5th April.

I find that that day is one winch will be generally inconvenient to us on these Benches—it is the last day on which the House sits, and a great many Irish Members will be absent. I would suggest that the Second Reading of this Bill be put off to some day when the Irish Members can be present; and if I may make a suggestion to the promoters, I would suggest Tuesday, the 19th April.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many of Her Majesty's Consulates General, Consulates, and Vice-Consulates in foreign countries are held by foreigners, not subjects of Her Majesty; and if, having regard to the increased importance of these posts from a commercial point of view, he will endeavour to fill vacancies whenever practicable by duly qualified and commercially-trained subjects of the Queen?

The number of foreigners not subjects of Her Majesty holding British Consular appointments is four Consuls-General, 14 Consuls, 225 Vice-Consuls, and 29 Consular Agents. Wherever we can we appoint British subjects to Consular posts; but in the higher grades of these British subjects require to be paid substantial salaries, whereas the services of all the officials above enumerated are gratuitously rendered. I am afraid that if we accepted the principle that British subjects should be appointed in every case, we should in many instances find great difficulty in securing suitable candidates, and that we should have to ask the House for a heavy annual increase to the Consular Vote. It was the last-mentioned obstacle that was accepted as conclusive by the Royal Commission in 1889. I need hardly add that, cœteris paribus, a British subject is always chosen.

Do I understand my right hon. Friend to say that the services of these foreigners are gratuitously rendered?

Yes, Sir; in every case, without exception.

Do I understand my right hon. Friend to say that there is a system of diplomatic sweating?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that, owing to unsuitable ships and bad fittings and ventilation, the mortality which took place amongst cattle and sheep in the trade between South America and the home ports in 1897 amounted to 97 per 1,000 amongst cattle shipped and to 37 per 1,000 amongst sheep; and, whether, seeing this number, even allowing for the increased length of the voyage, is in excess of the loss between North America and this country, where the numbers for the same period were 2.3 and 7 per 1,000 respectively, he can suggest and apply mitigation of these evils as far as possible?

The facts stated by my hon. Friend with respect to the mortality amongst cattle and sheep carried across the South and North Atlantic respectively are substantially correct. The conditions of the two trades, both as regards the character of the cattle carried and the nature and duration of the voyage, are not identical, and too much weight must not, therefore, be attached to the comparison made in the Question, but there is no doubt in my mind that there is nevertheless considerable room for improvement as regards the South American trade, and we are taking steps which will, I hope, be attended with satisfactory results.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture (1) whether he has received many Resolutions from County Councils in England and Wales protesting against having to pay out of Local Taxation Account a portion of the expenses incurred in the measures taken for the purpose of stamping out disease amongst stock; (2) whether the Government intend during the coming financial year to ask Parliament to vote a further sum of money out of Imperial taxes for the above purpose; and (3) whether that sum will be sufficient to entirely relieve local authorities in future from any burdens on the local taxation?

The reply to the first and second inquiry is in the affirmative. With regard to the third I would say that although I should hope that the reduction in our drafts upon the Local Taxation Accounts, which has been so substantial during the past two years, may still further proceed, I can scarcely anticipate that we shall be able to dispense with such drafts altogether in the year 1898–99. The Exchequer contributions will be the maximum amounts which can be granted consistently with the limitation imposed by law.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the date of the last inspection by Her Majesty's Inspector of the mine near Muirkirk, Ayrshire, preceding the recent fatal accident; what was the extent of the inspection then made; and whether and to what extent Her Majesty's Inspector and the owners of the mine were aware that the present workings were approaching old workings, and what precautions, if any, were taken against accidents?

As all the points involved in the hon. Member's Question will probably come under consideration during the inquiry now pending, I do not think it would be right for me at present to give any answer, as it might possibly seem to affect that inquiry.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been directed to the unanimous Resolution recently passed at a meeting of the Central Veterinary Society, to the effect that the reliability of mallein as a test for glanders in horses is thoroughly established, and that the use of this agent under legal regulations would expedite and cheapen the work of suppressing the disease; and whether, under the circumstances, the Board of Agriculture will so alter their regulation as to afford the necessary powers to local authorities for the proper employment of mallein?

Yes, I have seen the Resolution to which the hon. Member refers. With regard to the use of mallein, I would say that, although the diagnostic value of that substance is now well established, our knowledge with regard to its effect upon healthy horses, and as to its immunising and curative properties, is, as I am advised, far from being complete. It would therefore be premature, I think, to confer further powers upon local authorities with respect to its use, but the veterinary officers of my Department are making investigations on the subject, and it will continue to engage their attention.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Foreign Office has been called to the Abyssinian Decree of June, 1897, which states that, by reason of the services which Count Nicholas Léontieff has rendered out of friendship to the Abyssinian Government, he is nominated Governor General of the Ethiopian countries known as the Equatorial Provinces, with the mission of introducing into them, the Imperial authority of Abyssinia; whether inquiry has been made as to the districts intended by the phrase, "the Ethiopian countries known as the Equatorial Provinces"; and whether there is any reason to suppose that any portion of these provinces thus handed over to a Russian subject, with a view to the introduction of the authority of the Emperor Menelik, is situate within the British sphere of influence attached to the British East Africa Protectorate?

I have seen what purports to be a copy of the Decree in question. There is no mention in it of the limits or extent of the Equatorial Provinces therein referred to; nor in the absence of a British representative at the Court of the Emperor Menelik has it hitherto been possible to make inquiries on the subject. Lieutenant Harrington, who has been accredited by Her Majesty in this capacity, is now on his way to Abyssinia; and his Reports may supply us with information on all these subjects.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when opportunities will be given to those who may take exception to the provisions of schemes to be submitted to the Registrar General of Friendly Societies, in substitution of the Compensation Act, for showing that such schemes are less favourable to the workmen than the provisions of the Act?

The Registrar requires an abstract of the scheme to be printed and suspended in each place where the men affected by it work, with a notice that any workman may within 28 days send his objections to the Registrar, by whom they will be considered.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can state who acts as the responsible head of the Ordnance Factories during the present absence of the Director General owing to ill-health; and if under present circumstances the Deputy Director is so acting?

The Director General is improved in health, and is himself attending to the more important matters that arise.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the late Secretary for War made a regulation that, in the absence of the Director General, one of the Superintendents should be appointed to take his place?

Order, order! The hon. Member had better give notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a fresh Agreement has been entered into between the Imperial Government and the Governments of the Australian Colonies for the future administration of British New Guinea; and, if so, whether there is any objection to stating its terms?

No fresh agreement has been entered into. I am awaiting a dispatch from the Governor of Queensland containing the proposals on this matter formulated by the Premiers of the contributing Colonies at their recent Conference.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reason for the delay in the delivery of the Jubilee medals issued by the Mint; and when the delivery may be expected?

Orders were received for 72,574 large medals, and for 263,181 small medals. The whole of the latter have been issued, as well as all the large gold and silver medals, and also a considerable portion of the bronze. The balance is being proceeded with as rapidly as the resources of the Mint permit. It must be remembered that the large medals cannot be turned out with the rapidity of coins.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether there was any special reason for departing from the old rule of making land settlements for 30 years in the Central Provinces of India, which rule was observed in most of those parts in 1863–70; whether the reduction in the term of settlement to 20 years was made with the view of making a fresh assessment after this shorter period; whether, in view of the recent severe famine, the Government will adhere to the old rule and declare the present settlement good for 30 years; and whether he can state what is the land revenue of the Central Provinces as actually fixed by the revised assessments?

Twenty years, instead of 30, was made the term for recent settlements in the Central Provinces on the general grounds that the quantity and value of agricultural produce in those tracts had increased so greatly that it was not possible to assess upon the ryots, at a single settlement, reasonably adequate rents; and that a term of 30 years was not required to secure the further progress of the people during the coming settlement. It will depend on the view taken of the then circumstances whether a fresh assessment will be made in the Central Provinces 20 years hence. I see no sufficient reason for directing an alteration of the term of settlement at the present time; my answer of Tuesday last explained how difficulties caused by the famine were being met. In my answer to the hon. Member's Question of the 8th March I stated the land revenue of the Central Provinces for the year ending September, 1896, as compared with the revenue before the recent settlement operations. When all the settlements are concluded I shall be able to furnish a statement of the total land revenue of the Central Provinces before and after the settlements.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the press or presses erected by the Government of India at Umballa for the pressing of bhusa, or compressed fodder, have broken down after pressing altogether about 1,250 bales; what has been the cost of the press or presses at Umballa, including cost of maintenance and working; whether other presses have been erected or are in course of erection by the Government; whether large quantities of bhusa have been pressed at presses, erected by private enterprise to the satisfaction of the Government of India; and whether, under the above circumstances, it is the intention of the Government of India to continue to erect further presses or to maintain those already erected by Government?

I have no information on the subject to which my hon. Friend's Question refers. A press for compressing fodder was sent to the Government of India, at their request, six years ago; but it was regarded at the time as an experiment, and since then no demands for cresses have been received.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the condition of the young children engaged on the work of the West of Ireland Distress Fund, who are suffering from insufficient and improper food coupled with the wet and cold now prevailing; and whether the Irish Government will now propose some more generous and effective means of dealing with the distress than those which he recently explained to the House?

My attention has not been called to any cases of hardship of the nature alleged in the Question. If, however, the hon. Member is in a position to furnish me with particulars of any case of the kind, I will have immediate inquiry made into the facts, and should any hardships be found to exist, steps will at once be taken to remedy the conditions complained of.

May I, by the way of personal explanation, say that the Question has been so altered as to mislead the right hon. Gentleman; I will put it down for Friday.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received any information from British Consulates in Germany as to an increased number of sailings of the subsidised line of steamers from Germany to the British East African Protectorate, and whether he intends to take steps to aid British enterprise in meeting this favoured competition?

Her Majesty's Consuls in Germany have had no occasion specially to inform us as to the increased number of sailings of the German steamships to East Africa, inasmuch as the latter have been publicly notified and are everywhere known. The subject of British steam communication with East Africa is one that has for long engaged the attention of Her Majesty's Government.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will advise the Government to include the amalgamation of workhouses in Ireland in the Local Government (Ireland) Bill?

The power to amalgamate workhouses exists already under the Poor Laws, and I trust and believe that under the Lunacy clauses of the Bill an additional reason will be found for a judicious exercise of this power by the Local Government Board with the concurrence of the guardians of unions concerned.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Thirsk Division of Yorkshire, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction has been expressed in the parish of Weston at the refusal of the Vicar of Runcorn to make public the details of the distribution of the Orred's Charity of which he is trustee; and whether, if the Charity Commissioners consider that there are objections to the practice of giving these details at a parish meeting, they would recommend the Vicar of Runcorn to associate some representative or representatives of the Weston Parish Council with himself in the distribution of this charity?

A representative of the Parish Council was appointed a trustee of Orred's Charity on the 14th August, 1896, in pursuance of an Order of the Charity Commissioners. The Commissioners believe the trustees are carrying out Section 14 (6) of the Parish Councils Act in reference to the accounts of parochial charities.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will place Vote 8 of the Naval Estimates on the list as first for discussion on the date on which the Naval Estimates will be brought again before the House in Committee of Supply?

, who replied, said: I cannot at present give any pledge as to the order in which the remaining Votes will be taken. It must depend in part on the date fixed for the continuance of the discussion.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the additional expenditure of Rx.200,000 which, as announced by the Indian Finance Minister, will be annually entailed on the Indian Revenues by the military changes being introduced in this country is a provisional estimate for the year, or does it represent the result finally arrived at and agreed to by the Home and Indian Governments?

The sum of Rx.200,000 entered in the Estimates for 1898–99 can only be a provisional and approximate estimate of the charge falling on this particular financial year. No decision has yet been arrived at on the application to India of the changes in the pay of British troops.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of Slate for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to the effect that the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, in its report upon the proposed annexation of Hawaii, alleges that, if Great Britain is not industriously and openly engaged in fomenting this concerted movement for the destruction of the Republic and the restoration of the monarchy on its ruins, her agents and the Princess, her protégée, are kept conveniently near at hand to fasten her power upon the islands when a pretext arises for protecting the lives and property of British subjects in Hawaii; and whether there is any truth in these allegations against Her Majesty's Government?

