I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a case heard at the Thames Police Court, on the 8th February, of one John Redmond, who having applied for admission on the previous day to the Strand Casual Ward, was told that it was full, and directed to the Rotherithe Casual Ward, a distance of three miles; on arriving there was sent on to the St. George's in the East Casual Ward, a further distance of two miles, and was thence again told to go to the Poplar Casual Ward; whether the respective guardians of those unions, by thus sending an applicant wandering about over the Metropolis, fulfilled their statutory obligations; and whether he will represent to the guardians the necessity to make provision for overflows, by giving direction to the relieving officer or otherwise?

I have caused careful inquiry to be made with regard to the statements by Redmond at the Thames Police Court, and I am satisfied that his allegations as to his being sent wandering about over the Metropolis in consequence of the casual wards being full is without foundation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if he is aware that Mr. John Porter-Porter, J.P., adjudicated at the Lisbellaw Petty Sessions as a magistrate in September 1896; (2) is Lisbellaw in the district mentioned in this gentleman's commission as a place where he is entitled to adjudicate as a magistrate; (3) was the occasion referred to the first upon which Mr. Porter-Porter adjudicated as a magistrate at Lisbellaw Petty Sessions, and were ten persons on trial on that occasion for alleged participation in a party riot, which took place at Tempo in August 1896: (4) is this Mr. Porter-Porter the same Mr. Porter-Porter who was deprived for a time of the commission of the peace; and (5) will the Lord Chancellor of Ireland see to it that Mr. Porter-Porter be restricted for the future in his judicial operations to the districts limned in his commission of the peace.

The gentleman named in the question was appointed to the Commission of the Peace for the County Fermanagh for the purpose of attending the Lisbellaw Petty Sessions, and he did as a matter of fact attend these Sessions on the occasion mentioned. The reply to the fourth paragraph is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether similar compensation for the loss of property will be allowed to the officers and crew wrecked in the Royal Indian marine ship Warren Hastings as that granted to the troops who were on board when the catastrophe occurred?

Compensation is admissible for loss of property by shipwreck, and will be allowed to the officers and men of the Royal Indian marine ship Warren Hastings. [Cheers.]

Whereas those most active in saving life suffered the most in loss of property, not having time to attend to such matters, I desire to ask a question regarding a concrete case which I can vouch for, and I believe not to be isolated. Will the hon. Gentleman give consideration to the case of Lieutenant Walter Windham, who was the first man to take a rope over the bow and reach the land, afterwards saving five lives from drowning, and being recommended for the Humane Society's medal by Commander Holland? He has lost all his property which was on the ship.

No doubt the exceptional conduct of Lieutenant Windham will be considered, but I do not think it would entitle him to special compensation for the loss of his property.

These men have lost everything they had.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of tenants who have been turned into caretakers by the seventh section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887; and, whether he can give an estimate of the number of such tenants who are now in occupation of their holdings as caretakers, and outside all benefit from the Land Law Acts?

The number of notices served throughout Ireland under Section 7 of the Act of 1887, between the date of the passing of that Act and December 31, 189G, was 58,626. There are no statistics available showing the proportion of tenants so served who were restored to their holdings either as caretakers or as tenants, nor has the Government any means at its disposal of obtaining reliable information on the subject. I may add that the number of tenants, actually evicted during the ten years ended December 31, 1896, was 14,489, and it may be assumed that in the great majority of the remaining 44,137 cases in which eviction proceedings did not follow the service of notices under Section 7 settlements were arrived at between landlord and tenant, though, as already stated, I have no means of ascertaining whether in these cases the tenants were restored as caretakers or as tenants.

asked whether, where settlements were arrived at, in all cases the tenants would be shut out of then-rights under the Land Act.

said the position of the tenant in cases of settlement depended upon the agreement between landlord and tenant.

asked whether, where settlements had been arrived at, the tenants would not become "future tenants" and deprived of the benefit of the Land Act.

Not necessarily. There might be an arrangement to secure the continuation of its benefits.

I bog to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if, in orders given out by the Admiralty, efforts have been made to insure that all goods ordered shall, as far as possible, be of British and Irish manufacture?

The general principle upon which the Admiralty orders are given is to take goods of British and Irish manufacture in preference to similar goods of foreign manufacture. The cases in which goods of foreign manufacture or origin are taken are extremely few in number, and limited to a certain class of articles only produced abroad or under foreign patents. The Admiralty has been successful in cultivating the manufacture in this country by British firms of some articles which had previously been produced or manufactured only in foreign countries.

After that satisfactory answer, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if he takes care not to be ensnared by agents of foreign firms resident in this country?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will direct an Inquiry to be held at Tramore, county Waterford, to ascertain whether something can be done under Clause 9 or any other clause of the Railways (Ireland) Act of last Session towards building a fishery pier at Tramore?

There is no power under the Railways Act of 1896 to advance any money by way of grant or loan on any pier unless such pier forms part of a railway or of a scheme promoted under that Act. It appears, moreover, from a report received from the Inspectors of Fisheries, that they do not consider Tramore as of sufficient importance, from a fishery point of view, to justify the expenditure of any sum of money, even if such were available for the construction of fishery piers.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state the reason why the mails are still conveyed from Downpatrick to Ardglass by car and not by the railway, which was opened on 8th July 1892; and whether, on the expiration of the existing contract, if any, the mails will be conveyed by train between Ardglass and Downpatrick?

The reason for conveying the mails from Downpatrick to Ardglass by car and not by railway is that the mails reach Ardglass by car at 7.35 a.m., while the first train does not arrive there until 9.18 a.m. If, hereafter, the Company should run for their own purposes trains at hours suitable for the mail service, the question of sending the bags by railway can be further considered; but the case is not one in which special expense would be justified in order to secure the running of trains at times when they are not required for ordinary traffic.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the hardship which will be inflicted upon members of friendly societies, accustomed to send sick pay to their members and to receive their contributions through the Post Office, by the increased commission charged on money orders of under 20s. in value; and whether he will consider the expediency of reverting to the commission of 2d. on orders under 20s. hitherto charged?

I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on Tuesday last to the hon. Members for South Somerset and the Leominster Division of Herefordshire.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what is the present position of affairs in Korea; (2) whether the King is still under Russian protection; (3) whether Russian officers are engaged in drilling local troops; and (1) whether the position is consistent with the Russian pledge communicated by China to Her Majesty's Government at the time of the abandonment of Port Hamilton, and afterwards laid before Parliament.

In answer to the first question, Her Majesty's Consul General has reported that the King left the Russian Legation and removed to his own Palace on February 20th. In answer to the third question, some of the Korean troops are, it is believed, undergoing a course of instruction by Russian officers. And in answer to the fourth question, such a proceeding does not appear to be inconsistent with the assurance given by-Russia in 1886, which was a guarantee that in the future she will not take Korean territory.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information which would confirm or contradict the published reports of a Treaty between Russia and Japan relative to Korea, and particularly as to that alleged term of the Treaty, or Memorandum accompanying the Treaty, whereby Russia and Japan agree to exclude from the territory of Korea all foreign troops other than their own.

Her Majesty's Government have been for some time past aware of the existence of an arrangement between Russia and Japan in regard to Korea. They have not had the text of the agreement, but the version published by the Russian Official Messenger, and reproduced by The Times, does not appear to bear the construction placed upon it in the Question. It declares the object of the contracting parties to be the removal of foreign troops from Korea; the reference, as the context indicates, being to the guards which Russia and Japan have up to the present date maintained at their respective legations.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Kildare (Mr. C. J. ENGLEDOW), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the disastrous effects of the floods in the River Barrow during the last 12 months has been brought to his notice, when the low-lying portions of many of the towns on its banks were flooded, and the produce of a very large area of the adjoining lands destroyed; and whether he will consider the urgent necessity that exists for the adoption of some scheme for the drainage of that river?

Representations of the nature indicated have been made to Government, but I can only repeat what I have already stated on more than one occasion, that the evidence in the matter of the proposed drainage has been carefully looked into, with the result that I am forced to the conclusion that the cost of the work would be largely in excess of the estimate formed by the Allport Commission, and that even if the Treasury were willing to ask Parliament to provide the large sum necessary, it could probably be applied to more useful purposes in Ireland.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Kildare, (Mr. ENGLEDOW), I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Officer commanding the 8th Battalion of the King's Royal Rifle Corps has sent in his resignation; and if so, in the interests of the regiment, will he recommend for the consideration of the Field Marshal Commander-in-Chief the appointment of a Commanding Officer who has formerly served in the Regular Army?

