed six years. No statute imposed a limit of two years. The Committee were entitled to know what specifically was the opinion given by the legal advisers of the Department. It was not a case of a claim against the Crown by a litigant; it was the claim of a certain district to a certain sum of money under a statute, and in such a case, and on the public service, the Committee should know exactly what the opinion was. It might save the locality from indulging in litigation against a powerful Department, having at command the resources of the State. Such litigation might be crushing on a locality in which, perhaps, a shilling rate meant only a few hundred pounds. In the public interest he asked the right hon. Gentleman if he was prepared to lay the opinion of the Law Officers on the Table?

could not undertake to lay on the Table the opinion of the Law Officers. It was the universal custom, as he knew, having been. Law Officer himself, not to make these opinions public. Why it should be he did not know. In other countries it was not so. In the United States he believed the opinions of law officers were published. In this country it was never done; and it was not for him to act counter to the universal custom.

on looking at the section of the Act, did not come to the conclusion at which the Law Officers arrived. Notwithstanding that precedents were against the publication of Law Officers' opinions, the Committee were entitled to ask the grounds upon which the opinion was given. It was plain that the proviso had been tacked on in Committee, and did not touch the first part of the section at all. There was nothing in the proviso to imply any limitation for any term of years. He invited the right hon. Gentleman to inform the Committee what his view of the section was, just as if there had been no Law Officers' opinion. The right hon. Gentleman had in view the interest of the Committee of Council, and he was perfectly certain the Committee of Council and the right hon. Gentleman would desire to pay these arrears, if allowed to do so by law. At the present time especially he should think they would be anxious to do so, for they were proposing to assist some classes of schools to a surprising degree. He did not think that the universal practice prevented the right hon. Gentleman from stating the grounds on which the opinion of the Law Officers was given. They constantly gave legal opinions to Members, but perhaps they were on a different footing to opinions given to the Government. There must be some remedy for the recovery of these arrears: the limitation of the recovery must be clearly expressed or necessarily implied from the provisions of the Act itself. The reason he asked the right hon. Gentleman to state his opinion was, that he believed the proper form for. School Board to adopt for recovery would be by Petition of Right to the Crown; and, no doubt, a School Board would be guided, in a large measure, by the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman.

suggested that the Vice President of the Committee of Council should take the opinion of all his colleagues on the point, and call them together to give it. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.]

pointed out that, though the ratepayers changed, the School Board was a continuing body. He hoped the Attorney General would tell them why it should be lawful to recover one year's arrears and be illegal to go beyond it.

said there had been a hard case at Tamworth, where the School Board lost one year's arrears through the Education Department not making up its mind. When the Board tried to recover it subsequently they found they could not do so.

said that during the time he had had the privilege of holding the office he did there had not been the slightest difference of opinion as to the production of the opinions of the Law Officers. Under no circumstances had they been produced unless it was thought some public purpose would be served. He had heard Mr. Gladstone on more than one occasion refuse to produce the opinions of his Law Officers, and it would be absolutely impossible for the Law Officers to fulfil their duty of advising the Government in confidential matters if their opinions could be produced. The Vice President of the Council had been. Law Officer himself and knew what was the rule. Coming to the other point raised, no one could read Section 97 without coming to the distinct opinion that it was intended that the grants should be annual grants in respect of annual expenditure, and that School Boards could not be allowed to claim several years' arrears which, for their convenience, they had accumulated. The condition as "to the satisfaction of the Education Department" was intended to enable the Department to make reasonable and proper rules and enable School Boards to show that contributions to proper annual charges only were being asked for.

asked whether the Circular of the Education Department in 1881, promising a second year's arrears, was not a departure from the legal doctrine which the Attorney General had laid down?

said he had carefully considered the Circular referred to. Prior to December 1881, there was not the strictness in regard to the matter that there ought to have been, and the Department, in the reasonable and proper exercise of its rights, laid down the Regulations which had been in force ever since.

submitted that there was no insuperable difficulty in the way of the Department issuing. Circular tomorrow, saying that owing to the circumstances they would consider the arrears not only for the immediately preceding year, but for the two or three previous years. The intention of Parliament clearly was that poor districts should have these sums of money allotted to them for the provision of school buildings, clearing off the sinking funds, and meeting all the necessities of education. There was a poor village in his own divison where agricultural land had been going down in a value, while the school rate had grown up to 1s. 11d. in the pound. That School Board had been for many years past entitled to receive this amount, but was not aware of it. It seemed to him that, whatever might be the legal position, there was the strongest moral claim on the part of such. Board to have those arrears considered, as it was clearly the intention of Parliament that these sums should be given from year to rear.