I have seen a statement in the Press to the effect that the Report of the Foreign Relations Committee of the American Senate does contain the allegations mentioned in the Question of my right hon. Friend. I do not know whether this Report is authentic, but if it be so, I have to say that there is no truth whatsoever in the allegation.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that strong opposition was voiced in this House last Session by an hon. Member opposite to the annexation of this island by the United States?

Order, order! The hon Member must give notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether, seeing that Parliament will be asked to vote a sum of £800,000 towards the building of the Museum of Science and Art at South Kensington under the Civil Service Loans Bill, an Irish equivalent of eleven-eightieths will be asked for the proposed new building for a Royal College of Science in Dublin for Ireland; (2) whether the erection of this new College of Science has been reported to be essential by a Government Committee of Inquiry; and (3) whether it will be placed under Irish control?

The erection of a new College of Science in Dublin has been favourably reported upon by a Government Committee of Inquiry, and the whole question is now under consideration. The first part of the Question should not be addressed to the Irish Government, but to the Treasury.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government has procured a copy of the diagram of wheat prices from 1st January to 31st December, 1897, which has been prepared by a German expert and quoted from in the Reichstag this Session during the Debates on the Bourse Reform Bill; whether he is aware this diagram clearly demonstrates the price in Germany and in Russia, where the option gambling system has been prohibited, as compared with prices in other countries, including Great Britain, where the option gambling system is permitted; and whether he will obtain a copy of the diagram, and make further inquiries into this subject?

I have not seen the diagram of wheat prices referred to by the hon. Member. Her Majesty's Government will continue to watch the subject of dealing in options, but I am afraid I cannot promise to obtain copies of all publications on the question that may be mentioned in foreign Legislatures.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what amount of interest has been earned, and at what rate per cent., by a sum allocated as the Irish equivalent under the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896; and what is now the total amount of that fund?

The sum secured to Ireland as the equivalent grant, at the rate of nine-eightieths of the sum payable under the Agricultural Rating Act, 1896, amounts at this date to £219,069, and the interest accruing due on the lodgments at one per cent. per annum amounts to £1,237.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the deficit for the year 1897–98 announced in the Indian Budget, Rx.5,280,000, includes or excludes the £4,000,000 sterling, equivalent, say, to Rx.6,000,000, borrowed in England and applied in part payment of the home charges for the year; and what are the total net amounts of the actual additions to the debt of India in 1897–98, and estimated to be added in 1898–99, without reckoning capital raised for expenditure on reproductive public works?

The deficit of Rx.5,280,000 in 1897–98 is the excess of expenditure chargeable against revenue over the revenue of the year. It includes the interest charged in the year in respect of sterling debt incurred; but, in arriving at the amount of deficit, the money raised by borrowing in the year is not reckoned as part of the revenue of the year. It is, however, included in the Ways and Means, out of which the deficit and capital expenditure have been met. The total net additions to the debt of India in 1897–98 and 1898–99 are estimated as follows:—In England, £11,112,600; in India, Rx.5,424,900; but I am unable to say how much of this has been, or will be, applied to expenditure on reproductive public works until I get the full detailed accounts. The railway capital expenditure in both years, was large.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received the dispatch recently referred to by President Kruger as having been sent from the Transvaal Government on the subject of the British suzerainty; and whether he intends to communicate its contents to the House?

I have not yet received the dispatch, and am unlikely to do so for some weeks. It would be premature to answer the second Question, now.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in connection with the clause in the Local Government Bill which proposes to remove the legal obstacles in the way of the working of the Irish Education Act, 1892, he proposes to take any steps to settle the question of the Christian Brothers Schools?

The reply to the Question is in the negative; any proposal of the nature indicated would not be germane to the Bill.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give the figures which show that the advantage which urban areas will gain by a system of union rating will be about £27,000 per annum?

The figures upon which is based the estimated increase in the Agricultural Grant due to the adoption of union rating are only an approximation, and cannot be checked until the new boundaries of the unions and counties are settled and the exact amount of the poor rate assessed or raised in the year 1896–97 is ascertained. The increase in the grant is roughly, as I stated yesterday, £13,000.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman understands my Question. It is not in reference to the increased grant, but the benefit the urban areas will derive.

If the hon. Member will repeat the Question, and state exactly what he does mean, I will endeavour to answer him.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any judicial decision has ever been given that a telephone instrument is equivalent to a telegraph, except as regards the Postmaster General's monopoly of the right of conveying messages by wire?

The decision that a telephone is a telegraph was given by the Exchequer Decree of the High Court of Justice in the case of the Attorney General versus the Edison Telephone Company. This case arose on the right of the Postmaster General to a monopoly to conveyance of messages by wire. The exact words of the judgment, "For all these reasons we hold that the telephone is a telegraph within the meaning of the Acts of 1869 and 1863," are very wide.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, how many local authorities have adopted the Notification of Infectious Diseases Act, and what proportion that number is of the whole number empowered to do so?

The number of districts in which the system of notification is in force is 1,649, with a population of nearly 28,000,000, out of 1,821 districts, with a population of 29,000,000.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Scottish County Councils immediately north of the Border are unable to act with the English County Councils immediately south of the Border for the purpose of the formation of joint committees for the prevention of the pollution of rivers; and, if so, whether he proposes to introduce a Bill of one clause, or whether he would favour the introduction of a Bill of one clause, to enable them to do so?

I am aware of the question which has been raised with regard to certain counties. I do not propose to introduce a Bill on behalf of the Government, but I should favour the introduction of such a Bill; or if in Committee on the Rivers Pollution Prevention Bill a clause were moved with a view of providing for the appointment of a joint committee, I would raise no difficulties if the terms of the clause appeared to be free from objection.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury in what manner and to what extent the Government encourage the study of Chinese and other Eastern languages; and whether he will order a Report to be issued setting forth the facilities given by Germany, Russia, and France for the study of the above languages?

In answer to my hon. Friend I have to say that the study of Oriental languages is encouraged by the Government under the following conditions. In China, Japan, and Siam student interpreters in the Consular service, after being selected by open competitive examination in England, devote two years to the study of those languages; and their subsequent position in the service depends on the result of the examination held at the end of this probationary period. In the Diplomatic service a special allowance of £100 a year is allowed for a knowledge of Oriental languages. The India Office and the War Office also offer pecuniary rewards to officers who qualify in Chinese. The conditions in the other countries, named in the Question are so different that it is doubtful whether any advantage would be gained from such a Report as is asked for being granted.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, for the convenience of Members when in Committee on the Irish Local Government Bill, he will have printed and circulated the existing Acts or portions of Acts of Parliament which relate to that Bill?

I think that probably the hon. Gentleman has drawn his Question in rather wider terms than he contemplated, for if we attempted to carry out his wish as there expressed we should probably have to lay a volume on the Paper. What I think, however, he really refers to are those parts of the English and Scotch Acts to which reference is made towards the end of the Bill. That will be given in the fullest manner in the draft Order, which it is proposed to lay on the Table at the earliest possible date.

May I make an appeal for the inclusion of the parts referred to in the schedule of the Bill for the information of the people of Ireland?

The draft Order will, I think, satisfy the hon. Member's wishes in that respect. It will be in the hands of hon. Members before the Committee stage is taken. I will undertake there shall be no unnecessary delay.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how long it is since the work of providing the necessary improvements and increased accommodation in the Carlow District Lunatic Asylum were begun; how much has been expended on those works up to date; how much it is proposed to expend; by what date they are to be completed; and by whom were the plans, estimates, and specifications prepared under the instructions of the Board of Control?

The work of providing the necessary improvements and increased accommodation in the Carlow District Asylum was commenced early in 1894. A sum of £20,212 has been expended on the works, and a further expenditure of £9,088 is proposed. It is expected that the works will be completed early next year. The plans, estimates, and specifications were prepared by Mr. Quilton, County Surveyor of Carlow, the architect selected by the Board of Governors.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will cause a Return to be laid upon the Table of the House giving the names of the several officers employed under each Grand Jury in Ireland, and giving the date of their appointment, the law under which they were appointed, emoluments they receive and how paid; whether they hold any other office under the county or under Government; and, if so, the emoluments attached to such office; whether the appointment is a permanent one or only made from Assizes to Assizes; whether their services to the Grand Jury have been continuous; and whether he will have the information required, when collected, checked by some reliable authority?

I have forwarded to the hon. Member the heads of a Return to which no objection will be offered if he will place on the Paper a Notice of Motion in the amended form indicated by me. As regards the last paragraph of the Question, each Grand Jury secretary will be asked to certify to the accuracy of the information supplied; but beyond this the Government have no means of checking the information unless a county officer should also hold a Crown appointment.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the trial by the Bombay High Court, and subsequent acquittal, of a soldier named Piper, charged with causing the murder by shooting of a Native villager near Poona; whether he is aware that similar cases are very frequent in other-parts of India in consequence of the practice of allowing soldiers to wander about the country carrying firearms in search of sport in ignorance of the customs and prejudices of the villagers; and whether, in view of the dangerous quarrels frequently resulting from this practice, and in view of the general state of unrest of the country, he will consider the desirability of issuing an order that no soldier shall be permitted to carry firearms or ammunition in places where he is out of control of his officers?

I have seen a newspaper report of the case mentioned by the hon. Member, and much regret the incident to which it related; but I would remind him that, according to that report, Gunner Piper had no right to be out shooting, as he is said to have had no pass. Passes to go out shooting are only given to men of good character, and under very stringent regulations, and I am not disposed to prohibit this practice.

In putting this Question may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to the fact that the statement included in it has been repeatedly made in the Press—I do not at all personally vouch for it. I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that 500 children under 10 years of age and 1,500 children under 14 years of age were arrested in one year in London for drunkenness; and will he state what information the Metropolitan Police possess respecting the extent of drunkenness among children during the year 1897?

I am not surprised at the hon. Member's disclaimer. I am afraid the hon. Member is very much misinformed. During the four years 1893–96 no children were taken into custody for drunkenness in the Metropolitan Police District who were under the age of 12, and only 73 who were under the age of 16. The figures for 1897 are not yet available.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the defective mail delivery and passenger service on the Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway, as regards Tralee, Ennis, Limerick, and the west coast; whether he has received a copy of a resolution recently passed by the Kerry Grand Jury referring to this matter, and stating that the inadequacy of the Post Office subsidy is largely responsible for the inconvenience caused; and whether he can see his way to increase this subsidy to the small extent required?

The Postmaster General is not aware to what defects in the mail service on the Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway the hon. Member refers. He has not yet received a copy of the resolution recently passed by the Kerry Grand Jury, but he has no reason to suppose that the alleged inadequacy of the Post Office subsidy can be in any way responsible for the alleged inconvenience. He certainly cannot see his way at the present moment to increase the payment to the Company, which he believes, on the whole, to be commensurate with the service performed.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in regard to this matter, if the Postmaster General will be prepared to receive a deputation from Tralee, Limerick, Ennis, and other centres affected by this system?

I cannot, of course, answer for the Postmaster General and say whether he will receive a deputation or not. At any rate, I think it would be advisable to wait until he has received a copy of the resolution.

Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Postmaster General the fact that the grievance has been in existence for the past three or four years, and will he suggest to the Postmaster General that he should receive a deputation?

I am sure every consideration will be given to the matter.

This grievance has been going on three or four years, and is not yet settled.

Order, order.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that on the 9th instant two persons in the employment of Messrs. Macnamara and Co., contractors to the Post Office for the conveyance of Her Majesty's mails, were convicted of cruelly working a lame horse; whether he is aware that this same firm, or their managers, foremen, and drivers, have been repeatedly convicted of similar offences; and whether, in these circumstances, the Postmaster General will remove the name of Messrs. Macnamara from the list of firms eligible to tender for Government contracts?

The Postmaster General's attention was drawn to the fact that two persons in the employment of Messrs. Macnamara and Co. were recently convicted of working a lame horse. He at once called upon the firm for an explanation, and found that the vehicle drawn by the horse was not engaged in the conveyance of mails, and that the driver was not and never had been employed in the mail service. The Postmaster General is aware that employees of Messrs. Macnamara have been previously convicted of similar offences. With the view of satisfying himself as to the condition of Messrs. Macnamara's horses, the Postmaster General has from time to time caused surprise visits to be paid to the stables of this firm, and the reports which he has received after such visits would not justify him in removing Messrs. Macnamara's name from the list of firms eligible to tender for Government contracts.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether reports have reached him as to the practice of crimping which is alleged to be largely carried on in the shipping office of the British Consul in New York during the engaging and discharging of seamen; and, if so, what steps, if any, he proposes to take to have crimps and boarding-house keepers excluded from the shipping office while the operation of engaging and discharging of seamen is going on?