The Commanding Officer has resigned. It rests with the Field Marshal Commanding in Ireland to recommend a successor.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Sutton-in-Ashfield School Board in 1885 made an application for arrears of grants under Section 97 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870; that the Department then replied that, owing to the Circular of 1881, they were unable to pay more than the grant for the then current year, 1885, and the preceding year, 1884; and that after further correspondence the Department received a deputation from the Board, and ultimately allowed the Board the grant for a third year, the year 1883; and whether he will lay the Correspondence and the Minutes of the interview with the deputation, and any other documents in the case, upon the Table of the House?

The application of the Sutton-in-Ashfield School Board was made in December, 1884, for the grant for the year ending 29th September, 1884, and for the previous year. The School Board alleged that the accounts for the previous year had not been audited till April 1884. The application for the year ending 29th September, 1883, was twice refused, but after an interview, which took place in April, 1885, and of which no memorandum appears to have been kept, was granted. I can show the hon. Member the correspondence in which the arrears were refused, but there is no record of the reasons for which it was ultimately granted.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can state on what grounds the grant was given originally?

No, Sir, I cannot state on what grounds, because the interview took place first in the year 1885, that is 12 years ago, and of that no record appears to have been kept in the office. Therefore I am in the dark as to the reason.

I am not speaking of the interview, but of the refusal by a letter of the Department.

I will show the hon. Member the letter if he wishes; it was a refusal on the ground that it could not be paid.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to tell the House as well as to show the correspondence?

Not the slightest. I stated the other night that it was declined on the ground that, under the circular of 1881, the grant for 1883 could not be paid, because it was not asked for in time.

If I move for the correspondence, will it be put on the table?

Certainly.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether representations have been received from various ship-owners and from Chambers of Commerce in Philadelphia, Boston, and elsewhere, complaining of the unfair discrimination which the operation of the Load-line Rules gives in favour of the ports of Baltimore, Newport News, and Norfolk for winter loading, and urging that all Atlantic ports north of Cape Hatteras be put on one footing; whether the Board propose to take any steps in this direction; and, whether the Board will furnish as a Parliamentary Paper all the communications which have been received from or sent to shipowners, Register Societies, Chambers of Commerce, Consuls, and others during the past three years on the subject of the winter North Atlantic Load-line?

Yes, Sir; the Board of Trade have received representations to the effect stated by my hon. Friend, and have carefully considered them. Before approving modifications of the Load-line Rules, the Board of Trade are bound by Statute to have regard to the representations of the several approved load-line authorities, and, in this instance, those representations have not been of such a nature as to enable the Board to take any steps at present. I should have no objection to the presentation of the correspondence, provided the other parties to it agree, and I will communicate with them on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the requirements of Article 10, b, c, of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (1884) have been found impracticable in the case of small fishing boats, and are not complied with; whether the recommendations of the Washington Conference (Article 9) on this subject were, at the request of the Board of Trade, left out of consideration by the Committee of 1890; and whether anything has since been done, or is now being done, to amend these Regulations?

I am aware that small fishing boats have sometimes experienced difficulty in complying with the requirements of the Regulations hitherto existing. But the recommendations of the Washington Conference, together with other proposals on the subject of fishing vessels' lights, have (with the concurrence of the Powers) been held over pending the settlement of the main code of Rules of the Road at Sea. Now that that code has been settled, no effort will be spared to deal with the subject to which the hon. Member refers, with a view to such amendment of the Regulations as may be found advisable.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Board of Trade is likely to arrive at any conclusion as to the fishing vessel regulations?

I do not think I can add anything more to what I have said. These matters stood over with the general consent until the settlement of the main code had been concluded. That is now agreed upon.

was understood to ask whether they would see the code of rules before they were proposed to be enforced on the fishing vessels.

That I cannot say.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, what arrangements have been made or are in contemplation for the reception and quartering of the Colonial troops visiting England in connection with the celebration of the 60th anniversary of Her Majesty's reign?

Arrangements will be made, and are at present under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the British and Irish mails delivered in New York by the White Star steamer Adriatic on 23rd February were 16 days en route; what was the cause of this delay; and whether the Postal Authorities will put a stop to the practice of dispatching letters by steamers that are notoriously unable to satisfy the requirements of a fast mail service?

No, Sir. The English, Scotch, and Irish mails were embarked on board the packet Adriatic at Queenstown, at twenty minutes to 1 p.m. on the 11th of February; and the Packet arrived in New York at half-past 3 a.m. on the 22nd, thus occupying less than 11 days on the voyage, and not 16 days as the bon. Member suggests. The cause of the delay which did take place was unusually heavy weather. The Adriatic is only used occasionally, when one of the better steamers has to be withdrawn for overhaul. Such withdrawal is expressly provided for in the Mail Contract, and as the Company are fulfilling the terms of their Contract in employing the fastest steamer belonging to them available, the Postmaster General would have no ground for taking the course suggested.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Limerick (Mr. J. FINUCANE), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is a ware that negotiations are proceeding upon the estate of Captain Coote, Mount Coote, county Limerick, which are confidently expected to end in the restoration of the evicted tenants on this property to their homes; (2) if he will cause inquiry to be made into the conduct of Sergeant J. O'Brien, of Kilmallock, who is trying to persuade one of the tenants named O'Connell to sell the goodwill of his holding for £150; and (3) if this police sergeant will be instructed that it is no part of his duty to interfere in any way between evicted tenants and their landlords in the matter of pending settlements?

I have no knowledge of any negotiations, as alleged, between the landlord of this estate and the tenants who are out of possession. With regard to the second and third paragraphs, it appears that Sergeant O'Brien, at the request of O'Connell, an evicted tenant, spoke to the agent of the estate in O'Connell's behalf, and the result of the sergeant's mediation was that O'Connell received the sum of £150 for the goodwill of his holding, from which he was evicted upwards of 14 years ago. O'Connell has thanked the sergeant for his good offices and expressed his satisfaction at having this sum of money in his pocket. The sergeant did not exceed his duty in this case; what he did was at the instance of and with the consent of the parties, and by his action he has succeeded in bringing about a settlement which is apparently as satisfactory to all concerned as it is in the interests of peace.

Are we to understand that the Constabulary in Ireland are to act as mediators between landlords and evicted tenants in the matter of pending settlements?

No, Sir, that would not naturally be part of the official duty of the constable. But when a constable has succeeded in bringing the parties together, as in this instance, I do not think he ought to be blamed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Return of Judicial Rents fixed in November last is to be taken as representing the rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners or as the rents decided on appeal by the Head Commission; if the former, how are the results in those cases where appeals were taken to be known; if the hitter, how is the variation in the rents made by the Head Commission to be ascertained; and, in view of the state of feeling in Ulster in regard to the work of the Chief Land Commission, and the fact that newspapers publish the results of their proceedings, he will take steps to allow Members to ascertain accurately what has been the result of the procedure of that Court?

The Return referred to is to be taken as representing rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners, and not as rents fixed by the Land Commission on appeal. It does not purport to show the variation of Sub-Commission rents made by the Appeal Court. In the annual report of the Land Commission to March, 1896, page 41, such a Return, showing variation, county by county, is given for the year, and this has been the practice followed since 1881. It has not been the practice to show the variation in individual cases in Returns of the Land Commission. The results of individual appeals can be given monthly, but, as before stated, to do so will cause considerable additional trouble and expense, as the information could not be included in the present tables, but must be set forth by adding additional tables to the Returns.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is really any difficulty in securing a report of the results of these appeals? Surely the results are recorded, and there can be no real difficulty in adding the reports of the Sub-Commissioners. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable urgency in Ireland as regards these appeals?

Certainly it would not be impossible, and, if a wish is expressed for them, I will ask the Land Commissioners to make such a Return. I may point out to the right hon. Gentleman, and I think he will appreciate the remark, that the Returns referring to appeals to the Land Commissioners would not have reference to the rents as fixed by the Sub-Commissioners in the same month. It would be probably five or six months afterwards before such Returns could be published; but, if it is pressed for, I will ask the Commissioners to give the information.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of Sir Arthur Cotton, as published in The Friend of China, that the Godavery River might at this moment be pouring rice into the famine districts of the North in immense quantities, at a nominal cost of carriage of one penny a bushel, if only the several pieces of canal in the 1,000 miles between were united, which they might be for the cost of 20 miles of railway; and whether the Indian Government will consider the advisability of shortly undertaking the necessary works?

The Godavery River Navigation Works, to which the hon. Member's Question relates, were carefully considered by the Government of the Central Provinces, the Government of India, and the Secretary of State in Council in 1871, and all these authorities agreed that the works should not be proceeded with. The large expenditure involved would have been out of all proportion, not only to the prospects of traffic, but to the amount of protection from famine which the undertaking might have afforded. There is no reason to believe that the Government of India have any intention of now proceeding with the scheme.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution adopted by a committee of the National Teachers' Organisation, in which that body declines to recognise the payment of £10,000 a year to the pension fund for the benefit of future teachers as an adequate compensation for the loss of their share of the school grant; and in view of the general dissatisfaction of the National Teachers, he will represent to the Treasury the necessity of meeting the teachers' claim for the arrears of school grant.

