remarked that he quite understood the reasons for removing this Bill from the Special Committee mentioned, but thought that it was important it should be referred to a Committee of no inferior status.

replied that the Bill was not affected in any way by the questions which the Special Committee had been appointed to consider in connection with the Electric Lighting Bills. The only question involved in it was one relating to fisheries, and he really could not understand how it came to be put in the group of Electric Lighting Bills. The Special Committee which had been sitting since the beginning of May had still a heavy Bill to deal with, and under the circumstances he hoped that the House would accept this resolution and allow this particular Bill to go to another Committee.

said that he yesterday took the somewhat unusual course of objecting to this stage being passed. In view of the fact that it was merely a Report from the House in Committee, he would not enter into the matter at length; but he would, like again to emphasise his opinion that this matter should have been dealt with in a public instead of a private Bill, and he proposed to raise that point when the Bill itself came before the House.

said he understood it would not be competent for anyone at this stage to raise the point alluded to by his hon. friend, but he would like to recall to the memory of the noble Lord a strong Report signed by himself on a similar occasion, protesting against dealing with matters of this character in private Bills. He would further like to ask what the noble Lord anticipated would be the future history of the Bill. Would it go to the Unopposed Private Bill Committee, or would it be sent to a Select Committee? He held that in a matter of this magnitude the House should be afforded an opportunity, through a Select Committee, of examining the provisions of a Bill which imposed a charge of 35 millions on the Indian revenues, and he believed that if the noble Lord would only suggest that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee that would at once be done.

I think there is still some misunderstanding with regard to the Bill. As a matter of fact, it was not necessary to apply to Parliament in order to acquire possession of this railway. Contracts were made and sanctioned by Acts of Parliament passed many years ago, which enabled the East India Company to enter into negotiations with certain railway companies, for guaranteeing the interest on their capital and for an option of purchase. I was informed by my legal advisers that that option of purchase could be exercised, and that all the arrangements could be made so far as the purchase is concerned. But the stock of this railway is largely held by trustees, and I am told that unless some special arrangement is made in connection with annuities it may be very difficult for trustees to hold their stock hereafter. The transaction is quite simple and above board, and I am ready to agree to any procedure that may be desired, provided it will not delay the conclusion of the business. But I am bound by the form and practice of the House. It is a private Bill, and I understand that it will go to the Chairman of Ways and Means. I assume that it is not opposed, and that it will in the ordinary course come back to this House without going to a Committee.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can say what has been the effect of Lord Roberts's proclamation of annexation of the Orange Free State on the status of the inhabitants; and whether any such inhabitants found fighting with arms in their possession will be treated as prisoners of war or as rebels.

The effect of Lord Roberts's proclamation of annexation was that the inhabitants of the Orange Free State became British subjects. Lord Roberts had undertaken by his proclamations to the burghers of the Orange Free State that those desisting from hostility and found staying in their homes and quietly pursuing their ordinary occupations would not be made to suffer in their persons or property on account of their having taken up arms in obedience to the order of their Government. The treatment of all other persons, may, I think, be safely left to Lord Roberts.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Minutes of the late Ministry of Cape Colony as to the treatment of rebels in Cape Colony.

I do not think it would be desirable that these Papers should be laid upon the Table at present, but I am communicating with the present Cape Government on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Private Mitchell, of the Wiltshire Regiment, who was shot in both ankles at the battle of Modder River, and is now an inmate of the Lambeth workhouse; and will he state why Mitchell was turned out of Woolwich Hospital and compelled to seek shelter at a friend's house in Lambeth; and will he inform the House what arrangements have been made by the War Office for the reception, housing, and maintenance of private soldiers invalided home from South Africa, whether in consequence of being wounded or from other causes; and whether any definite system of pensions has yet been fixed by the War Office for the widows of officers and men losing their lives during the South African campaign.

I beg at the same time to ask the Under Secretary of State for War j whether his attention has been called to the case of Private Mitchell, of the Wiltshire Regiment, who was wounded in both legs at the battle of Modder River, and was recently discharged from Woolwich Hospital because the hospital authorities wanted room, and subsequently! admitted into the Lambeth workhouse | infirmary in a weak state of health; whether the case has been reported to the War Office by the Lambeth guardians; and what action, if any, the War Office intends to take in the case.

There are over 7,000 beds reserved in the various military hospitals for private soldiers invalided from South Africa. On reaching convalescence the soldier is transferred to a convalescent home. We have ample accommodation for the first stage of recovery in hospitals and for the second in homes. But many soldiers prefer to proceed on sick furlough to their friends. This is allowed when their health justifies it. They are, in that case, provided with sufficient funds and with a printed statement for their guidance which contains this paragraph—

"Soldiers on furlough who require medical aid shall apply for it to the nearest military station. When this is impracticable they may apply to a civil practitioner, to whom they will -show this furlough paper, and who will be allowed to charge for attendance at the rate laid down on Army Form O, 1667."

