To call attention to the diversity of the monetary exchange in the various parts of the British Empire, and the consequent loss to the agricultural, manufacturing, and mercantile interests thereby; and to move a Resolution.—[Monday, 19th July.]

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has received a memorial from the National Sub-Postmasters' Federation, praying that Jubilee Day, the 22nd instant, might be allowed to be observed as Sunday for office duties by the sub-postmasters, numbering 19,000, in the employ of the Post Office, who will otherwise be deprived of what is a general holiday; and whether, if the requirements of the public service cannot afford this, another day as holiday will be allowed to the sub-postmasters in lieu thereof?

It would be contrary to the interests of the public to allow the Sub-Post Offices throughout the country to be closed for the whole or nearly the whole of the day on the 22nd instant, and the Postmaster General is unable to do more than treat the day as a Bank Holiday, which will admit of Sub-Post Offices which are not Telegraph Offices being closed at noon. He regrets he cannot undertake to give a holiday on another day.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether a refreshment bar is being, or will be, constructed under the stage erected for Her Majesty's Jubilee in the Speaker's Green; and whether it is true that no wines or spirits can be sold therein, in consequence of this House not having or holding any licence?

In answer to the hon. Member's Question, I have to state that a refreshment bar has been erected. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to the class of entertainment provided, I must refer the hon. Member to the Kitchen Committee.

said that no further arrangements could be made for the attendants at the House to facilitate their witnessing the Jubilee State Procession. Every possible arrangement had been made to provide for the permanent staff, and he understood from them that they were very well satisfied.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether steps can be taken to enable officers and men of the Royal Naval Reserve to muster in uniform and be present on board some of Her Majesty's ships at the approaching Jubilee Naval Review?

I do not exactly know what the hon. Member means by the Royal Naval Reserve mustering on board the ships. Forty-one Royal Naval Reserve officers, 676 first and second class Royal Naval Reserve men, and 136 firemen will be on board Her Majesty's ships at the Naval Review, and will be taking duty in uniform in their proper place side by side with the Royal Navy.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will arrange to have placed on board the vessels taking the Colonial forces round the Fleet on Wednesday next, a sufficient supply of Parliamentary Return (Seagoing War Ships, &c.), No. 460, Session 2, I895, showing the value of seaborne commerce, mercantile marine, annual revenue, and Naval expenditure on seagoing force of the United Kingdom, the Colonies, and Foreign countries respectively, with a view to affording the officers and men information respecting the Naval responsibilities of the Empire and the cost of their discharge, and to enable them to compare the action of their own Colonies with that of the Mother Country and of Foreign countries in providing for defence of maritime interests?

No, Sir; I cannot accept the ingenious suggestion of my honourable and gallant Friend. The viewing of a great outdoor display and the visiting of the ships is not an appropriate moment for the study of complicated comparative statistics.

asked whether it was still too late to arrange that the colonial troops might see the British Fleet at the same time and under the same circumstances that the rest of England would see it? [Cheers.]

said he was sorry to find that rumours had been circulated to the effect that the absence of arrangement by which the colonial troops now in England might witness the Review on the 96th was due to financial considerations. ["Hear, hear!"] That was not the case, and it was a great pity that attempts should be made to spoil the grace of the reception by such insinuations. ["Hear, hear!"] The difficulties were not those of finance, they were difficulties of arrangements. The responsibilities of the authorities at Portsmouth with the enormous number of ships there and visiting ships expected were immense; the railway accommodation was absorbed, there were to be 40 special trains on one of the lines, and jetty accommodation was entirely taken up. The difficulties in the way of providing for the colonial troops were most serious. This morning, however, the Admiralty had received an offer of a ship and a special train, which had been provided for other purposes. The gentleman who had secured this ship and train had offered these to the Admiralty—[cheers]—of course, on the usual terms. [Laughter and ironical cheers.] Of course it was perfectly right and reasonable this should be so. [Ironicalcheers.] The Admiralty, the Treasury, and, he was sure, the House of Commons, would be prepared to defray the cost. [Cheers.] Having received this offer, he had placed himself in communication with the officers commanding the colonial troops and the Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth, whose responsibilities must not be increased up to a point that would endanger a breakdown in the arrangements; that was laid down as an absolute proposition. Tie had telegraphed to him informing him of the strong desire existing that provision should be made, and, the train and ship being available, there remained the difficulty of finding room for the ship in waters almost as full of traffic as the streets of the metropolis. He was in communication with the officer commanding, and he hoped that difficulties might be overcome. From the first there had been the greatest desire in the Departments to do full justice to our guests, and he ventured to think that indications of this desire had already been given. He hoped that with the offer placing the train and ship at the disposal of the Admiralty the suggestion in the Question might be met. ["Hear, hear!"]

inquired if colonial Members of Parliament were to receive invitations?

said special arrangements had been made for colonial Premiers and 150 colonial guests. Inquiries on this point should be addressed to the Colonial Office; the Admiralty could only do what was possible in providing ships.

asked whether, in the event of difficulties arising as to trains or jetties, the right hon. Gentleman would consider the possibility of embarking their colonial visitors on Friday, and taking them round by sea?

said this had been considered. He had been in communication with the officer commanding, who thought there would be great difficulty in making the arrangement, but it would be considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the British Volunteers in India, constituting an Imperial force of nearly 30,000 men, were invited to send representatives to England to take part in the procession of 22nd June; and, if not, will he explain on what grounds?

, on behalf of LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The Question as to what representatives of the forces in India should be sent home to take part in the procession of the 22nd June was fully considered in communication with the Viceroy of India, and it was decided to follow the precedent of 1887, increasing the number of officers of the Native Cavalry, and adding representatives of the Imperial Service troops from the Native States. Neither the Native Infantry nor Volunteers arc represented on the present occasion.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a petition recently forwarded by the clerks of the Eastern Central District has been returned because it was not written on foolscap paper; whether he is aware that a petition from the Central Telegraph Office written on similar paper was accepted; and if, considering the urgency of the petition, and the difficulty attending the procuring of signatures in the Eastern Central District, he will accept the petition as it stands?