This question is based on a misapprehension of the proposals of the Government. These proposals were explained last Friday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury; and were, I think, of a nature, that will be generally recognised as liberal.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it would be possible to arrange that the two small cruisers, about to be ordered for the Scottish Fishery Board, shall be built in private yards in order to give Scottish shipbuilders an opportunity to tender for their construction?

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has yet determined to invite tenders for the two new vessels to be provided for the Scottish Fishery Board for the service of the East Coast, with a view to enabling private firms in the East Coast ports to compete; and, if so, when it is likely that an announcement regarding the sending in of such tenders will be made?

It is certainly the intention of the Fishery Board to invite tenders from private firms in the first instance for the larger boat, and no time will be lost in getting specifications prepared and tenders advertised for.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that a large number of people, often between 10,000 and 20,000, assemble on Hampton Court Green on Sundays and Bank Holidays, and that absolutely no sanitary arrangements exist there; and whether he will make provision in his Estimates for providing such sanitary arrangements there as may be necessary?

I am prepared to admit that some provision of this kind has become necessary. It is, however, too late now to deal with the matter in regard to the Estimates for 1897–98. I will promise to consider it in connection with the local authorities, with a view to proposing to the Treasury the insertion of a sum on account of the work in the following year's Estimates.

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to put up some temporary shed for accommodation, because it is very necessary?

I should wish to see the local authorities before giving such a pledge, as I am of opinion that some share in any such building should be borne by the locality.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the terms of reference to the Horse-breeding Commission in Ireland allow of any expression of opinion as to the action and working of the Congested Districts Board; (2) whether about one-fifth of the whole income of the Board and of the £6,000 voted annually by Parliament in aid of its expenses is being and has been absorbed by their horse-breeding operations, and the greater part spent in the neighbourhood of Dublin; and (3) if the Congested Districts Board misapplies its funds, what remedy has the public or the congested population for whom it holds its funds in trust?

As regards the first paragraph of the question of my hon. and gallant Friend, it will be for the Commission to put its own interpretation upon the terms of reference. Of the total expenditure of the Congested Districts Board on all purposes to the 31st March 1896, about one-eighth was spent on horse-breeding operations, and nearly one-half of this was capital expenditure on buildings and the purchase of horses. A comparatively small portion of the outlay on horses is spent in Dublin. The sum of £5,944, provided in the current year's Estimates in aid of the Board's expenses, is appropriated to the payment of the salaries and general administrative expenses of the Board, and the clerical labour employed in connection with the horse-breeding scheme would not absorb more than £200 of this amount. As regards the last paragraph, the accounts of the Board are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, who, no doubt, would detect any irregularity in the event of the misapplication of the Board's funds.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the advisability of opening this year the two avenues in The Mall, from Buckingham Palace to the Horse Guards, for cyclists, taking into consideration the small amount of traffic there?

No, Sir. I regret to say that I cannot undertake to do this. Apart from any other considerations, I would point out to my hon. Friend that these avenues are set aside as footpaths, and it would be dangerous to pedestrians and not in accordance with general law to allow cycling traffic on footways. The exclusion of foot passengers from these walks, even if practicable, would not, I feel sure, meet with general approbation.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Report on last year's Naval Manœuvres will be published?

The narrative of the Naval Manœuvres shall be presented to Parliament, as it has been in previous years, when asked for.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Turkish transports, carrying Turkish troops from one part of the coast of Crete to another, have been escorted by British ships of war?

Inquiry has been made of the British Admiral in Crete, and he has replied that no such incident has occurred.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether Her Majesty's Government will instruct by telegraph the Admiral commanding the British Fleet in Cretan waters to send by telegraph a full account of the international bombardment that took place on 22nd February, and a reply to the questions: Whether any Turkish vessel took part in that bombardment; whether the Turkish land forces were firing upon the Cretan position when that bombardment commenced; and how often Turkish troops have issued from Canea since the occupation of that town by the Great Powers, and have, after attacking Cretan forces, returned there; with a view to place this House in full possession of the above facts; and (2) whether the notification that has been issued by the Admirals of the Fleets of the Great Powers in Cretan waters in regard to acts of hostility taking place in sight of the foreign war vessels applies alike to Turkish and Cretan forces. The hon. Member added: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say whether the Government have received the Dispatch from the Great Powers, dated February 24, the text of which appears in The Dally Chronicle to-day, and contains full details of the Note.

With regard to the last question, I feel bound to say that it is not supplementary to that on the Paper. I believe the Dispatch contained in The Daily Chronicle has not been received by the Government. In reply to the question on the Paper, the Admiral has been instructed to send a full report of the incidents of February 21st, but from the telegrams hitherto received, the substance of which I have communicated to the House, a sufficiently clear account of the proceedings and an answer to the main points raised in the question appear already to be in our possession. It does not appear from them that any Turkish vessel took part in the bombardment. The second question I cannot answer, because I do not understand to what Turkish land forces, or to what Cretan position, the hon. Member refers. Both parties occupy several positions and have been firing intermittently at each other for a fortnight. No Turkish troops have sallied from Canea since the occupation of that town by the Great Powers, and consequently none have returned there. The instructions to the British Admiral lay stress upon the desirability that each combatant in the island should as far as possible be prevented from aggressive action against the other, and the Admirals of the Allied Squadrons have issued a proclamation to the inhabitants announcing their intention to oppose any hostile act in presence of their ships in any part of the island.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question of winch I have given him private notice—namely, whether his attention has been called to a Dispatch in The Daily News this morning, in which the critical condition of the 3,000 Mussulmans at Candano and Selino is pointed out, and whether the Great Powers have been able to take any effective steps for their relief?

I have not seen the Dispatch to which my hon. Friend refers, but I believe it is quite right in describing the situation of those beleaguered garrisons as most critical. The information I have to give in answer to the question is this—that a squadron of four ships of the allied fleet has been sent to the towns on the coast where there are beleaguered garrisons or populations. I gather from our telegrams that an international escort is being sent to facilitate the process of relief, that two ships of the squadron have gone to Selino, and that Her Majesty's ship Scout has also proceeded to the same destination. At the same time Colonel Vassos has promised the Admirals to send a Greek officer to induce the insurgents to allow the free departure of the garrisons. ["Hear, hear!"]

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if Her Majesty's Government has authorised the British Admiral to carry out the advice of the throe Consuls that the fleet should land a force of 300 men to protect these beleaguered Mussulmans?

The Admiral, in concert with his colleagues, has full authority to take such steps as he thinks necessary but of course he must be a better judge of the circumstances than we are.

Then he has got authority to land a force?

Yes.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can give any information as to the precise date of publication of the Report of the Departmental Committee on the health of the British troops in India, which is at present under his consideration?

I have nothing to add to the answers which I have already given to this Question.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a Bill dealing with the adulteration of food will be introduced this Session by the Government; and, if so, when; and, whether the Bill will embody the recommendations of the Committee which considered the question of food adulteration, or whether it will deal with an Amendment to the Food and Drugs Act as distinct from the Margarine Act?

I am afraid that the only answer I can give to the Question of the hon. Member is this, that the introduction of a Bill dealing with the question of the adulteration of food must depend on the progress of public business. The object and provisions of the Bill will be explained when it is introduced, and I could not enter into any details of the contemplated Measure now, but I may say this—we propose to deal with the matter as a whole.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the public statement recently made by the parish priest of Sneem, County Kerry, that the agricultural rates (county cess and poor's rate) in that district are almost ten shillings in the pound valuation; and, whether, in view of this fact, the Government will reconsider the question of affording relief to the occupiers of land in Ireland on similar terms to those given last Session to the English occupier under the Agricultural Rating Act?

I am informed that the county cess and poor rate combined in this district amounted last year to nine shillings in the pound on the valuation. I have already stated that it is not the intention of the Government to introduce an Agricultural Land Rating Act for Ireland.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to a letter of the late Postmaster General, Mr. Arnold Morley, to the hon. Member for Canterbury, in which the writer officially laid down the right of the Post Office to take over the telephone system of this country, without conditions in the year 1911; whether he has detailed information as to the enormous development of the National Telephone Company's system and business, of the vast increase in the amount of capital invested therein, and of the claim of the Company to receive ulti- mately full payment for all such expenditure and investments from the Post Office; whether he is acquainted with the presnt value of the capital invested in the Company's operations; whether he will call for an estimate of the value of such capital in the year 1911; and of the sum which will then be claimed by the Company; and, whether at an early date, he will be able to state (in order to avert misunderstanding and financial trouble) the policy of the Government on the question?

I assume that the letter referred to is the one which was published in The Times on 9 July 1894, and which ran as follows:—

"On the termination of the licence in December 1911, the right of the National Telephone Company to carry on telephone exchange business will cease and determine. All they will have to sell will be their plant, and even this the Government will be under no obligation to buy. Believe me yours very truly, ARNOLD MORLEY."