explained to the Attorney General (who had been absent during the hon. Member's previous speech) that he had not questioned any opinion which had been given by the Law Officers of the Crown, but had asked what were the grounds for that opinion, as the matter did not seem quite clear from doubt. He would point out that the section appeared to divide itself into two distinct parts. The first part dealt with the conditions of the annual Parliamentary grant, and it did not appear to have any connection with the second part, which was in the nature of a proviso, and as to which he hazarded the opinion that it had been tacked on in Committee. The Attorney General said that only one year was recoverable here. He would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman this question a assume the Estimates were prepared for the year 1895–96, that would only contemplate a state of things up to the 31st March 1896. The school year for 1895–96 would be from September 1895 to September 1896. What was the date within which the School Board might claim the year's account if it should be limited to one year. Were they to be allowed to have another year from September 1896. If only one year was recoverable, was it recoverable at any time?

replied that all schools did not end their year on the 29th September, and it did not matter in the least whether the financial year of a school ended then, or on the 31st December, or on the 31st March. What was asked for by the Department was an account under the section in respect of the year, and which was recoverable, for the purpose of the Estimates. The Circular was issued in regard to the 29th September accounts, and provided that the account was a fair estimate for the year ending September 29 in any particular year. Then it could be made the subject of a claim for the purpose of the succeeding year's Estimate, and it was that which the Department hail no doubt in view when they stud they would allow a period of, practically speaking, another year, for the actual account to be made up; although the two years—the school year and the financial year—did not termnate on the same date, for practical purposes they would be treated as so doing, and the fact that the educational year ended on the 29th September created no difficulty. The Circular was to direct how the claims for the twelve months should be made up, and that was its only effect. The reason that difficulty had arisen was because there had been attempts to bring into the scheme for the one year the expenses or allowances which might have been claimed in past years.

said he did not wish to raise any of the contentious questions, but item J, he thought, required some explanation. So far as he understood the matter the Government seemed to have arrived at a satisfactory settlement of a question which had occupied a good deal of their time last Session and part of this. But he thought it would be satisfactory if the Secretary to the Treasury would explain what the settlement was, as it evidently required serious consideration before they could discuss it.

said this was only part of the whole contribution, which was about £108,000, including the payment to the Teachers' Pension Fund on another Vote. The whole sum was in respect of a the arrears of the grant for the last four or five rears, based on a capitation fee of 10s. The reason why the £12,600. in item J had been detached from the £95,000, which was to go towards the Teachers' Pension Fund, was that the convent and monastery schools had got no interest in the Teachers' Pension Fund, and it would be hardly fair to deprive them of their share of the arrears. The arrears in the case of all other schools interested in the Pension Fund would be devoted to putting that Fund on a sound footing.

asked if the Secretary to the Treasury could state whether or not the Pension Fund at present would be actuarially sufficient for the claims of existing teachers, because if the teachers understood that it was not sufficient to meet the claims of existing teachers it would modify their feeling as to the disposition of that money.

said he did not think he should be able to reply to the hon. Member on the present Vote, because the matter he had referred to was on a separate Vote, dealing with all the teachers who were not teachers in monastic schools.

thought it was not an unsatisfactory thing that they should have been able, by knocking somewhat repeatedly at the door of the Treasury, to extract something like £100,000, and hoped it was a foretaste of the other things which they were going to get by similar procedure. Vote agreed to.

said he should not attempt to debate questions of policy, but some portion of the Vote related to the reception of Li Hung Chang, who came to this country last year in a capacity that was somewhat undefined. There was an impression that his visit was likely to have some influence which would be beneficial to this country in their dealings with China and questions of the China trade. He believed that impression had proved to be entirely erroneous. He desired to know whether on the Foreign Office Vote any statement would be made with regard to the Government's policy in a connection with recent treaties and negotiations in China. The prestige of this country in that part of the world had apparently received a considerable blow, and he thought an opportunity should be afforded of debating that question, and questions connected with the present position of Korea, and other matters.