The Postmaster General was not aware, but he finds that it was done in accordance with an old standing rule of the London Postal Service, which must have been well known to the petitioners. He is aware that the petition from the Central Telegraph Office, which is not part of the London Postal Service, was accepted. That of the Eastern Central District was returned on Monday the 31st ult.; and a fresh petition in proper form, which was received on the 3rd inst., is now under consideration.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what is the result of the inquiries into the application of the dog-muzzling order to sheep dogs while working?

I have caused a special inquiry to be made as to this matter, the result of which goes to show that no really serious inconvenience is caused by requiring sheep dogs to be muzzled in districts in which such a measure is necessary. This view is confirmed by the past experience, both of the Board of Agriculture and many local authorities, when muzzling regulations have been made. Moreover, the proposed exemption would seriously impair the efficiency of the orders now in force, and render it necessary for them to be continued for a longer period than I hope will be necessary. I regret, therefore, that I do not see my way to adopt the suggestion which the right hon. Baronet has made to me.

asked whether the muzzling order applied to sporting as well as to sheep dogs?

No, Sir; it does not. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the important powers proposed to be conferred upon the Plumbers' Company by the Plumbers' Registration Bill, a copy of the charter and of the bye-laws of the Company can be laid upon the Table of the House, showing how the Master and Wardens and Commonalty of the Freemen of the Ancient Guild of Plumbers are appointed and removed, and under what conditions they hold office?

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, before the Plumbers' Registration Bill is further proceeded with, he will lay upon the Table a statement showing the constitution and resources of the Ancient Guild of Plumbers, who are to administer the Bill if it become law?

It will be convenient that I should, in answering this Question, also reply to the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington. I am informed that the only charter of the Company known to be in existence is one granted by James I. The earlier charters are believed to be lost. The Ordinance dates back to the time of Edward III. The Report of the City of London Livery Companies Commission of 1884, however, contains a lengthy abstract of the charter and the provisions of the Ordinances and bye-laws of the Company. The Returns for the purpose of that Commission were supplemented by information relative to the later regulations of the Company given in evidence before the Select Committee on the Plumbers' Registration Bill, 1892. I have no doubt that, if it be desired, the Company would cause to be furnished a brief statement of the constitution and resources of the Company, which might, if it were moved for, be laid on the Table of the House.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the 33rd Regiment served in India during the Mutiny; could he state -why the officers and men of the regiment have not received medals in recognition of their services; and whether medals will now be given the survivors of those who served?

The Indian Mutiny Medal was intended only for troops engaged with the mutineers. The 33rd Regiment, though quartered in India at the time of the Mutiny, was not so employed, and therefore did not receive the medal.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, (1) can he state to the House at what time, and where, it is intended to mobilise the Channel and Reserve Squadrons for the annual exercises and manœuvres; (2) whether the operations are to be held between the English Channel, East Coast of Scotland, and north of Europe, or only upon the old routes, or both; (3) will he state the number and classes of vessels that will be manœuvred at sea, and how many, and the description of vessels which will form the reserve for harbour defence and relief operations; (4) whether experiments in coaling will be performed at sea; and (5) can he also state what number of men of the coastguard, and how many of the first and second class reserves of seamen, and how many of stokers and firemen are to be embarked, and upon what terms?

The answer to the first Question is that the Channel and Reserve Squadrons have been already mobilised. I am not prepared at present to answer the second Question. The information asked for in the third Question will be published later, as in former years. The answer to the fourth Question is in the negative. The answer to the fifth Question is that 1,858 Coastguardsmen and 676 first and second class and 136 firemen of the Royal Naval Reserve have been embarked upon the same terms as in previous years.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention to demand a still further deduction from the salaries of the Irish National School Teachers for the purpose of insuring the solvency of the Pension Fund; whether the enforcement in this direction is in accordance with the contract entered into with the teachers when joining the scheme; whether any such. deficiency was or was not made duly public in due time; and, if the amount in question can be made good from Imperial sources?

also asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the amount due under the Arrears Act, amounting, as recently given, to £100,000, will either be entirely or only partially granted to the Irish National Teachers?

It is the intention to require from the Irish National School teachers an increase of their subscriptions to the Pension Fund. The subscription as thus increased will not exceed the amount which the teachers ought to have been required to pay from the beginning. There is no intention to make teachers who now subscribe to the fund pay for the pensions of future subscribers. The arrangement proposed is in my opinion a fair one, and I am not aware of any contract entered into with the teachers when joining the scheme inconsistent with it.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has received any resolution from the National Teachers' Association of Ireland on the subject.

Yes, Sir; I have received such a resolution, but it appears to me to be based upon a misconception.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any, and if so what, system is pursued with regard to the audit of all Naval Hospital diet sheets?

The various diet sheets are compiled by the Medical Officers of wards, who enter personally on them, daily, the diets they have ordered. These sheets are examined in the office of the principal Medical Officer in charge of the hospital, who certifies on the quarterly provision account that this has been done. The audit of the hospital accounts, which includes that of diet sheets, has been conducted for some time past by the Controller and Auditor General.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, how much money has been voted in connection with the telephone service, beginning with sums paid when the trunk lines were taken over by the Post Office?

The amount authorised by Parliament for the purposes of the Acts 55 and 56 Vict., ch. 59, and 59 and 60 Vict., ch. 40, is £1,300,000. In the ordinary annual Votes no separate provision is made by Parliament, and, therefore, the information desired by the hon. Member cannot be furnished.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state what is the total amount of deductions from Death Duties made during the past financial year under Section 20 of the Finance Act of 1894?

£18,000.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether sub-postmasters are called upon to fix wall letter boxes at, and where necessary erect iron pillar letter boxes opposite, their offices at their own expense, and at a cost varying from £3 to £8, and in addition to keep them in repair and have them painted regularly; and whether, seeing that in some cases the Department has refunded the whole cost to the sub-postmaster in quarterly instalments, and in others half the cost only, but that in the majority of cases nothing has been refunded towards the cost, one uniform system could be adopted, and every sub-postmaster be refunded the full cost of the letter box?