I have nothing to add to this statement. The Postmaster General has seen from time to time the published accounts of the business of the Company, but he is not aware that the Company have made the claim which the hon. Member describes. As Mr. Arnold Motley's letter shows, no such claim could be admitted by the Government. The Postmaster General is not acquainted with the present value of the capital invested in the Company's operations. It would clearly be useless for him to call for an estimate of its value in 1911. I hope to be able at an early date to state the Government's policy on the general question, but I may say at once that the Government has no intention of buying up the Company's business, and will, therefore, give no notice to purchase, which it has the power to do, on or before 30 June 1897.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the increasing dissatisfaction with the telephone service in London, its cost, and the errors and delays by which it is attended; whether the Post Office is making any efforts to supply the public with an independent State service, characterised by greater speed, accuracy, and economy; whether the Post Office authorities have and exercise any power of compelling the National Telephone Company to improve their service in the above respects; and whether he is prepared to grant licences to companies which may be willing to afford a cheaper and better telephone service?

No, Sir; the Postmaster General has no reason to believe that there is an increasing dissatisfaction with the telephone service in London. The Post Office has not attempted to establish a telephone exchange system in London. The power which the Department possesses is that of licensing fresh companies or of competing itself. The question whether licences should be given is one of policy, and, as I have already said, the policy of the Government will be stated at an early date.

asked whether it was not a fact that the National Telephone Company were unable to supply persons with telephones, and kept them waiting for them sometimes for months?

replied that the Post Office had not had any complaints to that effect.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that Section 3 of an Act passed in 1855 for improving the postal and passenger communication between England and Ireland takes cognizance of the third class passengers, and fixes the weight of luggage which might be carried by them on Irish mail trains between London and Dublin viâ Holyhead, he will draw the attention of the London and North Western Railway Company to the powers vested in him by this Act, with the view of providing accommodation for third class passengers on Irish mail trains and boats between London and Dublin under the new mail contract?

The Act of 1855 was passed to enable the London and North Western Railway Company, the Chester and Holyhead Railway Company, and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company to make combined arrangements for the conveyance of mails and passengers between Holyhead and Kingstown or Howth; and the provisions of the Act ceased to have any immediate operative effect when, in 1883, the Government made separate contracts with the railway and with the steam packet companies for the train and boat services respectively. I am not prepared to admit that the third section of the Act gave the Postmaster General any power to call upon the companies to provide third class accommodation for passengers; but there can be no doubt that, whatever the effect of the enactment, it does not apply to the altered circumstances which have existed since 1883. Be that as it may, the Postmaster General will use his good offices with the company in the direction indicated by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the disputes which have arisen between the North Eastern Railway Company and certain classes of their employees, and which is creating serious dislocation of the trade of the districts affected; and whether he intends to inquire into the nature of the disputes, with a view to friendly mediation on the part of the Board of Trade?

I am happy to state that circumstances have occurred which encourage the hope that the dispute will be settled without any mediation on my part.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the agreement between the trustees representing the landlord of the Clongorey Estate, County Kildare, and the tenants thereon for the purchase of their holdings, has yet been carried out; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?

It does not appear that any applications for advances under the Land Purchase Acts have been received by the Land Commission in respect of the estate referred to in the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has received memorials from Keith and other towns asking for an additional telephone line passing through Huntley, Keith, Dufftown, Craigellachie, and Aberdour; whether he is aware that on the understanding that such line would be constructed exchanges were established at various localities along this route, and that for this object wayleaves along the county roads were granted by the Upper District Committee of the Banffshire County Council; and whether he will endeavour to meet the wishes of the memorialists?

The Postmaster General has received the memorials to which the hon. Member refers. He is not aware that telephone exchanges have been established and wayleaves obtained on the understanding that an additional line passing through Huntley and the other towns mentioned would be constructed, but he will make inquiry on the subject. The exchanges have been established by the National Telephone Company, and the Postmaster General is in communication with that Company as to the arrangements for affording them trunk wire facilities. The claims of the district must, however, be considered in connection with the claims of the country generally, and with due regard to the probable revenue and expenditure.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in reference to the Cahir estate disturbances and the strong local feeling against the conduct of Mr. P. O 'Dwyer, the Government would consider the advisability of bringing some pressure to bear on Mr. O 'Dwyer, who is an excise officer, in order to terminate the dispute and save extra expense to the county?

I am aware that outrages have been committed in this district, and that strong local feeling exists against Mr. O'Dwyer, but Mr. O'Dwyer is acting within his legal rights, and the Government cannot intervene, as suggested in the Question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his Department is now prepared to adopt the recommendation of the Departmental Committee and make a determined effort to stamp out rabies by exercising directly the powers which they already possess under the Diseases of Animals Act.

There appears to me to be great force in the recommendations of the Committee to which my hon. Friend refers, and I am now engaged in the consideration of the practical questions which the adoption of those recommendations involves. I hope to be in a position to make some further announcement on the subject at no distant date.

Within ten or fourteen days?

Yes, I hope so.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Hertford House collection of objects of art has been bequeathed to the nation by Lady Wallace, and if he can state whether there are any conditions attached to such bequest; and when he will be able to inform the House what is the decision of the Government with reference to the above collection?

This magnificent collection has been bequeathed to the nation, but I am not able to make any further definite statement on the subject now. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put a question at some later day.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury (1) whether the Government have entered into communication with the United States Government, or any of the Great European Powers, concerning the disturbed state of Cuba; and (2) whether the Governments have used, or intend to use, their good offices with the other Great Powers with the object of securing independence for the people of Cuba?

As this is a Foreign Office Question, perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to reply. The answer to the first paragraph of this question is in the negative, and to the second that Her Majesty's Government are not aware of any such intention.

Are we to understand that although all the Powers are interesting themselves in Crete, they take no notice of the fact that in Cuba—

Order, order! The hon. Member cannot ask that.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General is aware that Buckie is a most important fishing centre; that, including the neighbouring villages, it has a population of about 10,000, mostly employed in the fishing industry; and that it has constant business communications with Fraserburgh and Peterhead; and whether he can make arrangements to connect Buckie with the Trunk Telephone Line?

The Postmaster General is aware of the importance of Buckie as a fishing centre. He is giving his attentive consideration to the question whether that place can be connected with the Trunk Telephone system, and it will afford him pleasure if he finds it possible to meet the wishes of the inhabitants.

who had on the Paper a Notice to call attention, on going into Committee on the Civil Service Estimates, to the policy of the Government in relation to the insurrection in Crete, and move a Resolution, said: Mr. Speaker, I desire to withdraw the Notice of Motion which stands on the Paper in my name. [Ministerial cries of "No" and laughter.]

It was my intention to move the Adjournment of the House this afternoon upon the statement made by the Government on Thursday last as to their policy, but it has come to my knowledge since I entered the House that there are technical difficulties in the way of my proceeding. But I gave notice of that intention to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House on Saturday, and I have reason to believe that, so far from objecting to that course, he thinks it desirable that it should be taken. I would, therefore, appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether I am correct in that view of the case, and whether, if so, the difficulties which have been stated can be removed, so that the question may be raised, and the explanation we desire, and which I understand the Government are also desirous of mailing, may be made To-morrow.

As the House will remember, a statement was made by me on Thursday last with regard to the policy of the Government in relation to the present position of affairs in Crete. It would have been in the power of the right hon. Gentleman opposite on Thursday to have moved the Adjournment of the House in order to discuss that statement, and such a course would have been strictly in acordance with the practice of the House. The right hon. Gentleman, however, quite rightly, in my judgment, thought it would be for the general advantage that the discussion should be deferred, and publicly across the floor of this House I said, on the part of the Government, that I was prepared to discuss with him what day would be most convenient for the discussion which I recognised as legitimate. The right hon. Gentleman appealed to me on Saturday that the day that he fixed should be to-day. I did not think it my business to raise any objection, and it was not until I came down to the House that I learned, as the right hon. Gentleman has learned, that there is a technical difficulty in carrying out that object. If, however, the hon. Member for East Mayo carries out his intention of withdrawing his Notice of Motion which he has on the Paper, there will be no objection to raising this Debate tomorrow, and I would suggest that that would probably be the most convenient course. I trust—at any rate, so far as I am concerned, I shall use such influence as I possess in that direction—that no technical difficulty will again arise tomorrow of the nature we have had to-day. I trust that that statement will be not only in accordance with the technical and strict rules of procedure which govern us in this House, but that it will also meet with the general approval of both sides as the best way out of the difficulty. [Cheers.]