My attention has been called to the alleged prevalence of crimping both inside and outside the Consular Office at New York, and I am in communication with the Consul General on the subject.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give the House any information as to the course he intends to take with reference to the Greek loan, and the discussion thereupon. As there will be several stages it will be well to take the discussion on some day convenient for the Government, and I should like some indication whether it is proposed to have it on the Resolution or on the Second Reading?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer the Question. I will endeavour to ascertain whether matters will be so far advanced by Thursday as to enable us to carry out the intention of taking the financial resolution as first Order of the Day. I hope they may be, but we are not quite certain. If so, that will provide an opportunity for discussion.

We may take it that it will be the first Order?

Yes.

I desire to direct the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to one or two matters in connection with the relief of the distressed districts of Ireland. I had a Question on the Paper to-day, but owing to the form to which it has been altered it conveyed a wrong impression to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman; I was, therefore, unable to obtain the information I desired to obtain. What I wish to direct his attention to is a report published the other day in the Manchester Guardian, on the authority of that admirable committee, the Manchester Relief of Distress Committee, to which I must say the Irish people owe a deep debt of gratitude, for they were the pioneers in this work on inaugurating private charity for the relief of those unfortunate districts. This report, to which I desire to direct his attention, stated that the Manchester Relief Committee were in possession of reports from the congested districts to the effect that amongst the children of those districts there existed widespread suffering from insufficient and unwholesome food, and from the miserable want of clothing in the cold and damp weather which prevailed. Now, what I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this: I take it for granted that the report given on the authority of the Manchester Relief Committee would be considered a document entirely worthy of his consideration, and that it would be treated as an authentic and important document: and if it is true, as is asserted by the Manchester Relief Committee, that there is this horrible condition among the children in the congested districts in the west of Ireland, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not consider it to be the duty of the Government to inquire forthwith into this statement, and, if they find that the facts are as stated, whether they will not apply to the existing state of things some more elastic and generous measure of relief than that which was described by the right hon. Gentleman in the House the other day. It will be fresh in the memory of every Member of this House that when the right hon. Gentleman was asked the other day whether it was a fact that in the case of certain relief works now being carried out the wages afforded only gave the average family of six or seven children 1½d. per day per head, he said: Yes, that is so. In many instances these wages have to be earned by women where there are no able-bodied men connected with the family, and they are obliged to travel long distances to work under the control of a timekeeper or ganger. Well, Sir, I say if this is so it is no wonder that the children should present the appearance of being half-starved, of suffering from insufficient and unwholesome food, and of being insufficiently clothed. I myself pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman, as the result of my own observations in the west of Ireland, reinforced by the statements of many priests whom I inter-viewed and consulted on this matter, that so long ago as December last it was a painful experience to observe in numbers of schools in the west of Ireland that the faces of the children were wan and pinched, and bore evident traces of insufficient food. If that is the case, anyone who knows the conditions under which these people live must know that their circumstances grow worse and worse as the spring advances, until, indeed, the month of May, June, or July; and I put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether some scheme could not be devised by which, at all events, decent food and clothing would be provided for the school children, and those unhappy children saved from suffering for want of food. The case is an extremely cruel one, because it is not only that the children have insufficient food provided, but that the food they do obtain is unwholesome food. They can survive a period of insufficient food, provided that the food be wholesome, but one of the cruellest circumstances of the present state of affairs which prevails in the west of Ireland is that even the little food which the people have is in many cases of a most sickening and unwholesome character. Men have come to me, as I have told the right hon. Gentleman, before the potatoes had given out, and told me that every day of their lives they had insufficient food, and suffered more or less pain from the unwholesome character of the food they had to live upon. What I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to do, if he will not accept the statement of Irish Nationalist Members, is to put himself in communication with the Manchester Committee and get the information which is in their possession. They have shown their earnestness by raising a very large sum of money. I believe they have raised already £6,000 in the City of Manchester alone. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not put himself in communication with the Committee and get the information which is in their possession, and assist their effort by some grant of public money? At all events, I would ask them—outside the present relief machinery, which is miserably insufficient, and entirely inadequate to cope with the condition of things which exists in these districts; and would ask him to get up some more generous, more humane system of relief in the districts where the children are suffering. There is one other point in connection with this matter to which I desire to draw attention, and that is the condition of the parish of Sneem, in the County of Kerry. I was reading yesterday a most heartrending description of the condition of the parish of Sneem and Cahirciveen, both exceedingly poor districts. I cannot state it from my own personal knowledge; but all I can say is that, if that be true that terrible distress exists in Sneem and Cahirciveen, it is a most painful and distressing state of things. There is no district in Ireland in which there is greater distress, and the accounts which reach myself and other occupiers of this Bench are most appalling. What I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman is that in many parts of Ireland there would have been deaths by starvation had it not been for money which was contributed by charitable people outside of Ireland, and if they had been trusting to the Government alone there is no doubt that a terrible number of people would have died from starvation. I asked the right hon. Gentleman some time ago whether he would, so far from modifying his labour tests and his scheme of works, as the spring advanced, set people to work, even on their own farms, or in the immediate neighbourhood. I know that would be a new departure to some extent in the conduct of public works in Ireland; but, Sir, the history of relief works in Ireland is not so triumphant a success that the Government need be afraid of new experiments and new departures. I cannot see why, in view of the fact that there is in existence a system under which loans of public money are made to small farmers for executing works on their own holdings, a similar system cannot be introduced in regard to the relief works, because I am convinced that the money, if it could be used in that way, by getting people to work on their own holdings instead of sending them long distances to work, would be more beneficial and go twice as far under the present system. I would, therefore, urgently impress upon the right hon. Gentleman to imitate the experiment which has been carried out in Carraroe and other places in County Galway, whore under the direction of private relief committees the people are set to work on their own holdings, and paid for performing reasonable-works on their own holdings, the money being treated as relief money, and only given, of course, in cases where distress exists. Now that the spring is upon us, and it is necessary for the people to be on their own holdings for the purpose of sowing the crops, I would urge the right hon. Gentleman, at least in some districts, to try the experiment of carrying out labour tests on holdings of the people themselves. I take this opportunity to place these suggestions before the right hon. Gentleman. I do assure the House, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman, that all the accounts that reach me from the west of Ireland confirm my colleagues and myself in the belief that the views we placed before the House at the beginning of the Session as to the intensity of the distress were in no way exaggerated. We quite admit that the distress is not so extensive as it has been on previous occasions, but in the districts affected by the distress I believe it is greater than in 1890, when there was an expenditure of a million of money in relief, whereas the Government are now only spending £20,000; and I believe it is quite as intense, although much more limited in extent, than in 1879, and I therefore say that, as far as I can get information, there has never been in recent years a period of distress in face of which the Government have done so little to relieve the people as on the present occasion.

I should like to direct the Chief Secretary's attention to the statements made in the public Press on Saturday with reference to the failure, both of the Local Government Board and the local guardians, to extend any relief to one of the most distressed districts in the whole of the west of Ireland, and that is a portion of my own constituency. Father James Corbett, the parish priest, who has been struggling courageously and single-handed for several months to keep starvation from the doors of his parishioners, has made a very serious charge against both the Local Government Board and the local guardians. I will read to the right hon. Gentleman what he has said, and I am sure the statements will appear to him sufficiently important to warrant him in sending some inspector to the locality who is not related to anyone in the district, in order that the Chief Secretary may obtain from him a distinctly independent report with reference to the statements made by Father Corbett. These are the statements—

"The Local Government Board seems to have turned its back altogether on the district, since the Ballinrobe Guardians finally decided not to adopt the Government scheme of relief. Two months ago their inspector declared before the Guardians, 'Yon know, of course, there is no question of this distress. It is acute, and something must be done.' But nothing has been done. I have not heard that even an inspector has visited the districts for weeks. To make things worse, in a considerable portion of the parish the outdoor relief has been shut off, and not an extra shilling has been advanced for the last month where our committee was giving employment. Altogether, I can only describe the state of things as simply desperate."

Now, I know the writer of this letter, and I am certain that he would not have made those serious statements in the public Press unless there was foundation for them, and I trust that the Chief Secretary will listen to my suggestion, and send to the district a person who is not related to anyone in the district. I do not make any charges against individuals, but I have reason to believe that the inspector who has been in the locality has not put the whole truth before the Chief Secretary. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see to this matter as soon as he can.

I believe the distress is more acute than is generally imagined. I certainly have for some time past heard most alarming statements as to the suffering in the west of Ireland, and I am very much afraid that a large number of people are actually dying of hunger there. The Government have failed to deal adequately with this matter and I do most heartily join in the appeal made by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. The Chief Secretary is a humane man, but he has failed somewhere, and meanwhile the people are dying of hunger.

The hon. Member who has just sat down has stated—I do not know on what authority—that people are dying of hunger in the west of Ireland. There was a report to that effect, but upon inquiry being made it was found to be altogether unfounded. Sir, the hon. Member for East Mayo has asked me whether I have heard or seen an account corroborating the statement made by the Manchester Relief Fund Committee. Well, Sir, I am sorry to say that I have not yet seen the report of that Committee, and it is quite possible that I did not understand the Question which the hon. Member put down. It appears to me that the hon. Member in the short speech that he made has not formed a perfectly accurate idea of the duty of the Government in cases where distress arises. We have to carefully distinguish between what is the duty of the Government in such cases and that which can be done by charitable means. The duty of the Government is to see that there is nothing in the shape of famine or starvation, and I do not think the duty of the Government extends beyond that. If we were to attempt to go beyond that, I fear it would be very difficult for us indeed to avoid expenditure of a very extravagant kind. It would be a mistake for the Government to try to do what properly belonged to the province of private charity. I rather think that the Union of which Sneem forms a part of the Kilmare Union, and if the Guardians of that Union considered that it was desirable to avail themselves of the opportunities which have been given in that Union to establish works and seek assistance from the Government, no doubt the proposals on the part of the Guardians will be favourably considered. I do not think any such representations have been received by the Local Government Board. It is for the Guardians to proceed in the matter, for it is a duty laid on them to attend to the condition of destitute persons in their own Union. If the Guardians will move in the matter, then we are perfectly ready to do all we can to assist them.

Are you aware that the Guardians have moved in the matter without success?

I do not think the Guardians have asked us to do more than we have done. If they made an application something would be done. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for East Mayo that it is part of the duty of the Government to make a grant to these funds, is altogether unprecedented. The second suggestion made by the hon. Member, I think, was that we should employ those who are now on these relief works on their own farms. To do that would be merely equivalent to paying them for doing nothing at all. I do not mind the Relief Committee and the Congested Districts Board using charitable funds being assisted, because for a small amount of money they can do a considerable amount of work, and such a scheme as that adopted by the Swinford Union might have been adopted by Her Majesty's Government, but I do not think it possible in these circumstances. Sir, the hon. Member for South Mayo has asked me to make a further inquiry into this question, and he says that the condition of affairs is very serious. Well, further inquiries shall be made, but certainly I must not be held in as any way endorsing the suggestion that the Government inspectors have failed duly to report to the Government or have been actuated by any unworthy motive.