It is part of every sub-postmaster's duty to provide a letter box at his own expense and maintain it, and as a general rule he makes his own arrangements for doing so. But in special cases where structural difficulties exist, a pillar box is erected and the sub-postmaster is required to pay for the box a sum of about £4, which is estimated also to cover the cost of maintenance. The Department has sometimes felt justified in exceptional cases, such as a very brief tenure of the office, in remitting a portion of the expense incurred, but it is not thought expedient that the full cost of the box should be borne by the Revenue, and Lord Tweedmouth's Committee expressed their opinion that "the provision of letter boxes must be regarded as on of the conditions of sub-postmasters employment."

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General (1) whether sub-postmasters are the only section of the 140,000 servants of the Post Office for whom the Department do not provide a substitute at the public expense during annual leave or during sickness and (2) whether, when a clerk is sent from the head office to take charge for the sub-postmaster, the sub-postmaster is almost invariably called upon to pay considerably more for the relief than he has himself been paid for the same period, and in addition also held responsible by the Department for all the clerk does or omits?

Substantially the answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. It must be remembered that, unlike other officers of the Department, the sub-postmasters, as a rule, are not required to give their whole time to the service, but are at liberty to attend to private business. Those who must devote their whole time, to the work of the Department are allowed leave at the public expense. Generally speaking, in the absence of a sub-postmaster who has a private business, the work of the Post Office is carried on by his assistant or some member of his family, and it is not necessary for him to obtain the services of another officer; but when it is necessary he has to pay for them, and no doubt it is often the case that the temporary payment is at a higher rate than his own salary for the same period. He is, of course, still held responsible for the business of the office.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Royal Commission on the Water Supply of London have been unable to commence their inquiry in consequence of no rooms having been assigned to the Commission to hold their sittings; and whether he can state when the necessary accommodation will be provided and the inquiry commenced?

I am informed that the Commissioners held their first meeting on May 29, when temporary accommodation was provided for them. Offices have since been assigned to the Commission, and I am advised that the Inquiry is proceeding.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Secretary of the County Wicklow Grand Jury has withheld a sum of money due to Mr. Whelan, Tinahely, for work done as a road contractor; and upon what grounds, or for what purpose, has the money been retained?

The Secretary of the Grand Jury informs me that in obedience to an Order of the Exchequer Division of the High Court, he paid the amount in question to Mr. Symes, who was appointed, by the Order, Receiver over the moneys payable by the Grand Jury to Whelan for road contracts, to satisfy, in part, the amount of the judgment in an action brought by Whelan against Symes.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Report of the Vote for the Expenses of the Historical Manuscripts Commission will be taken?

The Report of this Vote will be postponed till Monday next.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, on the 9th May last, an English sailor, Thomas Storrer, of the s.s. Silverton, was seriously wounded by the police of Venice, one of whom shot him while he was in their custody and making no attempt at escape; whether it is the fact that no punishment has been imposed on the officer who fired the shot; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the case, and procure the punishment of that officer, or such compensation for Storrer as the circumstances may show to be proper?

The incident was duly reported by Her Majesty's Consul at Venice to the Board of Trade on the 12th of May. The Inspector of Police furnished the Consul with a statement of the circumstances, to the effect that Storrer attempted to throw one of the police officers into the sea, and at the same time to release himself from the grasp of another, who drew his pistol, wounding Storrer, it is alleged, accidentally. The bullet was successfully extracted at the hospital, and it does not appear that the wound has had any serious consequences. The trial of Storrer and of the other seamen charged with him with riotous conduct was concluded on the 11th instant. They were sentenced to 32 days' imprisonment, but were immediately released, having already been detained that time in prison. The police officer who fired the shot was acquitted. The Consul applied for and was authorised to provide legal assistance for the men. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Rome, who has been apprised of the fact by the Consul, will be requested to state his views on the case, concerning which we have at present no further information.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the 2nd Dragoon Guards, when sent to Shorn-cliff e, were informed that they would be quartered there until the end of this year; that, upon this understanding, several of the officers took houses in the neighbourhood at great expense to last out this time; and that last week notice was given to them to be ready to depart for London within a week, and to go thence to York; and will the Secretary of State for War indemnify these officers who upon such short notice have had to make so great a sacrifice?

The duration of a regiment's stay at any particular station must depend on circumstances, and no information as to the term of its stay at Shorncliffe could have been given by authority to the regiment referred to. On the other hand, it was intimated in the February Army Orders that the regiment would proceed to Yorkshire after the summer drills at Aldershot. There would therefore appear to be no ground for compensation.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is with the sanction of the Postmaster General that the practice which has existed for ninny years at the Northern District Office is to be departed from, and that suburban overseers who have been recruited from the ranks of postmen are to be introduced into the town office to supervise sorters who have passed a high educational test, sorters being thus deprived of their chance of promotion?

The second class of overseers in the Northern District, as in other districts of London, has become redundant under the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee, and the question of disposing of the officers at present in this class is now being considered. No decision has yet been arrived at.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, when will the Revenue Departments (Post Office) Estimates be taken?

These Estimates will not be taken on Friday.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Naval Works Loans Bill is to introduced?

The Bill is quite ready, and will be introduced by the Civil Lord at the earliest opportunity after the Jubilee celebrations are over.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the increase of sheep scab in certain districts of the Eastern Counties; and whether he would cause regulations to be enforced to prevent its spread, particularly with reference to foreign sheep?

There has recently been sonic increase in the number of outbreaks of sheep scab reported from two or three counties in the East of England, but, taking the Eastern Counties as a whole, the present position is not at all unsatisfactory. Where such outbreaks occur it is for the local authority to enforce the requirements of the Sheep Scab Order of 1895, which contains a complete code of regulations on the subject. No. danger of the introduction of the disease by means of foreign sheep now exists, inasmuch as all such sheep are required to be slaughtered at the port of landing.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Board of Agriculture would issue instructions relative to the treatment of pea thripp, or pea louse, which has recently appeared in the county of Essex?