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it would not be the more convenient course that the House should modify the Standing Order which applies to cases of this kind? ["Hear, hear!"] Because I would remind my right hon. Friend that I for one have a perfect right, if I think fit, to put down a Notice on all fours with the Notice of the hon. Member for Mayo, which would land the House in the same fix as to-day. [Laughter.] Therefore, I venture to ask whether it would not be desirable that some modification of this Rule should be adopted, whereby, if in the opinion of the Chair, any question arises which he considers of sufficient urgency, it might be brought forward notwithstanding the interposition of any Motion of the kind referred to. ["Hear, hear!"] If my right hon. Friend likes I will repeat that question tomorrow.

I have no difficulty whatever in giving my right hon. Friend, at all events, a provisional answer to that question. I do not think that the present system of dealing with questions of urgency is a very satisfactory one, and undoubtedly there is a certain inconsistency in leaving the House bound and helpless before the will of one single and irresponsible individual—["hear, hear!" and, laughter]—as might happen under our existing Rules. ["Hear, hear!"] But I would point out to my right hon. Friend that it would take a considerable time probably to frame a satisfactory substitute for our existing Rule, and, in the meanwhile, we have not in practice found that much difficulty arises, for the good sense of Members on both sides of the House has hitherto in my experience always prevented any such impasse, or such insuperable difficulty as in theory undoubtedly might arise at present, although in practice it has not arisen.

I am afraid I cannot associate myself with my right hon. Friend's experience as to no inconvenience having occurred in the past. [Laughter.] I have known cases of considerable importance—

Order, order! There is no question before the House. ["Hear, hear!"]

I will, then, ask a question. [Laughter.] Do I understand that my right hon. Friend will take steps with a view to the modification of the Rule, because, if not, I must consider whether another object-lesson should nor be forthcoming. [Laughter.]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask whether I am not within my right in withdrawing the Motion now: and whether the object of the Rule is not to prevent a Motion standing in the name of an hon. Member being anticipated by a Motion for the adjournment of the House. If an hon. Member withdraws his Motion, does it not cease to operate? ["Hear, hear!"]

The ordinary Rule of the House is, that, when a Motion such as that of the hon. Member has been put on the Paper, it operates, so far as the question of anticipation goes, until it ceases to appear on the Paper. The hon. Gentleman's statement that he intends to withdraw has not, under the existing procedure of the House, any effect.

On a question of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether there is any Standing Order of the House that lays down this rule, or whether it is not the practice that has grown up without any sanction from the House? [Cheers.]

I think there is the Standing Orders. [Opposition cheers.] It is a practice of the House which has been acted upon, and the practice of the House, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, when acted upon for years, is as binding upon the House as a Standing Order. [Ministerial cheers.]

May I ask whether, if it is only a practice of the House and not a Standing Order, it must depend on precedent and ruling, and has any ruling on the subject been given from the Chair? [Cries of "Order!"]

May I ask, with reference to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet has said, whether you, Sir, will take into consideration that this really seems to be a rule which has grown up without the authority of a Standing Order, and how far it had better be modified? I think everyone must feel that, if any such rule were acted upon rigorously, it would reduce the House to impotency, and the great affairs of the nation would have to be transacted elsewhere. [Cheers.]

Of course, it is obvious that there are occasions when the practice would operate inconveniently. It is not for me to say whether, on the whole, it operates inconveniently or not. Certainly, if the House thinks fit to alter the rule, I shall not offer any advice to the contrary. ["Hear, hear!"]

But, as there is no rule, what course can the House take in the matter? As I understand, the House has never made a rule to this effect. It is simply, as I understand, an accidental judgment, and there is no rule on which the House can act.

I think there is more than that. The right hon. Gentleman will find that there is such a consensus of practice upon the point for many years past that it is one of the ordinary Rules of the House, and part of the ordinary procedure of the House. The right hon. Gentleman well knows that many of our rules are not to be found in print or in Standing Orders; and this is a practice which has become part of what I may call the common law of Parliament. To alter a long-continued practice at common law requires a statute; and in the same way an alteration in the common law of Parliament cannot be effected on the sole authority of the Speaker, who is not the maker, but only the administrator, of the laws of this House. [Cheers.]

What course can the House adopt? Would it be by way of Resolution to move a modification, or by Standing Order?

Where you want to alter the practice of the House it would be more convenient to do so by Standing Order. At the same time the House has sometimes acted upon Resolutions. It is a matter for consideration what course should be followed.

As far as I am personally concerned, having regard to the assurance that the matter shall receive consideration, I shall not take action in the direction of an object-lesson. [Laughter and cheers.]

moved, "That clause 1 be postponed." He said he thought they ought to know exactly what would be done with Clause 2, which proposed to repeal the 17s. 6d. limit, before they could properly proceed to consider Clause 1, because any change in Clause 2 would profoundly modify the attitude of the House towards the various points which arose under Clause 1. The Government had departed from the order which had hitherto obtained by providing for the grant first and the machinery of administration next. The framework of the clause was such that it was necessary for the Government to have an opportunity of reconsidering it.

seconded the Amendment. In the Resolution on which the Bill was founded there was no definition of the term "voluntary "; and the consequence was that the House had decided that an undefined amount should be allotted to helping undefined schools. Before Clause 1 was considered the Committee ought to have a definition of "Voluntary School."

said it was, no doubt, unfortunately the fact that whenever a Bill was brought in, one clause must precede another. [Laughter.] There must, too, be something in the second clause which had a bearing on something in the first, and until it was certain what was to be done with the second clause it was impossible to be sure about the first. That was true whatever were the clauses; and, with a few verbal alterations, he could adduce the very same arguments as those of the hon. Member for postponing the second clause. The first was the most important and far-reaching clause in the Bill, and it was in accordance with the practice of draftsmen that it should be put first.

said that if the money were granted in the first clause, and the authorities were set up in the second, the Bill would be in harmony with most Acts of Parliament dealing with these questions. Clause 1 was most unusual compared with other education and local government Bills and this was a local government Bill in part, for it set us compulsory local authorities. The authority should be set up first, and the money grant should be provided for afterwards.

That is not the proposal before the Committee. The proposal is to postpone the first clause to the end of the Bill.

said that it was very difficult to raise what was an extremely important point. The grant and the authority were both dealt with in a single clause, which was almost without precedent.

Anyone who introduces a Bill is entitled to draft it as he thinks best. There is no precedent for an Amendment to postpone parts of a clause. That would be a most inconvenient course. Indeed, there is no machinery for working a Bill in that way.

rose to speak again, when

rose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put." [Cries of "Ok!" and laughter.]

withheld his assent, and declined then to put the Question. Debate resumed.

, continuing, said that the First Lord of the Treasury had only partly answered his arguments, and he should press the Amendment.

urged that the machinery of this Bill was most important. A number of new bodies were created with delicate and important duties, and everything ought to be clearly defined.

moved at the beginning of the clause to insert the words

"During the continuance of this Act, that is to say, the period of two years after the thirty-first day of March next, after the passing of this Act."

said the Amendment was out of order.

said he hoped that before the Chairman finally ruled the Amendment out of order, he would allow him to state very respectfully the grounds upon which he submitted it was not out of order at this point; and might he express his great regret that the communication which he sent to the right hon. Gentleman on Saturday, giving the references to the precedents on which he should rely, had, unfortunately not reached him. The Standing Order passed in 1849 provided that the precise duration of every temporary law should be expressed in a distinct clause at the end of the Bill, but he respectfully submitted that there was a long line of precedents which showed that the Standing Order had been interpreted in this sense—that it was passed by the House of Commons, as lawyers said, ex abundanti cautela, that was, to secure that in a matter so all-important as the duration of an Act of Parliament there should be no ambiguity or doubt, but that it did not in any respect preclude that House from deciding and limiting a statute at any point which might be convenient. One of the precedents, which he submitted was on all fours with the present case, occurred no longer ago than last Session. He referred to the Agricultural Lands Rating Rill. When this Rill was considered in Committee, with the Chairman in the chair, the President of the Local Government Board proposed to insert, at the commencement of the Bill—precisely where he proposed to insert the present Amendment—these words:—"During the continuance of this Act—that is to say, for a period of five years." With the substitution of two for five his Amendment was based on that precedent. His second precedent was the Statute passed in 1888 for the Better Protection of Sand Grouse. In that case the duration of the statute was enacted in the principal enacting clause, and there was no distinct clause limiting the duration of the Act. The third precedent was very much like the present Bill, in that it was a grant of public money. The Glebe Lands (Ireland) Act, 1870, the third clause of which said, "It shall be lawful for the Commissioners of Public Works of Ireland, during the continuance of this Act." His last precedent was in 1865—The Locomotives on Roads Act, the first section of which provided that the Act should not come into operation before the 1st of January 1865, and should cease to have effect on the 1st of September 1867. There was also a technical point which he thought he was entitled to take. In this first line it was provided that a grant "shall be annually paid." The words "annually paid" would imply a payment year by year for ever. There would, he submitted, be a repugnancy in first enacting that this grant should be annually paid, and then at the end of the Bill introducing a limit into its duration. He submitted, therefore, that the words introduced by the draughtsman, "annually paid," distinctly raised the duration of the Bill and let in his Amendment.