The Board of Guardians of the Ballinrobe Union have cut off the relief there, and now arises the duty of dissolving that Board of Guardians. I have heard from the Government a statement, made by the right hon. Gentleman, drawing the distinction between the funds coming from the Government and those coming from charitable sources; but we have to meet a serious condition of poverty, and they will not raise the rates. Take, for instance, the Union of Ballinrobe. If this Board of Guardians, in order to save itself from increased rates, will not make a proper expenditure of public money, I say it is the duty of the Government to dissolve that Board of Guardians. The Local Government Board have done that before for very small offences when these Guardians are Nationalists and when they pass resolutions about very unpleasant things. But here is a question of distress, and to some extent a question of life and death. Anybody who knows this district of Ballinrobe knows that it is a most wild and barren district. Fancy the position of a priest or a parson surrounded by a clamorous and starving poor, and cut away from all sources of parish relief, and living desolate with starving people. And then the Government say that it is no part of their duty, but it is for the Guardians to decide what to do. Well, if we had a system of local government properly established, I could understand the Government taking up that line, and saying, "It is for the people to raise their own rates and expend them." But here we have the landlord practically throttling the outdoor relief in this Union. I am far from saying they have taken so brazen and ignoble a stand in Ballinrobe, but I cannot conceive my hon. Friend making a complaint, such as he has done, if he was not justified by the facts. The Government have a duty thrown upon them. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman himself, as a humane man, visit these districts? I venture to say that the Irish Members will excuse his absence from this House for such an undertaking, which is really as much a part of his duty as answering questions in this House. I am quite sure every Member would be glad to excuse his absence in order that he might personally attend these districts, and if he came back and on his own responsibility said that this distress was exaggerated, and that there was no foundation for this agitation, I fully believe the House would then accept his statement; but if he came back and said: "The statements are not exaggerated; I find these people are cut from the necessary relief," then I am sure their requirements would be immediately attended to. You made grants in this House in the case of the sugar bounties, and therefore I say that when you have remote districts cut off like this the right hon. Gentleman ought to make a personal visit and find out the condition of things for himself on the spot.

Having lived for a short space of time in the district of Sneem, and knowing the position of things, I can certainly say that if the right hon. Gentleman will accede to the appeal made by the hon. Member for North Louth he will certainly be surprised at the existing state of affairs that there is to be found there at present. I appealed last year to the right hon. Gentleman on the question of distress, and I have personally visited some portions of these districts in the County of Kerry. If the right hon. Gentleman had visited these places, which his inspectors have not visited, if he entered a house of the poorer class of people, I would certainly say that this House would be surprised at the condition of affairs that is existing at the present time in a portion of the County of Kerry. It is almost unchristian to say that a large family—and these poor people have larger families than the wealthier class of people—it is a deplorable state of things to see a man and his wife with ten or twelve children living in one apartment, male and female and husband and wife alike sleeping on the floor. If they happen to have a goat, it sleeps in the same room. It is a deplorable state of affairs that any human being in this age of Christian civilisation should be compelled to lay down on an earth floor with nothing but a bed of straw, even with the little animal which they have in their possession. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary stated that the condition of the Poor Law system, had been relaxed in order to meet the existing state of affairs, owing to the poverty in existence; but surely the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, as the President of the Local Government Board is, of the enormous increase in taxation, owing to the relief of the poor in these districts. In several portions of Ireland, in the Listowel Union, there is not so much distress existing; but he must be aware that in some portions of that Union the aggregate rate is as high as 14s. in the £; and what relief is it to say that Boards of Guardians will be permitted to give increased outdoor relief, which means nothing more nor less than an increase of taxation? Speaking as one who has lived among the people all my life, it is practically asking people on the verge of starvation—not being able to pay their own honest debts to the shopkeepers—to do an utter impossibility, and it is inconsistent with the present condition of affairs to ask the Poor Law Board, who are the only Board to deal with distress in these districts, to increase their rates. It is impossible to ask these people to go on increasing the amount of money in the way of outdoor relief, which will ultimately mean an increase in their taxation. This state of things would not be tolerated by any other civilised nation in the world. I know a case where a local landlord bought a property ten years ago at ten-and-a-half years' purchase. When he got the tenants in possession he mortgaged their rights for arrears of rent, and what was the result? On the land-tax 50 per cent. of the tenants had not received a single penny for reduction; on the contrary, besides not receiving the benefits of land legislation, the rents have been increased, in some cases by 50, and in other cases by 70 per cent. I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman how he can expect a peaceable condition of affairs under conditions like that? One of those tenants was evicted for nonpayment of rent, and because another tenant of the property had the human kindness and generosity of heart to shelter him he too was evicted. I have seen with my own eyes people living in places which the hon. Members of this House would not put the smallest animal in their possession into. I say that it is a dreadful state of affairs in a civilised country that at the present moment a tenant is evicted from his home in the first place, and is hounded from one house into another because he has sheltered a man who has been evicted from his farm.

Order, order! That has nothing to do with the Motion.

I might, of course, have explained my object in a much narrower margin, but I wanted to explain the causes that have brought about this great distress that exists in this district, and—

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman must not go into that matter.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned what the Congested Districts Board had done. If I may be allowed, I should like to show him one case of what they have done. A local ratepayer made an application at the end of last year to get one of those animals which the Congested Districts Board have been kind enough to send into these districts—I mean a bull. They were kind enough to accede to his request, and for a two-year-old they sent him down a yearling.

Order, order!

Mr. Speaker, I will bear in mind your ruling. I wish to call the rigid hon. Gentleman's attention to another point. Is he aware that in one case the Local Government Board has refused to state the exact amount they are prepared to advance to Kerry for certain works to relieve the distress? What is certainly to my mind a sad state of affairs is to see one of the local school teachers writing to the public Press and appealing to the public all over Ireland to send down their mite—even sixpences and shillings—in order to give a small particle of food to the children of the poor peasants who come to school without breakfast, and when they go home at night it is not in the power of their parents to give them any supper, and this, too, under a, National system of education where the National school teacher has to give food to the children. I have always given the right hon. Gentleman a certain amount of credit for his kindness and good intentions, but I state candidly that this condition of things has arisen from the want of reliable and trustworthy official information he receives from the Local Government Board inspectors. I have always held that these men have no intimate knowledge, no personal acquaintance with the people in these poverty-stricken districts; and if the right hon. Gentleman will only visit these districts, and not confine himself to the aristocratic houses or the landlords' mansions, but simply go into one of these hovels where the poor live, he will find them, if not dying of starvation, on the verge of starvation. It is not so long ago that the right hon. Gentleman said that he was not aware of any case of death from starvation. Well, now, in the Killarney district not long ago a case occurred of a poor woman there who actually died from the effects of eating diseased potatoes, and she had no other food to be supplied with. In my opinion as to the great cause of distress in the County of Kerry, I most certainly say that I hold the Local Government Board directly responsible for it. It was owing to the break-up of the last harvest, which has not reached 25 per cent. of the average crop; and for that state of affairs the Local Government Board were responsible, because when the Guardians of the Listowel Union appealed through their representatives in this House for assistance it was refused. The Chief Secretary said that the Congested Districts Board was able to advance £10,000 to save the crops, but when the guardians of my Union made application for a portion of that money the Congested Districts Board said it had none. I should like to know how our guardians are placed at this moment. They will not get the money from the potato crop, and they will not be allowed to get their own money; and I say the Local Government Board is directly responsible for the failure of the crop in most cases in the south of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question which I put to him, stated that there was practically no distress in my constituency, and as a proof he pointed out that the number of inmates of the Listowel Union was less in 1897 than in 1896. But, he did not state—although he must have been aware of the fact—that the outdoor relief in that Union has since risen to a most alarming extent; and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether if is at all consistent with the present position of affairs to ask that these unfortunate ratepayers should be mulcted in these sums in order to relieve distress in one particular district. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to visit, again, not only some portions of the country round about Cahirciveen, but also some parts of the north-west of Ireland. I think he will then admit that there is a great amount of distress, and even of starvation, prevalent at the present time.

I rise to move that the provisions of the English Education Code should be assimilated to that of Scotland as regards the class and extra subjects. We have no doubt much reason to congratulate ourselves on the progress which has been made in national education of late years; the increased number of schools, the improvements in the buildings, the larger proportion of teachers to children, the better appliances, the smaller number of absentees, with results which have gone far to prove the truth of Victor Hugo's aphorism that, "he who opens a school closes a prison," and, I may add, does something to empty a workhouse also. We must not, however, "rest and be thankful"; at least, we may be thankful, but we must not rest. And there is one aspect of the subject which seems to me to be in far from a satisfactory position. We had last Session two so-called Educational Bills in Parliament, but they were really financial Measures, they dealt with, rates and grants rather than directly with education. On the Educational Estimates in the House of Commons the discussions turn mainly on the merits and demerits of Voluntary and Board schools, on structures, and playgrounds, and rates, but very little on the education itself, excepting, perhaps, under its theological aspects. Yet the Code exercises a most important influence in this respect, and for good or evil does much to determine the character of the education given. Under the Code the subjects taught in our elementary schools fall, I need not say, into three categories—the obligatory subjects, the class subjects, and the so-called specific subjects. The obligatory subjects are in the case of boys—I say nothing about girls—reading, writing, and arithmetic. The specific subjects comprise various sciences, domestic economy, and one or two languages. With the exception of domestic economy, however, they are not largely taken up. The class subjects are English, geography, elementary science, and history. Elementary science is simply some knowledge of the world in which we live, some knowledge of the facts of nature by which we are surrounded. Now, I submit that all these four subjects are essential. Which can be wisely omitted? Geography is certainly most important; so is history, and English; and last, but not least, elementary science. I should not, however, propose to make these four subjects obligatory; but surely we should encourage schools to take them up. So far from this, however, we actually preclude them from doing so. The Code provides that no child can be presented in more than two subjects. If, therefore, a class takes geography and elementary science, they must omit history and English; if they take history and English, elementary science and geography must be omitted. I am not sure whether anyone will maintain that more than two subjects cannot be taken with advantage; but if the Vice-President of the Council, or anyone else, is disposed to take this line, I would refer to the Scotch Code. The Scotch Code contains no such limitation. Scotch children, more fortunate than English, are permitted to take all four subjects, and they take advantage of it. Out of 3,000 departments in Scotland, no less than 2,200 take three or more class subjects. Moreover, not only did the children take three class subjects in the great majority of cases, but they learn them well, for the Report for 1895 goes on to say that in no less than 3,018 departments, out of 3,013, almost, therefore, the whole, and comprising 457,000 children—

"Grants are awarded according to the Report in each cast, the average sum earned by each of these scholars being 5s. 6d. This shows that a large proportion of departments received grants at the higher, or two shillings rate."

Perhaps I had better quote the actual words of the Code—

"As regards class subjects the English Code provides, 'a Grant for class subjects of one shilling or two shillings for a first-class subject, and one, shilling or two shillings for a second class subject.'… No more than two class subjects may be taken by any class, and the same number must be taken throughout the school; except that where needlework is taken by the girls its a class subject, a corresponding subject need not be taken by the boys."

Thus four shillings is the most that can be earned, and two subjects only may be taken. In the Scotch Code the provisions are wiser and more liberal—

"A Grant on the examination in class subjects amounting to 4s., 5s., or 6s., according as the Inspector reports that the teaching is fair (4s.), or good (5s.), or very good (6s.). Subjects may be grouped, and the lower standard 5, must show knowledge of at least two class subjects (Schedule 5)."

Thus 6s. may be earned, and the children must be presented in at least two subjects, so that the Scotch schools can earn 2s. more per head; and while two subjects are the maximum in England they are the minimum in Scotland. Passing now to the specific subjects, we find similar differences. The English Code provides—

"A Grant on the examination of individual scholars in specific subjects of 2s. or 3s. for each scholar presented in any specific subject.… No scholar may be presented for examination in more than two specific subjects."

Thus two subjects only can be taken, and 6s. is the maximum that can be earned. The Scotch Code, on the contrary, provides—

"A Grant of 4s. per subject may be made for every day scholar, presented in Standards 5 and 6 (Article 28), who passes a satisfactory examination in not more than two of such subjects."