We have not previously received any complaint as to damage done by the particular insect to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but inquiry shall at once be instituted with a view to see whether we can with advantage take any steps in the matter.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is able to indicate an approximate date for the introduction of a Bill to establish a State-aided system of superannuation for aged and infirm teachers in Board and Voluntary Schools?

could only say on this subject that which he thought he had already said, that he hoped the Measure would be introduced without any undue delay.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now state when he proposes to introduce the Bill dealing with the adulteration of food products?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government can now state when they will introduce a Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on Food Products Adulteration?

said he was unable to fix a date, but lie hoped the Bill would be introduced next week or the week after, but he could give no specific pledge.

inquired if any arrangements had been made whereby Members could witness the Review at Aldershot?

Every Member of the House will be entitled to a free place in the stands which will be erected near the saluting point at the Review on July 1. Special trains will be provided, and transport from Farnborough Station at a cost for each ticket of £1. The free tickets for stands and the train tickets will be non-transferable. Members desiring to obtain a second ticket can have one on payment of 15s. for the stand and £1 for transport. Applications for tickets should be made to Mr. Speaker's Secretary not later than Friday evening next, after which no applications can be entertained. These applications should specify whether railway and transport tickets are required or not. The Review will take place about 5 p.m. About 4,000 seats have been erected for sale to. the general public at prices from 30s. to 15s. each. Applications for the purchase of these tickets should be addressed to the General Officer commanding at Aldershot.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Ids attention had been called to the fact that the Commissioners of Education in Ireland, although they observed the 17th June as a holiday, did not intend to do so on Jubilee Day; and whether he would take steps to cause June 22 to be observed as a holiday in Ireland as in England?

I find that the examinations of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland extend from Monday 14th June, to Monday 28th June. These dates were fixed so far back as November 1896. I fear it would not now be possible for the Commissioners to consider the question of postponing the examination fixed for to-morrow.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury what arrangement had been made for reporting the Parliamentary proceedings next Session, and whether the contract had been let for five years at a price precluding the possibility of the work being done efficiently?

The contract was, as usual, put up to public competition, and the lowest tender has been accepted. Bonds for a large amount have been offered, and will be taken for the due performance of the contract. The amount of the subsidy is the same as is paid to the present contractors, and in his note giving me private notice of this Question, the lion. Member says that the present contractors give general satisfaction. It is therefore obvious that the rate does not preclude the possibility of an effective Report.

said, arising out of that reply, he begged to ask his right hon. Friend and evader of the facts whether he was aware that the present contract was carried on at a loss, and only because a large portion of the expense was shared by a powerful and wealthy morning newspaper was it continued to be carried on?

I am not aware of this.

said he proposed on Thursday to take Class 5 of the Civil Service Estimates, the Revenue Department Votes, with the exception of the Post Office. On Friday he proposed to take the Scotch Votes. He must reserve any statement with regard to next week for a few days.

said the right hon. Gentleman had omitted one fact of considerable interest, the amount of money to the Board and Voluntary Schools.

said the total estimated grant under the new Necessitous Board Schools schemes would be £42,000. The present grant was about £13,000, so there would be an increase of over £28,000. The 3s. grant to the Voluntary Schools would be a little over £12,000. The cost of keeping up the 12s. capitation grant would come to about £26,000.

said, of course, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, it was very difficult for Members to judge of the scheme until they could see the Bill in print, and with all the right hon. Gentleman's usual clearness, and the knowledge Members should have of what took place four or five years ago, it was a little difficult to follow the statement. Therefore he wished to reserve entirely the expression of his opinion on the merits of the scheme. But of one thing there could be no doubt, the amount was not so large as the Scottish people expected to receive on this occasion. ["Hear!"] It might be true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the ingenuity of those who would assist him at the Treasury, would make out that Scotland was receiving more than she ought to receive, but Scotchmen started with a view of the question front the other side. Scotland had always been ahead of England in this matter of education, spending more money proport Tonally on, and requiring more money for, education. They Wished to avoid in Scotland playing down, so to speak to the English level, and he hoped above all that in any calculations made it had not been put against their side of the account that Scottish children hid earned more under similar conditions than English children had. He had seen the question sometimes treated in this manner; but their view of the matter was that if their children did earn more under similar conditions than English children, it was because of greater zeal in learning and greater attention in teaching.

said they did earn more, but the fact did not enter into the figures he had given.

was glad to hear that, but it did sometimes figure in argument, and was used to add to the moral weight of objections to Scotland's claim. As he had said, at this stage of the proceedings they could do very little. They had received the explanation, which would be considered by Scottish representatives and all interested in the matter in Scotland, and when they came to see the Bill in print they would be better able to judge how far the scheme would be beneficial and adequate for its purpose. There had been expectations in Scotland that the grant for education would he larger on this occasion. No one could say of the proposal that it was Jubilee gift to the cause of Scottish education. They would have been glad to have seen a much larger sum, and in saying that he believed he could include Scottish opinion without reference to party politics. Education was the one subject upon which the Scottish people were entirely united and had been for generations or even centuries, and from which politics were excluded. There was rivalry among all sections in favour of higher education for the youth of Scotland, and it was not simply because the proposal came front Her Majesty's Government that he gave indication of the objection (hat would arise. But they would see what the scheme was when they Intl the Bill in print, and lie now contented himself with expressing the dissatisfaction he was sure would be felt in Scotland.

said there was some difficulty in understanding what the entire sum amounted to.

repeated the figures, £66,450.

said it was desirable there should be some further explanation of the differential treatment of denominational schools. The right hon. Gentleman had explained the reasons why they were not to get the 5s. grant given in England; but he doubted very much whether those reasons would be considered adequate. He was against the principle of the endowment of denominational schools; but if the grant was to be made for dealing with this matter, which was not so much a burning question as it was in England, then it would be much more statesmanlike to deal with it in such a manner as would satisfy those who were in favour of denominational education and not in a less generous manner than it had been dealt with in England. No doubt very considerable attention would be directed to that part of the proposition, and it appeared to him that £66,000 was an amount very considerably below what Scotland would be entitled to on the basis of an equivalent grant.