said he thought it rather an unusual thing to argue the point, but as he unfortunately did not receive, prior to coming into the chair, the communication to which the hon. Member had referred, he thought it right he should state his case. It seemed to him it was perfectly clear. There was a Standing Order which said that the precise, duration of every temporary law should be expressed in a distinct clause at the end of the Bill. He could not get over that. The hon. Member proposed to make this a temporary law, and he proposed to state the precise duration of it by his Amendment. That being so, it was perfectly clear, according to the order of the House, which he had no authority to set aside even if he wished to do so, that the clause must come in at the end of the Bill. The hon. Member had referred to precedents. He could not answer for those in which ha was not concerned, but the hon. Member quoted the precedent of last Session. His attention was not called to the wording of the Standing Order when that Amendment was moved, and he could only say it must have slipped into the Bill, as the lawyers said, per incuriam. [Laughter.] He was not then so familiar with the Standing Orders as he had since become, and probably if the proposal were made again from any quarter of the House, it would not be admitted. He felt obliged to rule the Amendment out of order.

presumed the Chairman would not rule the Amendment out of order if it were proposed in the form of a new clause?

said certainly not. It would probably be in order as a, new clause at the end of the Bill. The Amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd-George)—to leave out the words "For aiding," and to insert the words, "in order to establish a fund out of which the Education Department may aid necessitous "—and the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. Herbert Roberts)—to leave out the words "For aiding," and to insert the words "To necessitous"—appeared to be precisely the same as that standing in the name of the hon. Member for the South Molton Division (Mr. Lambert). The two hon. Members first mentioned had very ingeniously attempted to raise the question before the proper time, he therefore proposed to call upon the hon. Member for South Molton. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green ought properly to be raised on line 12, subsection 2. The Amendment immediately following to leave out "aiding" and insert "supplementing voluntary subscriptions constituted towards," and the Amendment of the hon. Member below the Gangway ought to come in on line 13.

moved, after the word "Aiding" to insert the word "necessitous." He said it seemed to him an extraordinary thing that the grant of public money about to be made to Voluntary Schools should not be restricted to necessitous schools, for the reason, that if they were not necessitous he did not see why they wanted money. He could point to many instances where Voluntary Schools were in an extremely flourishing condition, schools which did not require any grant whatever, in addition to the annual and fee grant, schools that were altogether outside anything like a condition requiring an extraordinary grant such as the Bill proposed for the benefit and efficiency of education. There was only one reference in the Bill to the case of necessitous schools, the aid grant was to be distributed in manner and amount—

"as the Department think best, for the purpose of helping necessitous schools and increasing their efficiency."

It was important to notice that it was impossible for the Education Department to distribute or exercise efficient control over the distribution of this grant to the various schools. In the Debate on the Education Bill of last year the Vice President of the Council said it-was impossible for the Central Department to discriminate between schools and schools, that it was impossible for that body to make selection of those schools that really required aid, that could only be done by local authorities. That being so, the Education Department was precluded entirely according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman from the ability to discriminate as to schools being necessitous or not. As he understood the Bill the Education Department would have no power whatever to withhold money from an association provided that the association was constituted in a manner of which the Department approved. Suppose 100 schools in an association, 75 being non-necessitous and not requiring aid, and 25 necessitous. If the association did distribute the money according to the needs of the schools, then the necessitous schools would receive at the rate of £1 a head of scholars, and the 75 non-necessitous schools would get nothing. If that was to be the case, what was the use of inserting in the Bill an annual grant at the rate of 5s. per scholar. It seemed to him, it would be a waste of public money to put into the hands of an association a grant they would have to distribute among schools necessitous or not, and there would be no security for economy. In several districts, and in such a constituency as South Molton, where there were 47 Voluntary Schools, and 31 Board Schools, if the grant went to all Voluntary Schools, non-necessitous as well as necessitous, there would be very great jealousy on the part of the 31 schools getting nothing at all. School Boards might be quite willing that necessitous schools should secure the 5s. grant, but there would be a strong sense of the injustice of the proceeding if non-necessitous schools were relieved while they received no assistance. He could give many instances of the flourishing condition of Voluntary Schools. Some of them received very few subscriptions, and according to the latest Return there were 1,061 Voluntary Schools with no subscribers. If that was so it proved that these schools were in a flourishing condition, for if they were not their friends would rally round and subscribe for their assistance. Then there were nearly 5,000 schools having subscriptions of less than 5s., and there the same argument applied; if these schools were necessitous then the friends of the Church of England or other schools would increase their subscriptions. In larger schools, having the largest number of scholars, there were the smallest subscriptions, the subscriptions to Voluntary Schools in the Lancashire boroughs averaged only 3s. 2½d. per head. If his Amendment were carried and only necessitous schools were aided, there would be something like half this money saved, and he regarded that as a very important matter indeed. The House had been told by the Secretary for the Colonies the other day, that the Government were pledged, and if only reasonable time were given them they would deal with Board Schools. By this proposal the Government would have money as well as time, for according to the best calculation he could make, a, very considerable sum would be saved for the assistance of other than non-necessitous Voluntary Schools.

said there were one or two statements made by the hon. Gentleman which might, under different circumstances, call for some comment, as indeed they excited considerable surprise in the minds of those who heard them. He laid down the proposition, that where subscriptions were small, schools were more flourishing.

said they ought to be.

said that was an educational and financial paradox the hon. Gentleman would find it hard to sustain in argument. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council, said the Education Department had not the means of determining whether Voluntary Schools were necessitous or not, but inasmuch as he proposed by his Amendment to confine the grant to necessitous schools it seemed an odd way to recommend it, to say there was no way by which necessitous schools could be discovered. But he passed by this as being part of the outworks of the hon. Gentleman's position, and came to the citadel or central strength of the proposal. The hon. Gentleman wished to limit the amount of the grant which would be given to Voluntary Schools, and wishing to do that he had set to work in exactly the right way to do it. No doubt there were a certain number of Voluntary Schools which could not be described as necessitous, and if they were excluded from all claim to it the total amount of the grant would be diminished to that extent. Upon this the Government joined issue with the hon. Gentleman, he wished to diminish the amount of money to relieve the necessities of Voluntary Schools, the Government desired to make it even greater if possible. This being the fundamental difference of opinion, he, thinking that the grant of 5s. per head for children in necessitous schools would be sufficient, while the Government did not, there being this broad difference of opinion, it was hardly possible to carry on the argument with profit. If the hon. Member however would consider the amount thought absolutely necessary for education in Board Schools, and the amount Voluntary Schools had the power to spend, he should come to the conclusion to which the Government had already arrived, that this round sum of £600,000 odd was nothing too large for the needs of the schools which would receive the benefit of the grant. The hon. Gentleman said School Boards would feel a, great sense of injustice and ill-usage if Voluntary Schools in districts which needed nothing received grants from the public funds. He was as anxious as the hon. Member that none of this money should go to Voluntary Schools that did not require it, but this was not the part of the Bill where this point should be raised. The Committee were now discussing the total sum to be applied, and he felt bound to oppose an Amendment which proposed to dimish that amount.

remarked that the right hon. Gentleman had assured them on one point which arose in connection with this Amendment, and that was as to the purpose of the Bill, which, the right hon. Gentleman said, was to aid those Voluntary Schools which were necessitous. If that were so he could not help thinking that, as a matter of clearness and convenience, and perhaps as a matter of substance, it would be well that this Amendment should be accepted. The Chairman had ruled that they could not re-draft section one so as to enable them to discuss the machinery—the hand which was to be kept over the machinery—of this grant until they came to that part of the clause. That being so, one did not like to start the commencement of the Section with the words as to aiding Voluntary Schools. They had it now from the First Lord that the purpose of the Bill was to aid necessitous Voluntary Schools, and why should not that purpose be expressed in the very initial words? It looked as if the draftsman of the Bill had further and ulterior purposes than that of aiding necessitous schools, and as if the Bill were meant to be a fulfilment of those very wide promises which were given in the course of the discussion in the country to the supporters of Voluntary Schools—not merely "necessitous," but Voluntary Schools generally—that some special consideration would be given to them by the Government which had received great support from them at the time of the General Election. The words "for aiding Voluntary Schools," would seem to have reference rather to this promise than the promise expressed in the Bill. He could not see why the Amendment should not be accepted so as to make the clause run "for aiding necessitous Voluntary Schools." Then at the end of the clause they could introduce the limiting words they wished, and could make provision as they went on, which would render clear what was intended. He was confirmed in that view by the extraordinary language which had been used in the drafting of Sub-Section 2:—

"The aid grant shall be distributed by the Education Department to such Voluntary Schools and in such manner and amounts as the Department think best for the purpose of helping necessitous schools."