Here the number of subjects is the same, but a Scotch child who passes in two subjects earns 8s. for his school; while on English child who passes equally well, and in the same subjects, only earns 6s. Now, how do these provisions work? Out of 24,000 English schools, geography was taken as a class subject in 16,000, English in 15,000, history in 4,000, and elementary science in only 2,200. No doubt elementary science is creeping up, but under the existing regulations it can only do so at the expense of either geography or English. Nor is the deficiency in any way repaired by what are known as the specific subjects, for out of 5,500,000 children in our schools only 140,000 (of whom, I may add, over 4,000 were in London, were presented for examination in any of these subjects, and of these 40,000 were in domestic economy. The other principal subjects were algebra, etc., 50,000; mechanics, 25,000; French and German, 13,000; physiology, 18,000; chemistry, 5,000; shorthand, 10,000; some of the children being presented in two subjects. These numbers are for the whole of England. None were presented in history. Now, I bring this subject before the House on two grounds—firstly, educational, and secondly, financial. To take the financial aspect first, the managers of Voluntary schools complain that they are cramped and starved for want, of funds; London occupiers complain of the ever-increasing rates. Now if we could induce the Government to alter the English Code so as to put our schools on the same platform as the Scotch—and this is surely a fair claim—our London schools might earn 4s. a head more than they do now. At present the Scotch schools earn £1 1s. 4d. per scholar, and the English only 19s. 11d., a difference of 1s. 5d. a head, which is equivalent to a very large sum. Now if this were due to the greater excellence of Scotch schools—to the children being better taught, more industrious, or more intelligent, however much we might regret our inferiority, we should have no cause to complain. But this is not so. The difference arises from the difference in the condition of the two Codes. Scotch schools are allowed to send in their children for four class subjects, and to earn 8s. English schools are limited to two class subjects, and cannot earn more than 4s. That the difference is due to this cause is shown by the fact that the Scotch schools do earn 5s. 6d. from the class subjects, while the English schools are only able to earn 3s. 6½d., or 1s. 11½d. less. But for this arbitrary difference we should actually earn more per head than the Scotch. In our London schools there are 600,000 children in average attendance, so that 2s. a head would come to a good round sum. Surely, then, on financial grounds we may fairly ask to be placed on the same footing as Scotland. But I have put the finance first, because, to my mind, it is far the less important aspect of the case. Education falls under three heads, that of the body, of the mind, and, lastly, of the heart—the most important of all. The education of the mind may be again subdivided into the three convenient—not, perhaps, natural—divisions of arithmetic, literature, and science. Certainly I am not likely to undervalue literature. Indeed, I have often felt a difficulty in tearing myself away from my books to take the necessary exercise. But though books are so enchanting, and teach us so much, they cannot teach us everything. The Greeks were great philosophers and thinkers, but not as a rule great observers. There is an essay in one of Plutarch's works on the question, "Which was first, the bird or the egg?" And one reason given for deciding that the hen preceded the egg is that everybody calls it "a hen's egg," and no one speaks of "an egg's hon." We are not ourselves free from the same error. But it is an error. We learn, or ought to learn, much from Nature direct. Mr. Crabb Robinson once went to call on Wordsworth. The maid said he was out, and Robinson then asked if he could see the study. The maid kindly took him in and showed him Wordsworth's sitting-room. "This," she said, "is master's library, but he studies in the fields." There is a great deal we may learn in the fields. It is extraordinary how little we know about the beautiful world in which we live, and what little we know is too much ignored in our schools. The neglect of physical science has been, and still is, the great blot in our educational system. Everyone, however, should know the rudiments of arithmetic, geography, physics, chemistry, and biology before attempting to proceed further. I say should be "well grounded," which is a very different thing from having a smattering. Smatterings are always mischievous. What is a "smattering"? The knowledge of a few isolated facts. That is, no doubt, of comparatively little use. To be well grounded is another matter. Let me illustrate what I mean by a reference to astronomy. The boy or girl who knows a few of the fundamental truths of that marvellous and inspiring science—that the moon goes round the earth, and why it changes its shape; that the earth and the other planets are going round the sun; that we are moving at the rate of 1,000 miles a minute; that the sun is one of many millions of stars; that comets are heavenly bodies, and not warnings of impending catastrophes; who has some idea of the almost infinite time and distances and velocities of the heavenly bodies—is not, indeed, an astronomer, and yet knows even more than the great Ptolemy himself, or all the wisest of the ancient philosophers. This is the kind of instruction that could very well be given in our schools, and where it has been tried it has been found most interesting to the children. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that in many cases, and that is I know especially the case in London, the children do receive instruction in history, though they are not presented for examination. The system in the schools is, in fact, better than that in the Code. At the same time the Code, of course, exercises a great influence. It ought to exhibit a model to be aimed at, and not an example to be avoided. No doubt the Code, on the whole, has been well and carefully thought out. I should be sorry to give an impression that I am attacking it generally. On the contrary, I cordially recognise how much we are indebted to the staff of the Education Department for the ability with which it has been drawn up. In this particular point, however, it seems to me to need amendment. No scientific man, I venture to say, would wish to exclude literature from education. Such an education would, indeed, be imperfect and one-sided. But what we do say is that an education, if so it can be called, which excludes science, is also imperfect and one-sided—that it is only half an education. I am not asking for the introduction of any new class subject, but only that those now on the list should have fair play. This, I submit, is not the case. Yet under the Code, when geography and English are taken, science and history are excluded. The Code says you had better take two of them, and not more than two. My contention is that this is a radically wrong ideal of education; that English, geography, elementary science, and history are all of them important subjects, and that the influence of the Education Department should be exercised, not to prevent, but to encourage, their being taken up in all our National schools. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether he cannot see his way to modifying the Code so as to approximate to the Code of Scotland. We know how sound Scotchmen are on the educational system, and we hope the Government will take the matter into consideration, so us to induce the Education Department to encourage, and not to prevent, the children in our elementary schools from being instructed in these important subjects. I beg to move the Motion of which I have given notice.

I rise to second the Motion of my right hon. Friend, and I do so because I have a great deal of sympathy with the objects of the Motion. It seems to me to be desirable that the children in elementary schools should acquire at least some knowledge of the subject to which he has referred. And here I may perhaps be allowed to say that I am one of those who believe firmly, as firmly as any man, in teaching a few things well, rather than many things deficiently. I am strenuously opposed to taxing the brains of young children with a great many kinds of miscellaneous knowledge; but I do believe that the work in our elementary schools might be made more interesting to the children, more fruitful to their minds, more useful to them in later life, by some modification in the direction which my right hon. Friend desires. He has entered into many particulars which I need not recapitulate, but I should like to say one word as to the difference between schools in England in respect to class subjects. As my right hon. Friend has reminded the House, in England only two class subjects can be taken up, though in Scotland three class subjects may be taken up. Now, Sir, this difference is no mere accident or caprice of administrative detail. It arises from the different circumstances of the two countries. In Scotland, the appetite for education is keener and more universal than it is south of the Tweed. The fact that knowledge is power is a truth which is thoroughly appreciated in Scotland by all classes, and, more than that, in many matters it is valued in Scotland by all classes for its own sake. It was found impossible to restrict elementary schools in Scotland to two class subjects, and so they were allowed to take three, and this raised the maximum grant to 6s. That grant was fixed in 1895 on the basis of the average earnings of the Scotch schools for a series of years before that date. It came out at about 5s. 6d. And then it was urged that it was a mistake to make all the three subjects a necessary condition for obtaining the maximum grant. This maximum grant, it was said, ought to be within the reach of schools which took only two subjects, and it should be left to the discretion of the Scottish Government Inspector to advise the Department whether a particular school ought to be required to take three subjects before it could earn the full grant; and that is the option which is left in the latest issue of the Scottish Education Code, the Code for 1898. It is an elastic system, and a system which gives the Scottish Education Department, the power of making discretionary allowances, for the various circumstances of different schools. Now, Sir, the question which we have to consider to-night is, how my right hon. Friend's proposal will work in England under the existing system. There exists in England a very large number of schools so circumstanced in regard to staff and equipment that if they had permission to take three subjects instead of two it would be a distinct advantage to them in every respect. The most obvious and, perhaps, the gravest objection which my right hon. Friend's proposal has to encounter is that there are many larger schools which might be induced, by the prospect of earning a larger grant, to undertake more than they can efficiently perform, and to take up three subjects instead of two. In so far as that might occur, it would be a sacrifice of the true interests of education to the prospect of pecuniary gain. Now, Sir, this, of course, is no new danger. It is a danger to which the English Education Department, and I suppose other Education Departments everywhere, have long been fully alive. It is a danger which the English Education Department has long endeavoured, and with no small measure of success, to counteract. The results for which grants are at present given are obtained not by examination, but mainly by inspection. The former test—the test of examination—has reference to the performance of the individual child; the test of inspection has reference to the character of the work of the school as a whole. Under the old examination test there was a temptation to create an intelligent child into a grant-earning machine. Under the inspection test it is difficult to convert the whole school into a grant-earning machine, because, if a number of children are taught superficially, the result is inevitably to lower the average quality of the work in that school. Now, if my right hon. Friend's Motion had been brought forward in the days of the examination test, I should have felt more hesitation in supporting it. I should have felt that it might possibly increase the evil which flourished under the examination test, the evil of cramming children in order to obtain a larger grant. But with the inspection test the case is different. Suppose a particular school, which ought to have confined itself to two subjects, chooses to take up three, with the result that the teaching in that school is rendered thinner and less efficient, that fact ought to come out when the Inspector visits the school and inquires into the quality of the work done in that school. Inspection provides, or ought to provide, an automatic safeguard; and a too ambitious school would defeat its own object. Now, I do not deny—indeed, I do not doubt—that if the Motion of my right hon. Friend were adopted, there would at first be a tendency to take up all three subjects even were that course undesirable. But, notwithstanding, I do feel that on the whole there is a great balance of advantages in this proposal. I believe that any harm, which might at first result from the introduction of the new subject would tend to defeat, and probably at last to banish, it when the new option had been submitted to the test of actual inspection. Too ambitious schools will learn sooner or later, probably sooner, by their experience, and which greater prudence would have saved them from the necessity of learning, that it is better to teach two subjects well than three subjects badly. On the other hand, there can, I think, be no reason to doubt that there is a very large number of elementary schools in England in which the permission to take up three subjects would be an educational gain of a very important kind. It is conceivable that if the modification of the Education Code suggested by my right hon. Friend were adopted it might be supplemented by some modification of the English grant system in the direction of the more elastic system which I mentioned the new Scottish Code had had introduced into it. For my part, I should welcome such a modification; but in any case it appears to me that the Motion of my right hon. Friend is one which raises a question which deserves the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Committee of Council; and I have little doubt that, whatever his decision may be, he will bestow upon it that careful attention which he never fails to give to any proposal for the improvement, of education in this country. Sir, I thank the House for having permitted me to offer these few observations, and I beg leave to second the Motion of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Speaker, I think I need hardly say that I entirely sympathise with my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London, and my hon. Friend and colleague the Member for the University of Cambridge, in their bringing forward this Motion. I sincerely desire, as they do, that the utmost possible amount of instruction should be given to the children of the elementary schools of England, and that we should not be behind Scotland in any way which can possibly bring our schools up to the Scottish level. But the terms of the Motion which my right hon. Friend has proposed go very much beyond that point. This is not the first occasion on which he has brought this subject to my notice, for on both the occasions on which I have had the honour of proposing the Education Estimates in this House my right hon. Friend has impressed upon the Government the desirability of giving more freedom to the managers of English schools, as is given to the managers of Scotch schools, in having three instead of two class subjects taught in their schools. But this Resolution goes much beyond that. It proposes to assimilate the provisions of the English Education Code, as regards both class and specific subjects, to those which do not exist in the present Scotch Code, but were contained in the Scotch Code of 1897, and which the Scottish Education Department has now abandoned. In making any comparison between elementary education in England and elementary education in Scotland, I regret, as an Englishman, to have to say that Scotch elementary education is very much more advanced than ours. In the first place, in Scotland they get a much greater percentage of the child population upon the registers of their schools than we do in England. And then in Scotland the age of the children in the elementary schools is from 10 upwards. I will now give the Committee some statistics, and, first, I will take the case of children between the ages of 13 and 14. In Scotland the percentage of children between the ages of 13 and 14 is 5.91; in England it is 4.17. But, besides the greater age of children in Scotch schools, they have there many more teachers. Here again I will only trouble the Committee with one figure. In England there is one certificated teacher to every 78 children; in Scotland there is one certificated teacher to every 62 children; so that in discussing the comparisons between English and Scotch schools it must be remembered that in Scotland there were older children and more teachers. Then there is another thing in which Scotland has the advantage. In Scotland the law relating to the attendance of children at school is in a very much more advanced stage than in England. In Scotland, by Statute, no child is entitled to total exemption unless it is in the fifth standard; nor to partial exemption unless it is in the third standard. Whereas, in England, partial exemption is allowed to some children in the first standard; in some cases it can be claimed by children in the second standard, and there are a very large number of schools in which total exemption from attendance at school can be claimed by any child in the fourth standard, because by Statute law every child in England can say "good-bye" to school provided it is in the fifth standard, and no bye-law of any corporation can all or that statutory provision. Therefore, in Scotland the education of the children is superior to the education of children in England to this extent—they have better laws, they have more teachers, and they remain at school till a very much more advanced age. That being the relative position of affairs in the two countries, both Education Departments desire to give as much class instruction as possible. Class teaching is teaching beyond elementary education. Elementary education in both countries comprises, as my right hon. Friend admitted, reading, writing, arithmetic, and drawing. These are compulsory subjects which are taught every child. But the list of class subjects differs in the two countries. In England it includes English, in Wales English and Welsh, and French in the Channel Islands, geography, elementary science, history, etc.; and for girls domestic economy and needlework; whereas in Scotland the list of class subjects is history, geography, and elementary science. In Scotland drawing is a class subject, and not compulsory. In Scotland, no doubt, a regulation was made by the Scottish Department by which three instead of two elementary class subjects might be taught in the schools, but the advisers of the English Education Department hesitated to follow this example. They thought that it was very possible that, with the very strong desire that existed to earn the grants, the licence might be abused, and that the children might be pressed by over-study and exertion to earn the additional grants from these class subjects. They thought that the compulsory subjects, with the two class subjects additional, were quite as much as could be put into a child at the very tender age at which children in this country go to school. The experience of Scotland in allowing three class subjects to be taken was not altogether successful. It was adopted in 1886, and the conclusion to which the advisers of the Scottish Education Department came as time went on was that there was a tendency to take too many subjects in Scotch schools at the expense of proficiency and care in teaching, and, therefore, inconsequence of that, the block grant system was invented, by which the school did not take two or three class subjects as the managers think fit; but the inspector determined in the school year whether, in the case of any particular school, one, two, or three class subject shall be taken; and it has sometimes been the case that schools taking only two class subjects earn a higher grant than schools taking three, and it happens in this way: a school taking only two class subjects attains a high state of efficiency and earns the full grant of 6s. per child; whereas in another school taking three class subjects the efficiency may not reach so high a pitch, and there is only a grant of 4s. per child. It does not depend upon the number of subjects taken at all, but entirely upon the efficiency with which that number of class subjects in the opinion of the inspector at the beginning of the school year is taught. It is asked that the English Code shall be altered so as to be in accordance with the Scotch Code, but, as I have stated, and I think my right hon. Friend will agree with me, it will be wise to wait for the result of this experiment of the new regulations in the more advanced elementary education of Scotland. I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge that the officers of the Education Department are quite alive to the desirability of teaching as much as you possibly can that is practicable, and particularly elementary science. They have shown by the regulations which have been made from time to time with regard to elementary education, and with regard to science classes and continuation schools, that they are alive to the progress which they hope to see made in the education of this country. I trust that the right hon. Baronet will not think it necessary to take a Division on a Resolution which asks the House to commit itself to an arrangement which Scotland has abandoned. If, on the other hand, the right hon. Baronet amends his Resolution by adopting the words "the Code of 1898," I shall still object to it, because it is hardly reasonable to invite the English Educational Department to undertake an experiment which is being tried in Scotland, and which I hope will be successful. If that is so, it will be open to us to consider whether it may not be copied in this country.