was disappointed with the statement of the Lord Advocate, and thought the right hon. Gentleman had scarcely been accurate as to the facts. So far as the question of equivalency was concerned, only one method of computation had been followed until the present Government came into power, and made a change. In every one of the Acts passed, in every one of the grants given from the time they had assisted education until the present Government came into power Scotland always got 11–80ths of the English grant, and there had been no fluctuation at all; every grant was based on the original Act of 11–80ths; but if now a change was to be made by the present Government without any Act of Parliament, but as a matter of administration, then Scotland should get back all she had lost in the past by the system hitherto followed. Scotland had always received 11–80ths, because it was very much less than 10s. a head would have been; but as a result of English Education. Votes growing so fast, 11–80ths was more than 10s. per child Scotland would be, and now the Government proposed to give 10s. a head because the amount would be about £5,000 less than under the 11–80ths. If the system must be so charged, then Scotland should receive some £30,000 or £40,000 of which she had been robbed under the old Acts. There had been one system under three Governments, and now when the result would be bad for Scotland, a change was proposed, and in the usual way the Treasury was trying to "chisel" Scotland. The Voluntary Schools so called in Scotland, were, outside the Catholic Schools, a miserably small minority. A splendid thing was done for education when the Church of Scotland and the Free Church handed over their schools to the School Boards. There were possibly some 80 or 90 Episcopal schools and some 250 Catholic schools, the Board Schools numbering between 2,000 and 3,000. The position was wholly different to that in England, and yet it was proposed to apply the same principle. Of course it was usual for the predominant partner to rob its weaker Scotch partner. By an equivalent grant Scotland would receive much more than under the grant to Voluntary Schools. He did not know to what extent the Necessitous School Boards' Bill would affect Scotland. Probably outside the unfortunate necessitous districts Scotland would not be affected at all. The explanation of the Lord Advocate was very unsatisfactory. The Treasury was again trying to rob Scotland by the change from the 11–80ths. When 10s. a head was given in England, Scotch Members contended for the same for Scotland; but in 1888–9 the Treasury refused this, because the amount would have been a few thousands more, and began the system of equivalent grants; but now when that system was to the advantage of Scotland, the Treasury proposed to change it. On the Second Reading of the Bill, discussion would expose the unfairness of the proposal.

desired a few words of explanation in reply to the accusation that the Treasury was proposing to rob Scotland. The system of equivalent grants for free education had been found impracticable from the beginning. Scotch Members objected to it, and said it would be better to have the same grant as in England, 10s. per child. As years went on it was found almost impossible to calculate what the fee grant would be in Scotland, for the system led to the absurd result that the amount Scotland received for free education was based not on Scotch necessities, not on the number of children in schools in Scotland, but on the number of children in English schools, and as it was impossible to know how many children had attended schools in England until after the close of the year, so nobody could tell the amount to which Scotland would be entitled until it was too late to pay. When the Government came into office he looked carefully into the matter, consulted with his colleagues, took the advice of the Law Officers, and came to the conclusion to adopt the principle of giving to Scotland and England the same grant of 10s. per child. So that in the current year, and in future, what Scotland would receive for the fee grant would be what her children earned, and nothing would depend upon England. The hon. Member for Caithness said that in doing this they were cheating Scotland out of what she was entitled to. They had done nothing of the kind. They had undertaken to do for Scotland what they had dime for Ireland—namely, to hand over to Scotch education as much as Scotland would have received if 10s. per child had been the basis adopted since the Free Education Act; and further, having adopted the basis of the necessary expenditure for education in Scotland rather than that of an equivalent grant with regard to Free Education, they had also adopted it in regard to this Bill. As his right hon. Friend had explained, they had adopted the identical clause with regard to necessitous Board Schools which had been passed for England, and they had adopted the clause with regard to Voluntary Schools with the exception that they had given 3s. per head instead of 5s. for the reason which the Lord Advocate had explained.

There are practically no Voluntary Schools in Scotland.

said that might be so, but why were they required to do more for Scotland than had been done for England? It was not a question of equivalent grants at all. It was a question of dealing with a system of education and paying what was necessary for the education of the children. That was the system which had been adopted with regard to free education, and it was the only system, he ventured to say, on which it would be found practically possible to work. If hon. Members for Scotland thought it was not well that this money should be devoted to this purpose, that was another matter altogether on which it was not his business to dwell; but he thought his right hon. Friend would be perfectly able to defend his Bill. As far its regarded the amount of the grant, he ventured to contend that the history of the Free Education Act had shown that the basis of equivalent grants, as applied to education, was practically and absolutely impossible—["hear hear!"] —and that the oily way in winch the matter could properly be dealt with was the basis which they had adopted in this Bill of enacting for Scotland, if it were right to enact for Scotland, what had been enacted for England and paying the cost of it.