Surely that was extraordinary language in which to instruct the Department to help necessitous schools. It looked as if the purpose were to enable the Department to grant money to the richer Voluntary Schools on terms that they should send the poorer scholars to necessitous schools. That could not be the purpose of the clause, and he thought there was a great deal to be said in favour of making the governing words of the Bill quite clear at the very commencement.

understood there was a perfect agreement that the money was to be appropriated entirely to the relief of Voluntary Schools which were necessitous. If that were so why should not the money be paid in proportion to the necessities of these schools? The Amendment proposed that the money should be paid to the necessitous Voluntary Schools.

In proportion to their necessities? Is that what it means?

said that might come afterwards. What the right hon. Gentleman proposed, however, was not that the schools should be subsidised in proportion to their necessities, but in proportion to the measure of the prosperity of their neighbours. If there were half-a-dozen schools in a district, five not being necessitous and the sixth being really necessitous, then they would pay that necessitous school, not in proportion to its real need, but in proportion to the amount of prosperity of the other five schools. That was a principle that had been incorporated in no other Act of Parliament, and was one which was absolutely indefensible. He objected to the Government's proposal on another ground, namely, that it treated Voluntary Schools unfairly. Something had been said about necessitous Board Schools. Necessitous Board Schools were to be subsided. Were they to be subsidised in proportion to the number of scholars in School Boards where there was no need for an aid grant? If not, why should there be a distinction drawn between Board Schools and Voluntary Schools in this respect? They should subsidise both in proportion to their needs. The only argument which had been adduced in support, of this proposal was that it placed Board Schools and Voluntary Schools practically on the same basis, and that it enabled Voluntary Schools to compete with Board Schools. But he would point out to the Committee that in several counties in North Wales the result of this proposal, if carried, would be that, by giving 5s. per child in average attendance at Voluntary Schools, they would be paying more to Voluntary Schools than to Board Schools—while the income of the Voluntary Schools would be greater than that of the Board Schools—by something like 2s. 6d. per child. That was to say, that in these School Board districts the people would be penalised for their great sacrifices on behalf of education. What the Government were going to do by their proposal was to give this 5s. per head indiscriminately, whether the schools were necessitous or not. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] Could hon. Gentlemen opposite point to a single provision in the Bill which would enable the Education Department to enforce the provision which was made subsequently, that this money should go to the pocket of necessitous schools alone. There was absolutely no provision of any sort or kind which would insure this. There was a sort of indication of the intention of the Government that the money should go to necessitous schools, but the whole clause was very loosely worded, and, unless at the very outset they confined the benefit of this clause to the necessitous Voluntary Schools alone, there was nothing that would enable the Department to compel these associations afterwards to limit the amount of the grant and subsidy to such schools. For that reason he protested strongly against the clause in its present form.

was glad to hear the First Lord of the Treasury say that it was intended that this money, so far as it went, was to be applied to the needs of the necessitous schools.

I have said so in every speech I have made.

said it was because the Opposition were anxious that that should be the principle of the Bill, that they desired the adoption of this Amendment, so that the exact purpose of the Bill might be clearly defined. It ought to be stated at the very commencement of the Bill that the money which was to be given was to go to the necessitous Voluntary Schools, and the amount to be so given ought to be based on the existing number of necessitous schools. He, for one, thought there would be great difficulty thrown on the Department and upon these associations in arriving at the fact as to what was or was not a necessitous school. The Government themselves stated that they were able to discover this, and that being so the basis on which this Bill ought to be placed was not that it should go forth to the public that there was to be 5s. for all the children in average attendance at the Voluntary Schools, but that the money was to be devoted simply and solely to the necessitous Voluntary Schools. Unless some such Amendment as this were accepted, and unless they took steps to discover the necessitous schools, and then gave them a grant in aid of the children in average attendance, they would have great inequalities as between school and school, and district and district.

submitted that, if the word "necessitous" did not precede the words "Voluntary Schools," there would be no limit to the aid intended to be given. The First Lord of the Treasury, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, explained that it was not meant that 5s. per head should be given to every child, but the 5s. was mentioned to ascertain the gross total to be divided according to certain rules. On that side of the House they objected to the mode of distribution. They did not believe it would secure what the clause intended—that necessitous schools should be helped and non-necessitous should not. They desired that the object of Parliament in voting the money should be clearly stated—that it was to aid necessitous Voluntary Schools only. The Government had said all along that their only object was to help the necessitous schools and not wealthy schools. If they were sincere they would accept this Amendment, which sought to secure the real intent of the Bill by limiting the aid grant to schools that really needed assistance.

said there was no difference between the right hon. Gentleman and the Government as to the schools to which the money should go. The difference was as to drafting. The Government thought the amount of money to be given should first be determined, and that the machinery for distribution should be dealt with subsequently.

insisted that the grant should be restricted to "necessitous Voluntary Schools," and that this should be made clear. Voluntary Schools generally were only regarded as a basis of calculation as to how much the aid grant would come to in the aggregate. The insertion of the word "necessitous" before "Voluntary Schools" would make the meaning of the Bill more clear to the country.

also agreed that the grant should be clearly restricted to necessitous schools, otherwise the Education Department would have pressure brought upon it by the supporters of schools that were not necessitous that these schools should participate in the grant. He did not support the insertion of the word "necessitous" to restrict the gross amount of the grant. Really necessitous schools should have more than 5s. per child. He would prefer that the 5s. which wealthy schools might claim should go to necessitous schools, so that these might have 10s. per child and the wealthy schools nothing. If the word "necessitous" did not precede "Voluntary Schools," there would be no guarantee that the schools which most needed aid would receive it.

supported the Amendment, saying that if the object of the Bill was to assist necessitous Voluntary Schools the words referred to, as they stood, misstated that object. If the object of the Bill was to help necessitous schools only, why should the Government object to that being made clear? The object of the Bill of last year was "to assist public elementary schools requiring special aid." If the Government would not agree to the words of the Amendment, perhaps they would agree to the insertion of similar words to these. If not, those words were used as a blind, and they were so misleading as to be dishonest and almost fraudulent. The Government had £610,000 which they wished to give to the Voluntary Schools. Why did they not state their purpose plainly? What was the reason of their including in their calculations the number of scholars in schools that were not necessitous? The fact was, that the Government were afraid to tell the country frankly that they were giving, not 5s. per child, but, in many cases 10s., and even 15s.

thought that the insertion of the word "necessitous" would frustrate the object of the Bill, for there were many schools which were not absolutely necessitous, but nearly so, and to which the grant ought to be given, in order that they might be made more efficient. The Amendment would exclude such schools from the benefit of the grant.

said that the observations of the hon. Member for Islington had thrown a flood of light upon the intentions of the supporters of the Bill. The hon. Member said frankly, "Do not put in the word necessitous, because, if you do, it will be acted upon, and necessitous schools only will receive this relief," which, however, was the thing which the Government said that they wished.

I said nothing of the kind.

I understood the hon. Member to plead on behalf of schools that were not necessitous.

I said that they wanted money in order that they might be made efficient.

Quite so. The hon. Member said, "Do not put in the word 'necessitous,' because there are many schools which are not necessitous, but nearly so." But the Leader of the House had said that the object of the Bill was to relieve schools that were necessitous, and the hon. Member had based his opposition to the Amendment upon the ground that it would prevent schools which, in fact, were not necessitous from receiving relief. The hon. Member's contribution to the Debate showed more than anything else that had been said how necessary this Amendment was.

pointed out that the third sub-section of the Clause said that associations of schools were to receive a share of the aid grants, "according to the number of scholars in the schools of the association, at the rate of 5s. per scholar." But among those schools there might be no school which was necessitous, and yet if the Amendment were rejected the Education Department would not be able to refuse the grant to the association. The Amendment was actually necessary, in order to protect the Education Department in carrying out what the Government affirmed to he the object of the Measure.

moved to leave out the word "voluntary," in order to insert the words "sectarian and British." He said his object in asking the Committee to adopt this Amendment was for the sake of accurate statement. "Voluntary" was not an accurate description, one authority on that point being the right hon. Member for Bodmin, who preferred to call them "denominational" schools. He quoted from a Return of the county of Glamorgan, showing that at Aberavon the amount per head contributed was 1s. 4d. and 1s. 5½d.; in other schools the amount was 2s. 10¼d., 11d., 2s. 4d., 1s. 11¼d., and at St. David's, Cardiff, the voluntary contribution was a halfpenny per child. In another school it was 8½d., 4½d., and in the Swansea higher grade schools the voluntary contributions amounted to 2d. per head. The Government had therefore no right to call these schools "voluntary."