In supporting this Motion, which is an abstract one, I take it to mean this: that we desire that with regard to the English Education Department and the English Code, the English elementary schools may be put in the same favourable position with regard to class subjects as Scotch schools. The right hon. Gentleman says that they have now abandoned that system—the Code of 1897. Well, we ought to endeavour to place our schools on the same basis, because they have really taken a step forward in regard to elementary education. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for the London University was justified in putting his Motion on the Paper, because all he asks for is that we shall be aided to arrive, if possible, at the point from which Scotland has taken a further step forward. The right hon. Gentleman has shown in his comparison between the English and Scotch systems that the latter is established on a much more advanced basis than the English system; but, whilst admitting that it is unfortunately true that the attendance in Scotland is better, that there is better education there, and that higher subjects are taken, we do think that it ought to be the duty of those who are responsible for the education of the children of this country to encourage improvements rather than discourage them, and it is on this basis that my right hon. Friend desires the House to accept his Motion. The Vice-President of the Council has said that he feared, if more class subjects were taken in elementary schools, that teachers may endeavour for the sake of the extra grant to over-press the pupils in their schools, but I think that we may trust to the common sense of the managers in this matter, who, I am glad to say, are taking a very intelligent interest in the education of the children. I do not think that any one of us would have objected had the right hon. Gentleman, in introducing this proposal, introduced at the same time the block system, because any suggestion which might lead to the prevention of any particular school from taking subjects which the children cannot manage would, I am sure, be welcome. At present, under our system, the only two class subjects taken practically are English and geography; history and science, both of them most important subjects, are practically, to a large extent, omitted from the curriculum of our schools altogether. It is all very well to say that one of the class subjects is English, but English is only a very high-sounding term for English grammar, and I for one think that of all the useless subjects taught, that of English grammar is by far the most useless. I do not think that any human being ever learned anything from acquiring a knowledge of English grammar. I am quite certain that none of our great writers ever learned a single word of English grammar, and the only reason for this being taken is that it is comparatively a very easy thing for any teacher to take in an elementary school. A course of English grammar can be taken without any very great trouble and without any very great facility. On the other hand, the class subjects of history and, especially, of elementary science, mean that the teacher must devote a considerable amount of time and intelligence to these subjects. They are encouraged by the Education Department to teach grammar and geography, and they are discouraged from teaching two of the most useful of class subjects—namely, history and science—because, practically, out of the schools which take class subjects at the present time something like 30,000 take grammar and geography, and only 6,000 take history and science, which are much more useful subjects. The reason of that is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, that there is practically, to all intents and purposes, no choice for teachers to take any class subjects besides geography and grammar. What we desire is this: that greater elasticity shall be given to the managers, and more power, and I do not believe that they would abuse that power if it were given to them. Where teachers show their aptitude to take these two other much more useful class subjects, instead of being tied down to take grammar and geography, they should be given an opportunity of taking them. The right hon. Gentleman has appealed to the House to allow the new Scotch Code to have a fair opportunity of experiment before we make any alteration in the English Code, but the point which we wish the House to commit itself to is one which has had a very large number of years' experience in Scotland, and though the right hon. Gentleman says that occasionally there have been cases in which this power has been abused, I do not think for a moment that he would allege that it has not been a great advantage in Scotland to have this choice in regard to class subjects. Under the new Code of 1898 there is a greater opportunity for the Scotch schools to take class subjects than before, and though, to a certain extent, the option is limited, the result under this Code will be that the Scotch schools will do more efficiently a larger number of class subjects and earn a larger grant than they did under the previous one. We in England desire also to take a step forward, and I support this Motion upon the general principle that if this House pass this Motion it will be an instruction to the Education Department to deal with the matter, and that it will give to the children of the elementary schools a greater opportunity to acquire that knowledge which would be of greater use and of greater interest to them to acquire than the knowledge they receive at present.

I shall not be accused of any desire to depreciate the work in the elementary schools of England and Wales, but, upon the whole, I am against the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, and I am bound to say that the views of the Education Minister commend themselves to me more than this Motion, because I know the difficulties of the schools and the superficiality and the evanescence of much of the work done in the class subjects. I should hesitate to support in this House any action which would increase the temptation to teach, subjects superficially by exciting the cupidity, if I may without offence use that term, of the managers of the elementary schools. We frequently hear and read of accusations against the management of the elementary schools of this country. We frequently hear that a great deal of the money spent on the elementary schools is wasted, and as evidence of that we are referred to office boys and warehouse boys, who, after passing the sixth standard, are found by their employers to be destitute of that knowledge which they might reasonably be expected to possess. I want to point out to the House that, so far from increasing the subjects in the curriculum, the whole aim of the House and the Education Department ought to be to strengthen and to make more permanent—[Sir JOHN LUBBOCK: I do not want to increase the number of subjects.] I apprehend that the effect of this Motion will be to increase the number of subjects in the school curriculum; there is no other alternative. If there are one or two class subjects at the present time, and there is an option given to teach three or four, there must be an increase. I quite concur with all that is said as to the superiority of the chances of the child in Scotland. In Scotland you have a higher percentage of adult teachers than in England, and of teachers who are certificated. You have a larger percentage of children who stop at school to a later age, and you have a better school attendance. In every respect you give to the Scottish child a better chance than you do in England; and until you establish in England, as you do in Scotland, a school in every parish which may call upon the rates, with adult and properly qualified teachers, it is ridiculous to expect that in an English school, even in a great number of Board schools, you can give to the child as much thorough education as you give to the Scottish child. What is the condition of the English schools? You have an attendance of 27½ hours a week. The child is taught in classes of 60 or over; they sometimes go up to 100, but the average class is 60. Most of the classes of 60 are not taught by a certificated teacher, a great number of the adult teachers not being certificated. The children who ought to attend school for 27½ hours a week are not there regularly—one out of every five on the books is always away; but, besides that, there are nearly 1,000,000 children in this country who are not on the books at all. Now, see what chance you give the child while his school life lasts; he is very irregular in his attendance, and when he does attend he is taught in too large classes, and in a great number of cases by unqualified teachers. Nor, how can you expect to give him under those conditions a greater education than he gets now? The school managers of the voluntary schools are at their wits' end now to provide the teaching which they do. If you lay before the managers of a small Board school in a village, or a struggling voluntary elementary school, the chance of earning 2s. or 3s. per child more than they do at present, you place a very great temptation before them. The managers will say, "You must earn this 2s. more; you must take up this additional class subject," and you may have the teachers worrying and grinding and over-pressing the unfortunate child for the short period that he is at school in order to earn this extra 2s. a year, for if the teacher does not do it he must give place to somebody who will. Now, I gather from this Motion that the main motive of the right hon. Baronet is to encourage the teaching of elementary science in our schools, but I find from the Report of the Scotch Education Department for 1896–7 that even under that system, out of 3,094 cases, in only 50 was elementary science taught. I submit to this House that the Motion of the right hon. Baronet will not accomplish the end he has in view, but, on the other hand, will only increase the overpressure and superficiality which are engendered by the present system. The right hon. Gentleman says he will observe for 12 months the new departure of the Scottish Education Department, and see if it is successful. The Scottish Education Department, after 10 years' experience, were compelled to abandon the suggestion put forward by the right hon. Baronet. I hope we shall be able at the end of 12 months to adopt the block grant principle for English schools; and I would suggest that we ought to do away with this system of rewarding teachers by a few shillings here and a shilling or two there. This huckstering method of dealing with education is subversive of the interests of the children, and I should suggest it should be discontinued, and we should substitute for that method the plan of assigning for every school a fixed income, such as the school needs, so long as it satisfies the agents of the Department, the inspectors, that efficient work is being done in the school. That only is the true method to obtain reform, and not by the Motion now before the House. If the Motion goes to a Division, I regret that I shall be compelled to vote against it.