said he would not follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer into the very interesting history of the fee grant and the way in winch the system of equivalent grants had been proved to be misapplicable to it. If he did, he should probably be obliged to admit with him that there was grave doubt as to the way in which it worked; but he did not think that that really met at all the objection entertained to the proposal of the Government. What were the facts of the case? The proposal of the Government was to apply what was called an identic method to Scotland and England—that was to say, to give them the same grant under similar terms which was given to necessitous Beard Schools in England under the Act or this Session, and similarly to give a grant to Voluntary Schools in England. Under this proposal, as he understood from the Lord Advocate, Scotland would receive £40,000 more than she received now. If she received the money under the principle of the equivalent grant, she would have received £110,000. ["Hear, hear"] The total sum which he believed was payable under the two English Acts of this Session was, in the case of one, a little more than £600,000, and in the case of the other, about £200,000 a year. That was a little more than £800,000. On the principle of 80 to 11, that, would give to Scotland £110,000. It would at once strike the Committee that there must be some reason for this curious disparity in the operation of the identical principle. There must be some curious cause at work introducing a difference between education in England and in Scotland to account for the great differences between £110,000 and £40,000. There was such a phenomenon. It was this, that, more than half the children in English elementary schools were educated in Voluntary Schools, and that a mere handful of the children in Scotch elementary schools were educated in Voluntary Schools. The enormous mass of Scotch children were educated in Board Schools, and therefore they had the result that a grant which would have been £110,000 if the countries had been alike, was scaled down to a grant of £40,000, because the countries were different. That was what, to their mind, appeared to produce a practical injustice. ["Hear hear!"] It was a practical injustice owing to the fact that Scotland preferred the Board School system and England so far contented herself with what was mainly a voluntary system. The result of the difference was that the Scotch taxpayer contributed to the education of England a proportion of £800,000, and the English taxpayer contributed to the education of Scotland only £40,000. It was clear, therefore, that that inflicted upon the taxpayers of Scotland a very severe financial injustice. The identity of treatment which the Lord Advocate spoke of, although it promised much to the eye and ear, fulfilled nothing in reality. It was in point of fact treatment which was identic only in name, because the circumstances of the two countries were so different that apparent equality produced substantial injustice. ["Hear, hear!"]

said he was afraid this proposal would be regarded in Scotland as extremely unsatisfactory. For his part he had no love whatever for the equivalent grant, but they must have some sort of justice in the amount of the grant, even though the kind of machinery which was tried in the first place had turned out to be quite unsatisfactory. There was a great deficiency in what, he thought, the people of Scotland might expect to receive in correspondence with what had been given to English education. There had already been pointed out the very great difference in position of the Voluntary Schools in Scotland and in England, and that the grant to Voluntary Schools in Scotland would be almost entirely a sectional grant. Except perhaps in the case of the Roman Catholic, the Voluntary Schools in Scotland were not, as in England, regarded as an institution to which the people were greatly attached, and he though the expenditure upon them would be by no means regarded in Scotland as being a satisfactory way of disposing of a portion of their share of the equivalent grant. There were other forms of education for which they very greatly wanted money, even if they got all their 12s. They had been ahead of England in the expenditure of money upon education, and they very badly wanted money in respect of higher education, and in respect of secondary and technical education. They ought to receive in correspondence with the grant to England a larger amount of money, which could and would be spent with very great advantage on secondary and technical education.

said there would be a general feeling of dissatisfaction in Scotland with regard to the amount. There could be no question whatever that in this matter Scotland was entitled to 11–80ths of the English share of the grant, which would have given them a sum of £100,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to the 10s. grant per head which was given in 1892. At that time he strongly contended that Scotland ought to get 10s. per head the same as in England, which would have given them £4,000 or £5,000 a year more. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer objected and said the proper principle was the equivalent grant, which gave them £4,000 or £5,000 less. Then they got free Education in England which swelled up the attendance so considerably that the balance was changed, and the result would have been that Scotland, paid on the equivalent grant principle, would have got £4,000 or £5,000 more. But when that principle turned in favour of Scotland the Treasury said they would give 10s. per head the same as they gave in England. He had no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be just enough to give Scotland what was her due notwithstanding the change of principle, but he was pointing out what was the effect of the change of principle. With regard to the Voluntary Schools in Scotland, he would point out that they got the 12s. grant at this moment, but they were not getting more than 10s. per head out of the Imperial Exchequer, the other 2s. coming out of Scotch money pure and simple. He thought a word must be said in favour of these Voluntary Schools in Scotland. With regard to the Voluntary Schools, a word must be said in their favour. The circumstances under which they had to compete in Scotland were essentially different from the circumstances in England. For instance, the compulsory standard was the fifth all over Scotland. Then the age at which children must attend school was 14 in Scotland as against 13 in England. Was it not obvious, therefore, that Voluntary Schools in Scotland had more children to educate than similar schools in England? Why in England one-fourth of the school children — 1,300,000 — were infants; and then they had but a small proportion of older children. But in Scotland the children had to remain until they were 14 or had passed the fifth standard; so that the average number of older boys and girls in Scotch Voluntary Schools was much larger, and the expense was much greater per head. Both in the Board Schools and in the Voluntary Schools, the cost was higher than in England, owing to the higher age and the higher standard, and the necessity for keeping up a superior staff. Then mark this difference. In England the education given was elementary—the word "elementary" was in their Act; but in Scotland it was not merely elementary education, it was an education that fitted for the University. That being so, the English schools being purely elementary and the Scotch giving secondary education in every parish school, the Voluntary Schools had to compete with them, and how could they compete if they were not to be paid at least the same rate per scholar as in England, where the schools were doing purely elementary work? They ought, at least, to get the 5s. per head given in England, because relatively the present 12s. which cattle to them was not so much as the 10s. presented to the elementary schools in England. The sum of money they ought to get would be altogether about £110,000, that would be the sum Scotland ought to get as a fair equivalent for what was given to England out of the Imperial purse.. For, after all, what were they doing? They were taking money out of the Imperial purse, to which Scotland contributed as well as England. It was admitted that Scotland contributed 11–80ths to the Imperial purse; and if they were going to give a certain dole to England on the one side, Scotland must get an equivalent dole on the other. And then the money should be applied in the way most suited to Scotland's educational interests, having regard to her special circumstances. For these reasons he certainly complained that the money given to Scotland, the total sum, was grossly inadequate; and then, as, regarded the Voluntary Schools, he said that under the peculiar circumstances under which the Voluntary Schools were placed, they ought to get the 5s. a head as in England. As to other points in the Bill, he, of course, reserved his criticism until it was printed. All he dealt with at present was the financial question, the fact that they were only getting about £66,000, according to the official statement, but according to their own statement only £40,000; and that, even if they did get £66,000, it was a long way short of the £110,000 which was Scotland's equivalent.