said that, on the point regarding Li Hung Chang raised by the right hon. Baronet, it was not correct to say that he occupied an undefined position when he visited this country. He came here as. Special Envoy with special letters of credence from the Emperor of China to the Queen, and, whatever may have been the impression entertained in some quarters as to the benefits which might accrue to our trade in China from his visit, he did come for the purpose of laying specific proposals before Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Baronet asked whether an opportunity would not be given at a later stage, perhaps on the Foreign Office Vote, of hearing something as to the Government's policy in the Far East. He thought that was a most reasonable demand, and he did not think the Secretary of State would have any other desire whatever than to comply with it. If no other opportunity occurred in the course of the next few weeks, the hon. Member for the Ecclesall division of Sheffield had got a Motion down at an early date for a discussion on the policy of the Government in that part of the world. But, if that opportunity did not occur, he did not think there would be any objection whatever to a statement being made, when the Foreign Office Vote came on, as to what was going on in that part of the world, and what were the views of the Government. The proposals made by Li Hung Chang were merely trading proposals.

thought they should have had. Blue-book upon this question. Vague statements which appeared in the news-payers were not sufficient, and as the question was urgent at the present moment, they ought to have adequate information. Surely sufficient time had elapsed. There was an item of £1,000 under the head "Manica Boundary." That was a boundary between some of the South Africa Chartered Company's possessions which was due to a war which took place between the Company and, practically, the Portuguese. If there was to be a boundary the Company ought to pay for it.

thought the hon. Member was mistaken, as this was territory administered by the British Crown A treaty was signed in 1891 between Great Britain and the Portuguese as to the frontier of their possessions in that part of Africa, and the delimitation consequent upon that treaty was then begun. There was disagreement between the two parties' Commissioners, and the dispute was referred to arbitration. The arbitration resulted very decidedly in our favour. Vote agreed to. 19. £36,700, Supplementary, British Protectorates in Uganda and Central and East Africa.

said this was money to cover the cost of operations in two wars which had taken place on the coast. As he had done on previous occasions, he protested against the Foreign Office carrying on wars of this description. MR. Harding, and the other excellent Foreign Office clerks, were not the people to carry on these wars a in fact, the sooner the Foreign Office got out of this East African territory and handed it over to the Colonial Office the better for all concerned.

asked what quid pro quo we got for the expenditure of £36,700? One of his strong objections to the expenditure of such large sums of money in Africa was that, not only was it unjust, but that we did not get anything for it. Could the Under Secretary show the Committee that in meal or malt we had got £30,000 or even £500 worth for our money?

said the object of the expenditure had been very clearly explained in. Blue-book laid before Parliament. What we had gained was the pacification of the Zanzibar Protectorate which we had assumed. Disturbances arose owing to the hostile attitude of important Arab chiefs, and in consequence a regiment was sent from India, The operations conducted were entirely successful, and now throughout that long strip of maritime territory over which we exercised supremacy and which we were governing there was perfect peace and tranquillity.

said he should not divide the Committee, as the money had been spent, but he objected to the expenditure of a shilling of British money in establishing peace and tranquillity in any part of Africa, [A laugh.] Vote agreed to. 20. £14,980, Supplementary, Colonial Services, including South Africa.

asked for an explanation of the expenditure of £1,000, consequent on the transfer of buildings in Norfolk Island to the Government of New South Wales.

asked whether the Colonial Secretary would give some information as to the second item, one relating to the Transvaal?

said the condition of things in Norfolk Island had got as bad as it could. There was practically no proper administration of justice, and it was absolutely necessary to make a change. It was the opinion of the Government that it would be very much better that this dependency should be governed by New South Wales. The Government of New South Wales expressed their readiness to undertake the government, but, when doing so, represented that the administrative buildings had been allowed to get into a terrible state of repair. £1,000 was granted for the repairs, but he believed the expenses had been more than was calculated. The change which had taken place was apparently entirely satisfactory. The late British Agent stood in rather a different position. No archives were kept and there were no means of dealing properly with the business of the office. It was an arrangement made under totally different circumstances, before the post became of the great importance that it was at present. ["Hear, hear!"] When the new Agent was appointed it was necessary to provide him with a new residence. It was found that no house suitable could be obtained on lease, and it was necessary to purchase a house and make additions to it. When it was remembered that house property in Pretoria was, he thought, more expensive than in the West-end of London, he believed it would be felt that on the whole they had done the best they could. ["Hear, hear!"]

expressed his satisfaction as to what had been done with regard to Norfolk Island and the way in which the transfer had been carried out. Vote agreed to. 21. £1,200, Supplementary, Slave Trade Services.

asked for information as to the suppression of slavery in Zanzibar.

said there could be no doubt there had been a large increase in the shipping of slaves to the island.

thought that a discussion on slavery on this item, which was very limited, would be out of order.

said, in view of the fact that the late Government had been subjected to a vote of censure on this Question, he thought they ought to know whether anything had been done, or, at least, how soon the Government would make a statement on the subject I Would it be on the Foreign Office Vote?