Unfortunately, it is not the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen who have brought forward this Motion which will be placed upon the records of the House for future reference, but only the Resolution, and therefore if this Motion be pressed to a Division I shall be compelled to vole against it, though I agree with very much that has been said. It has often been stated that this House desires to restrict the curriculum in our schools, but I have never admitted that that was a fair statement of the attitude adopted by the House. Here is an effort to extend the curriculum in our elementary schools, and with that effort I have every sympathy, provided it is possible and practicable. But what is the position of the right hon. Gentleman who brings the Resolution forward? He admits he does not desire to add to the number of obligatory subjects now in the curriculum, but to extend the number of those subjects which may be taught in the school. Now, is that possible under the existing conditions? The number of obligatory subjects has been referred to—reading, writing, arithmetic, needlework for girls, and drawing for boys, and one of the class subjects—these must be taught in every school. Now, the fact of the matter is that when you have taken away from the ordinary school day 45 minutes for religious instruction and for the registration, which is compulsory in every school, and eliminated the 10 minutes which must be devoted to physical exercise, both morning and afternoon, in every school, and also excluded the time occupied in changing the lessons, you have left only three hours and 40 minutes a day, which gives you 18 hours and 20 minutes a week for school subjects. There are nine subjects which must be taught in that period, and if you add two specific subjects to that you have to divide the 18 hours and 20 minutes by the 11 subjects, which gives one hour and 40 minutes per week for each subject. You take a class of 60 children, that being considered by the Education Code a sufficient number for a certificated teacher, and you work out this startling result: that of the individual attention given by the teacher to each of his scholars, only 1⅔ minutes will be available for each scholar for a particular subject in each week. Now, I want to know how, under those circumstances, you are going to teach another subject. I have always felt that it matters very little how many subjects you teach in a school, but it matters very much how those subjects are taught. More good will be done by getting the children to love educational work than by cramming them with overwork, which becomes distasteful. It is much more desirable that the child shall love the educational work, and come back to the evening or continuation school, than that the love should be killed in him by over-pressure. The tendency of the age has been to put into the schools a large number of subjects, with a very limited amount of time and an inadequate staff, and to encourage school managers and teachers to take up these various subjects by putting two shillings on this, eighteen-pence on that, and half-a-crown on another. I object to the word cupidity as used by an hon. Member, because I do not think it represents the attitude of teachers and school managers in this matter. The word, to my mind, implies a greed for personal profit, and that is not their object. They want to keep their schools going, and they endeavour to secure every halfpenny the Education Department offers to them. There is, therefore, an irresistible temptation placed before them, and they take up a number of subjects which they know they cannot satisfactorily teach in order to earn the grants attached to them. My right hon. Friend says he does not propose to incorporate this system, of payment by results. It is not in the Scotch Article 19 in connection with class subjects. That is perfectly true, but in Article 21 the system of payment by results exists in all its objectionable form. There is to be a grant of four shillings per subject for two specifics, and a child may take a third specific and get another four shillings for taking up the subject. That is a direct temptation to take up subjects, not for the good of the child, but in order to earn the grants attached to them. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, so far as I am familiar with the primary school system, instead of adding to the number of subjects, care must be taken at the present time to prevent school managers and teachers taking an unnecessarily largo number of subjects. They had far better restrict their attention to the subjects in the Code, and direct their best efforts to teaching these subjects well, separating them altogether from the Government grants, and using those grants as a means of encouraging education throughout the country, enlarging the grants where education is starved, and where the surroundings are poor, and not using them as prize-money to be awarded in large amounts in rich districts, and cut down to small proportions where the surroundings are poor and unsatisfactory. I believe, myself, that if the Scotch clauses were incorporated bodily, as this suggestion would recommend, into the English Code, the last state of the English schools would be worse than the first. My own impression is that the Scotch Code offers a fertile field for profitable revision, and I would recommend Scotch Members to take it in hand, and they will find in going through its clauses that in many cases the Scotch system is far behind the system adopted by the English Education Department. We had an example of that at one o'clock this morning in the matter of audit. The Scotch Code is in some particulars what the English Code was seven or eight years ago. The results grant in connection with specific subjects still exists in the Scotch Code, and the merit grant, strongly condemned by the Cross Commission as a most pernicious system to adopt in primary education, still remains in the Scotch Code. My right hon. Friend suggests we should put those clauses into the English Code, and, if I am compelled to vote—I hope he will not go to a Division—I shall be compelled to go into the Lobby against him. The Debate has, however, served a good purpose by suggesting that as much elasticity as possible should be at the disposal of school managers, that they should be able to adapt the curriculum to the necessities of the surrounding districts, that we should not have one cast-iron form for the whole of the country, and that there should be a large amount of latitude given. But, so long as we have children leaving school at an early age, so long as the half-time system is rampant in Lancashire, Yorkshire, and elsewhere, we cannot accomplish wonders in primary instruction in elementary schools. Just as the children are on the borderland of the attractive stages of school work, out they go under the half-time system. If those children remained at school during three more years of child life, and learned something of the benefits of higher training than they are able to gain in the lower standards of the schools, then there would be some reasonable hope that they would come back to continue work in the continuation schools of the country. Until that day, however, I can only hope that the restrictions now in the English Education Code will remain, and until we can keep the children three or four years longer I should not favour any proposal to extend the curriculum.

I have listened with great attention to this most instructive Debate. We have had a great deal of very useful information as to the present condition of education, in this country. My right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London proposes that there should be given in the elementary schools of this country instruction which certainly, at first sight, would appear to be necessary instruction and ordinary information for the English people. What is the answer, and, I am afraid, the conclusive answer, that is given to this proposal? That we have not got the material or the machinery in this country to give to the English subject a decent education, and that is what we have heard from, those most competent to give an opinion. On both sides of the House we have as high authorities as to the condition of education in the country as can anywhere be found. We have heard the argument of the Vice-President of the Council of Education. He is asked to allow such a subject as elementary science, and other subjects, which, in my opinion, are most important, and which are taught in other countries, such as foreign languages. But what is his answer? That it is impossible to teach them in the schools we have in this country. The hon. Member who has just sat down says that the children of this country are given in secular education something like eighteen hours a week, and that for a less number of years than I venture to say is given to the education of children in any other country in Europe. Our children, as the hon. Member says, are turned out at an age when they have not had time to acquire the most elementary subjects of a decent education. They are turned out to seek their fortunes, and they get no further education except, perhaps, what they can pick up themselves. The Vice-President of the Council points to Scotland, and he says how inferior is English education to Scotch education. But why is English education inferior? The children in England remain in school for a shorter time, they are worse instructed, and there are fewer certificated masters in proportion to the number of children. We have a lower grade of education in England as compared with Scotland. And yet the complaint—the favourite topic of the Party opposite—is that the Board schools are giving too high an education. But I venture to say that even the Scotch system, superior as it is to the English, is not up to the mark of the educational systems of the countries which are our competitors. I have been reading, and every man who is interested in this subject, and not alone in this subject, but in the fortunes of his country, should read what Germany has been doing for secondary education. I refer to a Yellow Book which has just been issued by the Education Department, containing special Reports on the system of education in Germany, and particularly the Report of Mr. Sadler on the Real-scules in Berlin. And here we confess to-night that we are utterly unable to give to English children the education now being given to children in every country in Europe because our machinery is defective. The instruction we provide and pay for is utterly inadequate. What a confession is that! Here we have a Session of counts out. Why should we not have a Secondary Education Bill, which, I venture to think, is one of the first reforms of which this country stands in need. We hear of continuation schools. No doubt they are good things if they are attended, but there is no compulsion to attend, and the regular education of this country is the miserable quantity given to children 10, 11, or 12 years old. That is the education of the English people. Well, Sir, I venture to say that, of all the subjects of Party discussion on which we are encaged, there is not one half so important as this question. We talk about commercial competition. But why have we above all the world fallen back in that competition? In the Yellow Book to which I have referred it is pointed out that the new reforms which have been made in Germany have been made, not so much in the direction of what is called technical education as to giving the pupils a thorough general education. I believe the manufacturers and artisans of this country are equal to any in the world, and I do not believe that better work can be turned out anywhere than is executed by the great firms of Glasgow, Leeds, and Sheffield. That is not the great advantage which our competitors have. What they have been devoting themselves to in the middle schools in Germany has been the teaching of the art of extending commercial connections and distributing goods in various parts of the world, and for that purpose you want a good general education. Our elementary education ought to lead up to that, and lay the foundation of an ordinary, general, sound education, which we do not now give, because we do not keep the children hours enough and years enough in school, or give them competent teachers to teach them what they ought to know. I think that the first thing we ought to endeavour to do—each acting in our several capacities and localities—is to awaken the minds of the people of England to this, the greatest of their deficiencies. Why is Scotch education superior to English? Because the people of Scotland care more about education, and because they understand better its practical value in life. If this Debate has served no other purpose, it has, at least, revealed the absolute insufficiency of the whole machinery of our educational system; and if it is impossible to accept the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London, at all events the discussion ha smade plain, what ought to have been made plainer every day, the absolute deficiency in which we stand with respect to what is, after all, the basis of the prosperity of the country.

I am very loth to detain the House, but after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman I should like to say a few words. The right hon. Gentleman and myself have been in this House for a great many years together, and he will remember the long struggle and the Debates over the Bill of 1870. Well, Sir, those Debates, at all events, showed that the country was at that time passing through a great educational crisis. The Government of that day had to face difficulties with regard to education which no Government, I believe, in any country had to face. We fought through that crisis. The Act of 1870 was a compromise, and has been loyally supported by all Parties in the State; but, after all, it was only a compromise, and that is the answer to my right hon. Friend when he asks why it is that there is a better system of education in Scotland than in England. When Mr. Young succeeded Mr. Forster, and when he went to work in Scotland, he had a far different task before him. He had to meet a state of feeling in Scotland which did not exist in England. He found a keenness among all classes on behalf of education. He found also there no religious difficulties standing in the way and obstructing him at every turn. Therefore he gave a uniform system of education. That is my answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend should have gone a step further, and endeavoured to elucidate this tangle, and shadow forth some scheme of release from our difficulties. I do not think that he nor any other man, whatever his political power may be in this country, would attempt to disturb the educational compromise. That is the difficulty that is checking us on every side. One word with regard to the matter before us. A very excellent Debate has been initiated by my right hon. Friend, and I think the whole House will be grateful to him for having occasioned it; it is a very interesting subject, which affects us all. My right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Council has pointed out a technical difficulty. It appears that this Resolution, if the House accepts it, and places it on its records, will cause some educational difficulty, because it would establish a position which would be more or less absurd. It may consequently be difficult to support the Motion of my right hon. Friend, but I do wish to put a little pressure on my right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Council. Whatever differences of opinion in other respects there may be, we are all united and unanimous upon one thing, that we wish the children, in the education for which we pay very heavily, to have a useful and practical education. That is what we want; and we also wish to have the code so drawn that it may be elastic in all its details in regard to these matters of practical education. It has been said again and again, in this House and elsewhere, that what we do require is an education which will enable our children to get the best living possible in the particular locality where they are brought up, whether with regard to manufactures or whatever it may be—technical instruction or other instruction, modern languages, or any other specific class subject. And here I would say that if this code is to be made more elastic, I would not have it made so as regards elementary science only, but as regards any other extra class subject that would prove of practical utility in a particular locality. What I wish to urge upon my right hon. Friend below me is this: he has mentioned a system which is now obtaining in Scotland; he says it is an experiment. And, as I understand, it works somewhat in this way: an inspector, after having visited a school and having inspected it, may put that school on a certain list, whereby power is conferred on the management to take an extra class subject. What I would ask my right hon. Friend to do is to apply this experiment in England, for this reason, that it will not involve a very large expenditure of money; it will be an experiment that will be slow in operation, and in the result it will not make a very extensive call on the taxpayer's pocket, because, as I have said, it will be a very slow and growing movement. That being so, I wish to ask my right hon. Friend to give us some indication next year in the code to show that this same experiment—for, after all, it was only in December it was applied to Scotland—may also be applied to our schools in England. The whole question resolves itself into a question of the teaching staffs in the schools. In any school where the teaching staff is strong—where there is a good and thoroughly efficient staff—you will find no difficulty whatever in teaching an extra class subject; but we know there are a vast number of schools where that does not obtain, and in these schools, no doubt, it would be a grievous strain on the existing staff of teachers to make the addition suggested by my right hon. Friend. I have detained the House already as far as I intend, but I do wish to put before my right hon. Friend this important point, that it affects really the future training of the youth of this country, for good or ill. And that being so, I wish to ask if he can see his way to make such a change as he has indicated in his speech concerning Scotland, and I think it will be a very valuable addition to the English Code.