said the principle of a proportional equivalent grant had really nothing to do with the question of education. He could not allow the figures of the hon. Member for Aberdeen to pass unchallenged, because if they took his point of view of an equivalent grant they would have to take the same view of the whole situation. The hon. Member for Aberdeen drew this fancy picture. He said the cost to the Imperial taxpayer under the English Bill was so much, and the equivalent under a Scotch Bill ought to be £110,000, but they were being given only £40,000. The hon. Member had exaggerated, because if they took the 11–80ths of the cost under the English Bill it would be £80,000, not £110,000. [Mr. BRYCE: "Both Bills!"] Then he said, "You are oily giving us £40,000." To that must be added £26,000, which was given—outside the Bill, no doubt, but it was given all the same—to keep up the grant to 12s. The hon. Member who had just spoken did not seem to know that the money out of which that 2s. was paid was now exhausted, and accordingly, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer did nothing for them, they would not be able in future to pay the Scotch schools more than the 10s. per child which they now got directly, as in England. The additional 2s. had been paid in the past out of savings on the probable grant. But these savings were now eaten up, so that unless they got this £20,000 in the future from the Chancellor of the Exchequer they could not make up the grant. But there was also this view of the case. If they complained from the point of view of the Scotch taxpayer, that so much was being contributed out of the Imperial purse and the Scotch equivalent of that was £100,000, then they must take a. view of the whole situation—they must look at the whole of the grant. They would find that the Scotch child earned 2s. 7d. more than the English. He had not worked out the capital SUM that represented, but it was enough to show that the picture drawn by the hon. Member for Aberdeen was not a true picture of the whole situation.

said the reason why the Scotch child earned more than the English child was because he was an older child, and there were more in the upper standards. He wondered whether the Lord Advocate would work out this problem—it was worth working out; namely, what would be the effect of applying to Scotland the English mode of distributing the grant? Take the Scotch mode and apply it to England, and find out what the effect of that would be? He thought they would find they would come off the worse. Let him give one illustration. They had two scales—a junior and a senior. Well, in the case of England only one-quarter of the children were paid for on the lower scale, and the other three-quarters, were paid for on the higher. In the case of Scotland, on the other hand, only one-third of the children were paid for on the higher scale against three-quarters in England. It was all very well to say that the Scotch child earned 2s. 7d. more than the English? But at what sacrifices? The child had to attend school until 14 years of age, and the parent was deprived of his labour until that age. He was sure that if England would rise to the occasion and keep her children at school longer, and let them earn higher grants, there was not a single Scotchman who would object to England getting more money if she made the same sacrifices Scotland was already making. The Scotch ratepayers were paying more money than the English per head. The figures were £2 5s. per head in the case of English Board Schools, omitting the Metropolis; and £2 9s. per head in Scotch. So that the Scotch ratepayer was paying 4s. more per head, even if the children did earn 2s. 7d. more. Both ratepayers and parents in Scotland were thus making sacrifices. Let them apply the English scale to Scotland, and they would willingly accept it; for he was quite sure they would make a great deal more money under it than they did under the Scotch scale.

said he was sorry that nothing was to be done for a form of technical education to which he attached great importance, -namely, agricultural research. Ha had thought that the Scotch Office Was alive to the great desire there was in Scotland, especially in some of the counties, that there should be a better system of agricultural research. There had been a certain, amount, of correspondence. He himself had had the privilege of seeing the Secretary for Scotland once or twice on the subject, and lie certainly thought that there was, an idea of devoting a certain sum of money—£6,000 or £7,000 a year to that purpose. Such an expenditure would be most remunerative, it would return itself a hundredfold to the Scotch farmer mid landowner, and lie did hope, therefore, that at the eleventh hour there might be a possibility of applying a certain sum to the purpose he had mentioned. Resolution to be reported upon Thursday.

remarked that he congratulated the Government on the introduction of this Bill, and now, having had an opportunity of reading it, he again desired to express his thanks to the Government for this attempt to do something for the Highlands. He would, however, warn the Government that it would not settle the Highland question. The people wanted to be reinstated on the lands which were occupied by their forefathers, and which were now used for deer and sheep. According to the Report of the Deer Forests Commission, there were nearly 2,000,000 acres of land in the Highland crofting counties suitable for the occupation of crofters, cottars, and fishermen. He had no objection to deer, but let them go to the crags and mountain tops, and let the fertile valleys be occupied by men. Large as the scope of this Bill was, it required powers the absence of which would tend to make it unworkable so far as the extension of holdings was concerned. It contained no compulsory powers for the acquisition of land, but it introduced the cumbrous and costly machinery of the Lands Clauses Acts. The want of compulsory powers in the Irish Act had seriously affected the usefulness of the Irish Congested Districts Board. He referred to the Irish Board because this Bill was founded on the Irish Congested Districts Act. The Commissioners under this Bill would have their hands tied in the case of an unwilling seller. Take, for example, the island of Lewis, with its population of nearly 30,000 living, under the most difficult conditions under one proprietor who might be unwilling to sell. Only last autumn, when in Lewis, the hon. Member introduced to the proprietor a deputation of County Councillors and other leading inhabitants of the island who were desirous that land should be provided for the creation of fishing villages in the neighbourhood of the bays where fish abounded, as well its for sites for cottars, and the extension of crofters' holdings. The proprietor of the island declined, however, to meet the difficulty. The result was that while under the Piddle Health (Scotland) Bill, which would shortly become law, numerous Black houses in the island would be condemned, no land would be available for the erection of new dwellings, or for the accommodation of cottars, who were crowded on to the parent croft. Were they, asked the hon. Member, going to migrate these fishermen to the mainland, and away front the rich fishing grounds around the island where they earned their livelihood? For want of compulsory powers to obtain land, the Congested Districts Board would be foiled on the very threshold of their work. Would the Lord Advocate consider the advisability of providing a remedy to meet this glaring defect in the Bill? Another point which he concluded to be an oversight was that the Bill did not provide for telegraph guarantees as in the Irish Congested Districts Act. The Scottish Fishery Board Reports urged the need of telegraph extensions to aid the development of the fishing industry. Seeing that the Bill provided for the development of the fishing, industry, it was essential that it should give the Commissioners of the Board power to guarantee telegraph extensions, since the Post Office and Treasury absolutely refused to provide telegraph extensions without guarantee. It was true that under the postal reforms, for which they were indebted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Postmaster General, these guarantees were reduced by one half. Poor fishermen could to it, even under these improved conditions, provide the necessary guarantees. Clause 6 said that repayments were to be made by half-yearly instalments of loan and interest. He frankly told the Lord Advocate this would he simply an impossibility. Time must be given to the crofter, cotter, and fisherman to obtain the natural increase of his stock and crops, and he would suggest that no payment be demanded until the expiration of, say, the first two or three years. With regard to the constitution of the Board, two of the proposed members, the Chairman of the Local Government Board and the Chairman of the Fishery Board, were located in Edinburgh. These gentlemen could not spend, say, eight or ten days in travelling to and front remote parts of Lewis, Harris, the Uists, or Barra—the very districts where congestion was most keenly felt. He suggested that all the three crofter Commissioners should be members of the Board, and he did so because these gentlemen had a thorough practical knowledge of the grievances of the Highland people, every acre of land in all the crofting counties, and the value of land in the respective districts. The two unknown men to be nominated by the Secretary for Scotland—where were they to be found? Where would you find a practical man who would give his time to travel, say through the island of Lewis, with purely disinterested motives? The practical work could not be done in either an Edinburgh or London office. The Chairman of both the Local Government Board and Fishery Board might be appointed as advisory members, but if these gentlemen were to be members of the Board, he thought the other two crofter Commissioners should also be added. The Board would thus consist of nine members, as in the case of the Irish Board. That Board had to deal with 3,608,569 acres, whereas the Congested Districts (Scotland) Board would have to deal with 9,005,038 acres. One more point he would ask—that provision be made in the Bill for the unexpended balance in each year not to be returned to the Treasury, but to be retained for the use of the Board. He had pointed out these defects in the Bill, which he hoped would be considered and remedied by the Lord Advocate, so that this effort on the part of the Government might be workable, and tend to make the lot of the Hildander somewhat brighter, better, and happier than it had been during many years.