thought that would be the proper course to pursue. Vote agreed to. 22. £16,304, Treasury Chest Fund.

asked for an explanation of this somewhat mysterious item.

explained that the deficiency chiefly arose in connection with one local Treasury Chest, and this was due to the quarterly rating of the Mexican dollar. Vote agreed to.

thought this was a very important matter, and he regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not there to explain to them this very important new departure in connection with Savings Banks. For the first time a deficiency was shown, and it was necessary, in his opinion, for the Government to have some distinct policy. (The Chancellor of the Exchequer having come in.) He hoped they should have some idea given them, of what the policy of the Government was to be. It was obvious that after giving 2½ per cent. there was absolutely no margin.

hoped the Government would look carefully into the matter. Some extension might be made of the limits within which savings banks funds could be invested, and everything possible done to encourage the habits of thrift of the people.

remarked that on the third item there was a considerable increase in the Estimate for the deficiency for friendly societies and savings banks.

said the reason of the Vote was that the annual interest arising from sums invested was less than the interest paid to depositors and the expenses of management of the banks. The sums invested at the present rate at which Government securities had to be purchased, obviously produced a very low rate of interest indeed. Consols and other securities of the kind to which the investments of these banks were limited by law, stood at a very high rate last year, and consequently the profits of the banks fell in proportion. He had been asked to make a statement of policy. Last year he saw what was coming, and he had brought forward this Vote rather earlier than usual in order that the attention of the House of Commons might be directed to the matter. ["Hear!"] This was the first time it had been necessary to ask Parliament to subsidise the Post Office Savings Banks, and it clearly amounted to this—that the Government were paying depositors in those banks a higher rate of interest for their money than that money could really earn. That was earn thing which could continue. [Cheers.] He did not believe that depositors themselves would desire to receive from the State what he must call a kind of charity. He admitted that these banks were of the greatest value to the community; but it was not necessary to their value that they should pay more interest than they could earn. The public were induced to invest in Post Office Savings Banks far more by the sense of security given than by the particular rate of interest paid on their money. ["Hear, hear."] When he was asked whether he could suggest an extension of the limits at present imposed on investments by the banks, he was bound to say that he saw great difficulties in the matter. It must be remembered that the State was liable for this money, and it I would be a very dangerous thing for the State to receive this enormous sum from depositors to whom it was actually liable and then invest the money in securities of a more or less speculative nature on which great losses might be suffered. Under the present law the investments were confined to securities guaranteed by the State, and he should be most reluctant to make a change in that direction. He did not wish to say anything more at present, because he had not made up his mind as to what was to be done in a matter which was full of difficulties and was of great importance. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not wish to move in the matter one single day sooner than was necessary. So long as the present rate of interest could be maintained he wished to maintain it; but he must warn the Committee that the time was rapidly coming when it must be considered whether it might not be necessary, perhaps not in all but in some cases, to reduce the present rate of interest. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked how the deficiency was arrived at. Was account taken of the redemption of Consols, which were now selling at 113 and which were liable to be redeemed at 100?

said that if the hon. Member would look at the Returns annually presented, he would find full particulars.

explained that really the amount of interest paid varied very fractionally for most depositors, whether the rate were ½ per cent. higher or lower. The security was the great point. It was not necessary to consider the larger deposits, up to £200. very large number of the deposits were of £5, £6, and £7, and in those cases it was obvious that the reduction of the interest by ½ per cent. would only mean to each depositor a difference of a fraction of a farthing a week. It would be a bad thing if it were to get about that a large Parliamentary Vote was necessary to balance the bank's accounts. As to enlarging the scope of investments, whatever security was permitted would be practically guaranteed by the State, its price would at once rise to the price of Consols, and the object of the Government would thereby be frustrated. There was no alternative to reducing the rate of interest. He had had long experience of a penny bank, in which the rate of interest had recently to be reduced; and no ill-effects to the popularity of the Institution resulted.

hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider very carefully before he changed the rate of interest. While the Parliamentary grant was so small, it would be a pity to disturb a system which was of such value to the poor people a and there might be reason to think that the deficiency would not be permanent. Vote agreed to. 24. £95,434, Teachers' Pension Fund, Ireland.

asked from, what sources this money was to be drawn? Was it money due to the Irish schools, and, if so, had care been taken to ascertain whether the teachers who were entitled to these arrears were quite satisfied with the proposal to place the money in the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund? He was glad that something was being done to strengthen the Fund, but regretted that nothing had been done to redeem the promise to establish a similar fund for England and Scotland.