I venture to express the delight with which I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth. I venture to say, on behalf, I think, of all who sit on this side of the House, and, doubtless, many on the other side of the House, that he has hit the right nail on the head. The fact is, we are trying to put a quart into a pint pot. It is absolutely impossible to cram into the minds of children of 11, or 12, or 13 years of age, all the subjects which are considered essential in a modern education. That, in fact, is the kernel of the whole question, and I am glad the discussion to-night has emphasised that point, that unless we can give the children continuation teaching it is practically impossible to improve them in any way. What are the facts? I say it is ridiculous that we should attempt to force high-class education into these little children, many of them of the very poorest, and many working very hard in their spare hours—for a great number of them are kept working for hours a day as well as attending school—I say the thing is impossible, and unless the country is willing to enforce much longer attendance at schools, unless the country is willing to walk in the path of every advanced nation of Europe, we shall remain a badly educated people. I confirm what the right hon. Gentleman has said about Germany. Perhaps the House will allow me to state that I once made a tour through Germany to inquire into education in that country. I visited many of the schools, and was greatly struck with the much longer period at which children remain in school, and the much more thorough system of education. There was no cramming. The teaching was deliberate; it was intelligent; it depended entirely for its results on appealing to the intelligence of the children. There was nothing of the nature of mere cramming of memory, and I know that a large portion of these children were under education in one form or another until the age of 17—children who in our own country would have left school at 13 or earlier. I found the same thing in many parts of Switzerland, where children are under education more or less until 17, and I have heard in some cantons of some young men attending evening classes up to the age of 19. Time is required for digestion; cramming young children with a multitude of subjects before the age of 13 merely leads to mental confusion. And what is the result? We find a large proportion of children when they attain the age of 16 who have forgotten even the rudiments of arithmetic, and can scarcely read and write, and are not fit to take up the technical education that is now being supplied to them. I entirely agree with what has been said, that in this desperate struggle in which we are now engaged, this commercial competition of all the nations of the world, nothing but better education will enable us to hold our own. We are competing with Germany, which is much better educated; and France, too, is becoming a better educated country than we are; the progress made in France within the last 20 years is remarkable. I hope one result of this Debate will be to strengthen the hands of the Government to bring forward a scheme of compulsory evening schools. If they cannot bring themselves up to the point of increasing the school age of day children, which they ought to do, they ought to lay down a principle that 14 should be the standard age for attendance, and exemption from the day school only to be given on condition that they attended an evening continuation school. Unless the Government does something of this kind we shall go on having these futile Debates to which I have listened for many years past. Year after year the same things are said, and no progress is made. I have myself brought forward, for 12 years in succession, a Continuation School Bill. I was constantly met with the assertion that the country was not prepared for it. I believe the country is much more prepared for it than hon. Gentlemen are aware, and I believe that if any Government had the courage to face the question, and to lay down the principle that the children of the country must remain under education long enough to get their minds cultivated to a tolerable degree, they would awaken a response of which they have very little idea. For many years past I have consulted leaders of the working classes and members of trades' unions again and again upon this point, and the opinion is unanimous that they wish to have the children kept off the streets. You are going the way to ruin these little children. They often leave school at 12, and live upon the streets, and they lose nearly everything they have learnt; and the great mass of the intelligent artisans of this country will feel thankful to the House if it will provide them with some compulsory means of taking care of these children until they are 15 or 16 years of age. Therefore I hail with delight the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman in front of me (Sir W. Harcourt), and I look forward with pleasure to a period, not very remote, in which he will take his part in forming a Government of the country, and will put in the forefront of his programme a higher and fuller and richer education than we have ever had before.

I think there is very much force in the speeches we have listened to from the Vice-President of the Council and hon. Members below the Gangway, who speak with so much authority on the subject. I admit that the Scotch Code of the present year is an advance on that of last year, but, as an hon. Member has pointed out, I do not think we shall be satisfied in England until we have got the provisions of the Scotch Code at least. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Poplar that although grammar is a popular subject with schoolmasters, it is not at all popular with school children, and I think it is about the most useless subject you can teach in our schools. Neither Mr. Gladstone nor Mr. John Bright learnt grammar at school, and I think that if our children speak the English language as they did we shall have nothing to complain of. I regret the practical exclusion of elementary science—as it is known—from the school code. This really lies at the base of all industrial education. It includes husbandry for children in the country, it includes a knowledge of mechanics necessary for those who are to engage in our great manufacturing processes or engineering works, upon which the prosperity of the country so greatly depends. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Kent very truly said that the education given in our schools should be a practical education, one fitted to the occupation which the children have to fulfil in after life. That is precisely what is done by teaching the rudiments of science, which you are precluded now from teaching in our English schools. What are these class subjects? Really, to listen to some of the remarks made in the course of this Debate, anybody would have supposed it was proposed to introduce some very abstruse subjects in the code. We are not proposing to add any subjects to the code. We are only asking that greater power should be given in the selection of subjects to those who are engaged in the management of schools. What are these subjects? Elementary science means knowing something of the conditions of the world in which we live; the history of our own country; the elements of some modern language. I think these four elementary subjects now included in the Scotch Code are necessary in every decent education. We are told here by the right hon. Gentleman responsible for the Education Department that children are turned out absolutely ignorant of two of these four elementary and all-important subjects. I should like to ask hon. Members of this House, which of us thought we had done enough when, as children of 13, we knew nothing of either the history of our country or the conditions of the world? Sir, those are subjects which we ought to teach to our children. Because children leave school at 14 is no reason why they should not have learnt something of these elementary matters. I do not think we are asking anything impossible. We ask that our English schools should be allowed to send children up to the Education Department to be examined on these elementary and necessary subjects. Why, if the Vice-President of the Council cannot trust the managers of our schools, if he cannot trust English schoolmasters, does not he trust to the English inspectors? Why should he not permit his own inspectors to allow children in the schools to be examined in more than two of these important subjects? We have been told over and over again in this Debate that the Scotch system is superior to ours in England. Let us make an effort, if possible, to improve our English system, and assimilate it with the Scotch system, about which we hear so much. If we are really to improve our education, and make it of interest to the children, we must make it more real and more interesting. The hon. Member for West Ham spoke with great force, as did my hon. Friend who has just sat down, with reference to the Scotch continuation schools. What is it that will induce our children to go to continuation schools when they have left day schools? They will never do so until you make education in our elementary schools more interesting and varied, as we have endeavoured to secure by the Resolution put before the House this evening. We have been glad to hear an interesting Debate, and I do really hope that my right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Council will listen to what has just been said by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Kent, and if he finds this Scotch system does work well, that next year he will give us also the advantage of it in our English schools. I now beg leave, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.

moved—

"That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that parochial charities, not being ecclesiastical charities, should be under the control of the parish council or parish meeting where there is no parish council."

He said: By the Local Government Act of 1894 popularly elected bodies were set up in every parish in the country, and during last Parliament those of us sitting below the Gangway attempted to introduce into the Local Government Bill a provision whereby every parish meeting had the control of its own parochial charities. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the essential plan is this—to declare by this House that the time has come for handing over parochial charities to popularly-elected bodies such as parish councils. Therefore I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name.

I was under the impression that by the Local Government Act of 1894 all parochial charities not of an ecclesiastical nature were placed under the control of parish councils. [A VOICE: "No, no."] Well, I speak from some little experience. An Hon. MEMBER called attention to the fact that there were not 10 Members present. The House was counted, and Mr. SPEAKER announced that there were 40 Members present.

I think this Resolution ought not to be adopted without some explanation. I was saying that the charities, which were partly ecclesiastical and partly non-ecclesiastical, have been separated under the Local Government Act, of 1891. I am aware of charities which are partly ecclesiastical and partly non-ecclesiastical. The Charity Commissioners are empowered under that Act to declare what part is ecclesiastical, and that part is left under the control of the ecclesiastical authorities. The non-ecclesiastical half of the charities, on the other hand, is placed under the control of the parish council. I have known instances in which it has been done. Therefore I am at a loss to understand the grounds of this Resolution. If I am wrong in my contention I hope the hon. Gentleman will explain in what way. Of course, it is most desirable that all non ecclesiastical charities should be under the supervision of the parish council. It has been done in many instances, and certainly in one instance with which I have been concerned, the parish council of which I am chairman appointed new trustees for the non-ecclesiastical part of the charities which have been separated in the way I have mentioned without any ill-feeling, or any strain on the part of the original trust. I rise simply for the purpose of asking the hon. Member to explain the grounds on which he has brought forward this Resolution.

The subject of my hon. Friend's Motion is one not only of great importance, but of considerable legal difficulty, though I, as a Scotch Member, do not propose to embark on the discussion at all. But I wish to point out that up to the present moment not a single representative of the Executive Council has been present in the House to hear the arguments of my hon. Friend or to take the responsibility of the deliberations of this House. I have never known, in all my experience of this House, such a state of affairs. I do not think it is treating the House fairly that the Government should abdicate its functions as it has done to-night. A great deal has been said about this being a Session of counts-out, but what is less creditable than counts-out this Session is the inattention of the Government of the day to its responsibilities in all matters of discussion brought before this House by private Members. Not only does the Government not keep a House, but, apparently, it prevents a House being kept; and when, in spite of its efforts, a House is kept, there is nobody present on the Ministerial Bench to tell us what the opinion of the Government is of any question brought before the House, or to give the House that guidance it is entitled to demand from the Government. I think it is a most extra-ordinary state of things, and I feel justified in calling attention to it.

I must concur with the remarks which have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman in respect of the fact that there is no Member of the Government on the other side of the House. I do not, however, blame the Government for this state of affairs so much as those Members who stand in considerable numbers outside the door and will not take their places. It is private Members who are abdicating their functions by taking such a slow interest in the business of the day. I do not want to press the point, but I must express my regret that subjects of such, great importance find so little response from the private Members of the House as to induce them to remain on the threshold of the House and allow for the peril of a count-out. I agree with the expression of regret that has been made.

I think a point has been treated by the last two speakers, apart from the subject before the House, which is no doubt of some interest, I can understand anyone who was a Member of this House in 1893 or 1894 not being desirous of resuming a discussion on the subject. It was discussed in this House and in another place on no less than 26 nights in 1893–94; it was discussed here, there, and everywhere. The question before the House is whether the charities should be handed over to the control of the parish councils. Exactly the same question was before the House in 1893, and after innumerable Amendments were proposed and accepted, or rejected, the House came to the decision that the question should be left as it now stands in Clause 14 of the Parish Councils Act. That clause is administered by the Charity Commissioners, of whom I am one; and I am here to say in the name of the Commissioners that the clause is causing no dissatisfaction. We have no serious complaints from the parish councils; we get on admirably with them. It is not the parish councils—judging, at any rate, by letters addressed to our office—which have compelled my hon. Friend to raise this Motion. What arguments the hon. Member used in support of his Motion I cannot say, because, although an hon. Member brought me word that the hon. Gentleman had risen, he had finished his speech before I reached the House, and I should fancy his argument did not extend over the space of 60 seconds. I came into the House as another hon. Member was seconding the Motion by simply moving his hat. That was all the argument. The fact as regards two-thirds of these parish charities is that where the testator has nominated churchwardens and overseers as trustees parish councils have substituted nominees of their own. In the case of two-thirds of the parochial charities the parish councils have already control; and what is this one-third to which this Motion is addressed? These are cases in which the pious founder did not put any representative persons on the body of trustees as he created them. It might have been argued that the pious founder not having left the administration of the trust to representative persons, we should not come in at this time and say that representative persons should be put on that board. That might have been argued in 1893, but not now, because by the deliberate action of this House, where there is no representative trustee, the parish councils are allowed to appoint representative trustees, but not to exceed the number allowed by the Charity Commissioners. We take all the circumstances of the case into consideration. It is impossible in all cases to appoint a majority large enough to swamp the present trustees. Why should we take off the present trustees; why wipe them off the trust? In some cases there are 12, 13, or 14 trustees for a small local charity of £5 or £6 a year. Are we to say to the parish council that they must have 13 more, so as to have 25 trustees for a matter of £5 or £6 a year? This question has been considered by two Committees of this House—one in 1884 and one in 1886—and neither decided how many representative trustees it was desirable to put on these trusts. I am uncertain whether the argument of my hon. Friend has been that the parish council should be allowed to put on a majority of representatives. There is another possible suggestion. It may be suggested that the trust should be handed over as a whole to the parish council. That, Sir, is a suggestion that cannot be met with any favour at all. To hand a charity over to a corporation would be going back upon what has been

I rule the Motion of the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow (Mr. A. CROSS), relating to smaller dwellings in Scotland, out of order, on the ground that it is in anticipation of the Smaller Dwellings (Scotland) Bill, which stands on the Paper for 30th March.

I beg to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the procedure and practice at Parliamentary election petitions, and to report to the House if any changes are desirable therein; that Sir Charles Dilke, Sir F. Dixon-Hartland, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Gordon, Mr. H. D. Greene, Mr. Maurice Healy, Mr. Hedderwick, Mr. A. K. Loyd, and Sir Robert Reid be members of the Committee; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; and that three be the quorum.

I beg to move the Second Reading of the Irish Surnames Bill.

Will the hon. and learned Member be so kind as to give us a few reasons in support of the Bill?

I have already spoken.

As the hon. and learned Member only formally moved the Second Reading, he has not lost his right to speak.

Words fail me, Mr. Speaker.