gave the Bill his cordial commendation and support. The objects of the Measure were praiseworthy in the highest degree. He congratulated the Lord Advocate upon making a composite Commission of much experience in Scotland. As he understood the objects of the Measure, they were to have the experience and wisdom of three large Boards—the Local Government Board, the Fishery Board, and the Crofters Commission—and he thought the result would be satisfactory. He viewed, however, with some apprehension Section 5, which contained the provision for the acquisition of land. The substantial taking of land would form the key to the success or failure of the Bill as a whole. But Section 5 was practically an optional and not a compulsory taking of land. If a proprietor in the Highlands was willing to sell, all that Section 5 did was to give a means by which the arbitration should proceed under the Lands. Clauses Act. Upon that point he hoped the Government would listen to an appeal which he now ventured to make. He asked them to produce some clause or clauses that would give compulsory power for taking land for the purposes of this Bill. The safety of such taking was well assured. The taking of land would be in the present case at the instance of a composite and. great public Board for the great public weal of a large part of Scotland, and in these circumstances he thought the Government should take a stronger line than they had taken, and affirm by statutory enactment that such Board, finding themselves in a position to de- clare that the land was required, should have the power to put down its foot and say to a recalcitrant proprietor that he must concede to what was for the public weal in regard to this matter of land. He approved the purposes of the Bill and of the constitution of the Board it was proposed to set up, but he would beseech the Government to consider whether they could not strengthen and tighten up Section 5 of the Bill, so as to make the aspirations of the Highlanders for more land operative by statute.

agreed that the weak point of the Bill was that it contained no provision for the compulsory acquisition of land. It provided for the migration of crofters from one point to another, but it did not provide for the compulsory purchase of land. It was perfectly well known that in the districts affected by the Measure, the land was owned by one or two proprietors. They had thus power to prevent any migration of crofters, because, the Bill being of a voluntary and not of a compulsory character, they might decline to sell their land. He quite admitted that the present Government. had done a. deal to alleviate the condition of the Highlands, and he perfectly approved of what they had done to open up the means of communication by light railways in the Highlands. It had given the people an opportunity of earning a livelihood by developing their own districts. That was not charity, but, it was a policy which enabled all classes of the community to participate in the benefit of money that was coming out of the Imperial purse. It appeared to him that the present Bill departed from that policy, and that it was too much of the nature of a charity or dole. It gave money for the purchase of seed and for the erection of fishermen's houses and other purposes. But how could they build fishermen's houses if they had no compulsory powers to enable them to acquire land?· He considered the Government ought to make the power of acquiring land compulsory and not voluntary.

hoped the House would now let the Bill be Read a Second time. The points raised by hon. Members would be met.

opposed the Bill.

objected to the Bill being referred to any other Committee than that of the whole House. It traversed and partly repealed an important part of the existing law with regard to the acquisition of land by the Post Office. The existing law provided that, after notice given, the Treasury should hold an inquiry, and if satisfied might introduce a Bill. But under this Bill, although notices had been issued and objections made, no inquiry need be held. Moreover, Clause 9 of the Bill proposed in set terms that the Post Office should be exempted from the Metropolitan Building Act. The Bill also proposed to deal with the "Postman's Park," and to deal with it in a manner involving financial considerations and assumptions which he believed to be entirely wrong.

said he wished to support the views of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, especially as to the Postman's Park. By that part of the Bill the interests of the City Parochial Trustees, of whom he was one, were gravely affected.

said the hon. Member's remarks hardly bore on the Question before the House. If the Bill were referred to a Select Committee it would afterwards come before a Committee of the whole House in the ordinary way, when the hon. Member would have an opportunity for his remarks.

said he intended in Committee to withdraw Clause 9, to which his hon. Friend the Member for king's Lynn had referred. It was introduced rather by accident than design. The pillion of the Bill relating to the Postman's Park undoubtedly dealt with certain legal questions between the Post Office and the City Parochial Trustees, and he had arranged that it should be withdrawn on the distinct understanding that the trustees should not build on the vacant site until there had been an opportunity to consider the matter during the Recess.