hoped that the hon. Member would not press the Amendment, which was purely verbal. The Amendment might have been substantial if it had been moved in its original form, but as altered it was wholly indefensible. The suggested alteration in phraseology would not be an improvement upon that contained in the Bill. The meaning of the word "voluntary" was perfectly well understood, and its scope was well defined in the Bill. [Cheers.]

asked the right hon. Gentleman to omit the word "voluntary" and insert "other than Board Schools." There was great objection to the use of the word "voluntary," owing to the very large number of schools which received no subscription, whatever. As a, matter of fact, there were 1,061 Voluntary Schools which had no subscriptions, 674 had less than 1s. a child, 1,095 had less than 2s. 6d. per child and more than 1s. per child, and 1,967 had between 2s. 6d. and 5s. per child. These figures indicated that 4,797 out of the 14,155 schools had less than 5s., and it was absurd to speak of these schools as Voluntary, when practically the whole cost of many of them was borne by the State.

thought that the use of the word "voluntary" was a most objectionable one for the purposes of the Government. It was difficult to tell exactly what was the meaning of the word, though everyone vaguely thought that he knew what the word meant. In an Act of Parliament, however, they ought to aim at accuracy of definition. Was there any precedent in educational legislation for the use of the word "voluntary." He did not think there was, and in his judgment the Government were dragging in a new word. Why not make use of the word "denominational"? It was much better than "voluntary." He confessed that he did not altogether like the suggested word "sectarian."

thought the word "voluntary" was not a proper definition of the class of schools, and did not agree that the objection raised to its use in the clause was a frivolous one. He quoted a statement made by the Duke of Devonshire 20 years ago, the effect of which was to show that thenceforward the word "voluntary" had no proper meaning. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had any particular objection to inserting the words "not provided by a School Board" after the word "school," instead of retaining the word "voluntary." He thought that would really meet the case.

said that, out of courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, he would say a few words. What the draughtsman of the Bill had done was to use in the Bill itself the phrase which was most familiar and most easily understood by all who had to deal with these matters. ["Hear, hear!"] He had in the definition clause given a perfectly clear and precise definition of what that phrase meant. A more usual or more convenient course he could hardly imagine, and the whole purpose of the definition clause would be destroyed if they were to take out of that clause a long periphrasis, and shovel it bodily into the Bill. It was fax more convenient to leave the Bill as it was; it would read far more smoothly, and there could be no possible doubt as to what the Bill meant.

said he strongly objected to the term "voluntary." They did not think that the term was correct as applied to these schools. He was at a loss to understand why the Government would not adopt the words "public elementary schools not provided by a School Board." He thought the attitude of the Government would not tend to accelerate progress.

said there were quite a thousand of these schools which received no voluntary subscriptions at all, but nine people out of ten believed that the word "voluntary" was intended to apply to Voluntary Schools and nothing else. He did not care whether it was denominational or sectarian, but what possible objection could there be to the words "other than Board Schools?" Unless it was with the intention of misleading people in the country, there could be no reason for retaining the word "voluntary."

said that if the Amendment were adopted some 252,000 children would be deprived of the benefits of these grants. There were schools still classed as Voluntary Schools which were distinctly set out in Departmental returns as British, undenominational and other schools.

said the Amendment suggested the words "sectarian and British."

thought the Amendment was perhaps useful as an indication of the spirit in which the Bill was being opposed. [Cheers and cries of " Oh!"] A very large proportion of these thousand schools which had been referred to were heavily endowed. He had one in mind—a small school of about 54 children in Wiltshire, which was endowed to the extent of 92s. odd per child. He quite agreed that such schools should be without voluntary subscriptions; yet, on the other hand, the endowment should be put against the subscription. The arguments brought forward in favour of the Amendment were of a frivolous character.

said the phrase "Voluntary Schools" was a popular one which no doubt two generations ago represented an actual fact, but that was the case no longer. These schools were in no true sense of the word "voluntary." A great number of them only existed because of the threat of a School Board. The parents would all be glad to have some control over the schools, but when it was proposed the clerical party threatened them with all sorts of pains and penalties, with 1s. in the pound rates, and so forth. To call such schools voluntary was an absurd misnomer. It was notorious that many railway companies and limited companies subscribed to so-called Voluntary Schools with the object of lessening the rates upon their shareholders, but to suggest that they were influenced in such action by any desire to assist sectarian teaching would be to impute to them the grossest malversation of their funds. He would point out, moreover, that a school which used its endowments to save the rates or the voluntary subscribers was committing a breach of trust, these endowments having been intended for the improvement of education. They were asked for the first time to give a new meaning to the word "voluntary."

asked the Chairman whether the first Amendment that would be put to the Committee would be to leave out the word "voluntary."

Yes.

said in that case he should certainly vote for the Amendment, although he did not think he could adopt the words suggested by his hon. and learned Friend.

said he was in the same position as his hon. and learned Friend. No satisfactory reason had been given why words of definition should not be here inserted, and if they were he thought it would actually save time.

pointed out that though the word "voluntary" was used in the House to apply to Church Schools, it was not so used outside. He thought its application to Church Schools was inaccurate.

thought the Government should give some explanation why they had adopted "voluntary" instead of the more accurate and legal word "denominational?"

British schools are not denominational.

said that in 8,000 parishes there was no choice for parents but these denominational schools, and it was desirable that they should be designated what they were—sectarian establishments.

said that no reason had been advanced why those schools should not be called by their proper name. The hon. Member for North West Ham, who had described the Amendment as frivolous, had not used a single argument against the word "voluntary." There was no excuse for the use of such a word in the Bill. He would suggest that instead of "voluntary" the words "elementary schools other than Board Schools" should be used; and he certainly intended to ask the sense of the Committee as to whether "voluntary" should stand part of the clause.

said it had been admitted by several speakers on the Government side of the House during the previous Debates that the word "voluntary" was not suitable as a description of the schools to which the Bill applied. He thought the words "public elementary schools," which he had placed on the Paper in the next Amendment, if coupled with "other than schools provided by School Boards," would be a more accurate designation of the schools.

said that an examination of the income of those so-called Voluntary Schools would show how misleading the word "voluntary" was in such a connection. The total rate of income per scholar in the Church of England schools was £1 18s. 10¾d.; but the only part of that sum derived from voluntary subscriptions was 6s. 9fd. How could such schools be called Voluntary Schools? Again, in the case of the Wesleyan schools, the total rate of income was £1 17s. 7d. per scholar, while the voluntary subscriptions were merely 3s. In the Roman Catholic schools the total rate of income was £1 16s. 10½d. per scholar, and the voluntary contributions 8s. In the British schools the total rate of income was £2 1s. per scholar, and the voluntary contributions 6s. 6d. To call these schools "voluntary" was therefore a misnomer, and yet the Government proposed to perpetuate the term in a Statute that would make the schools less and less Voluntary Schools.

said he could understand why the Government were sticklers for the term "voluntary" rather than "denominational" or "sectarian." The use of one or other of the latter terms would be calling things by their right names, and that would not commend itself to the promoters of the Bill. He would suggest that the object of the supporters of the Amendment could be better accomplished by a change in the definition clause, and he had given notice of the following Amendment to that clause:—

Clause 4, page 2, line 39, after "Board" insert "and which are maintained by voluntary subscriptions to the extent provided for by this Act."

If that principle were adopted the schools would really be Voluntary Schools, and would be properly so-called in the Bill.

proposed, after the word "schools" to insert the words "in existence at the passing of this Act." He explained that the purpose of the Amendment was to limit the operation of the Bill to such Voluntary Schools as were in existence at the time of the passing of the Act. In the case of new Voluntary Schools the 5s. grant would be an unfair premium given to them, whereas he urged that Voluntary Schools and the Board Schools ought, as far as possible, to be given equal chances. ["Hear, hear!"] Already he had heard, since the Bill was introduced, that there were districts in the country which delayed having a School Board, because otherwise they would lose the 5s. grant under the Bill. That was tantamount to putting a premium on the Voluntary Schools. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.

said he could not accept the Amendment. Voluntary Schools could not be established unless the money was provided for building and maintaining them—["hear, hear "]—and even after this 5s. grant was made, those who were interested in the development of the voluntary system would find it a matter of great difficulty to keep that system in pace with the growth of the population in new districts in the country. ["Hear, hear!"] So far as equality of the two systems was concerned, the Voluntary system was at present enormously handicapped, and it would be only slightly relieved by the present Bill. In the circumstances he hoped the hon. Member would not think it necessary to press the Amendment.

said he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that when a new Voluntary School was set up in a district it would receive 5s. per head per child in average attendance as proposed by this clause.

The new Voluntary Schools will be just like the old ones. [Cheers.]

said that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was remarkable. If the new schools were to be like the old, it meant that when the choice lay between building a Board School or a Voluntary School, the latter would be recommended by the hope of getting the 5s. grant.