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for "War if he can inform the House of the reasons which led on the 25th of May to the reduction of Sergeant John King, of the 2hd battalion of the Wiltshire Regiment of Volunteers, to the ranks, and his discharge on the same day from the force on account of his reduction to the ranks, and if he can inform the House by whose authority he was dismissed; if there is any appeal to the War Office from the above dismissal; and if he is aware that Sergeant John King has been a member of his corps for twenty-five years and a non-commissioned officer for twenty years, and that he has on several occasions shot for England in rifle competitions and holds Her Majesty's decoration for long service and good conduct.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the recent reduction to the ranks and eventual dismissal of Sergeant John King from the Devizes detachment of the 2nd Wilts Rifle Volunteers in consequence of a speech made by him at the South Wroxall Liberal Club, in which he adversely criticised the policy of the Government in South Africa; whether he is aware that Sergeant King was a member of the English twenty at Bisley and an alderman of the Wilts County Council; and, whether the Secretary of State for War will consider the revision of the sentence.

Sergeant King, whose service is correctly stated in the question, was reduced to the ranks for inefficiency, and was consequently discharged by the commanding officer of the battalion, both proceedings being in accordance with the Regulations and the Volunteer Act, which give such officer full powers both to reduce and discharge a Volunteer, subject only to the Queen's pleasure. The case has been carefully considered, and the Secretary of State sees no reason for interfering with the lawful award of the commanding officer.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of officers commanding regimental districts, under Army Order 119 of this year, who when in command of Volunteer brigades at camps of instruction have their command pay as officers commanding such districts deducted from their field allowance, or acting staff pay, of one guinea, granted in accordance with such Order during the time they are in camp with their Volunteer brigades, and whether he can see his way to bring about the alteration of such Order so as at least to avoid such, deduction.

Command pay is given for one duty and acting staff pay for another. The same officer cannot receive both rates of pay, because he does not perform both duties. The command pay is given to the officer who takes command of the district during the colonel's absence.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether commanding officers of units serving in South Africa have been asked to recommend for commissions two non-commissioned officers from each battalion who shall be not over twenty-five years of age and unmarried; and whether, seeing that these conditions may debar non-commissioned officers otherwise meritorious, including some who have commanded companies in action and have been mentioned in despatches for distinguished service, they may not be made subject to exceptions, and commissions be granted in special cases at least with a view to departmental employment.

We know nothing of any such instructions. Lord Roberts was asked to recommend for commissions a few non-commissioned officers who had performed good and meritorious service as apart from distinguished service in the field; these were to be under thirty years of age and unmarried. No restrictions are imposed on recommendations for distinguished service in the field.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, as the Divisional Signalling Officers in South Africa are drawing extra or Staff Captain's pay, he will also increase the pay of the Brigade Signalling Officers on the Staff of the Brigade, especially those who have been engaged in Natal, where, owing to the nature of the country, signalling has been of such importance, any other method of communication, having been impossible.

It has not been hitherto considered necessary to appoint more than one staff officer for signalling in each division. It is possible that the experience of the war may lead to a modification of this rule; we shall await the reports of the generals in the field.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has extended, the Imperial penny postage system to the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal, South Africa.

The question of extending penny postage to the Orange River Colony was taken up by the Postmaster General immediately on the announcement of the annexation, and is now under consideration by Her Majesty's Government. The question as to the South African. Republic is scarcely yet ripe for discussion.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, seeing that it is the custom to send to relatives of officers who have died on service in the field the medals to which these officers have become entitled by that service, he will explain why the Sudan Queen's medal has been refused to an officer who lost his life in the 1896 campaign on the Nile.

My hon. and gallant friend probably refers to the case of Captain Fenwick, of the Royal Sussex Regiment, who died in the Dongola Expedition of 1896. For that expedition no Queen's medal was granted.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the breakdown of the commissariat of the Manchester Volunteers on the occasion of their recent encampment on Salisbury Plain, whereby the men were practically without bread for two days, receiving in substitution hard biscuits which required a hammer to break them; and whether, in consequence of the general dissatisfaction of the men with their food arrangements, supplies were subsequently obtained from their friends at home; and, if so, whether he can give the name of the officer responsible for this state of things, and undertake that steps shall be taken in future to avoid its recurrence.

Three of the four battalions of the Manchester Volunteer Brigade at Salisbury Plain did not employ the Government bread contractors, but made their own arrangements. The private contractors partly failed to carry out the supply, and 6401b. of the biscuit ordinarily issued to the troops was supplied from the Government stores to make up the deficiency. Nothing is known of any supply from friends at home, some 250 miles distant.

Does the hon. Gentleman wish the House to understand that the regiments which had to get their food through the War Office made no complaint? That certainly is not the case.

I did not mean the House to understand that. It is not in my power to give any such information. The deficiency arose out of private contracts entered into by Volunteer brigades this year as hitherto, and not through any default on the part of the authorities.

Is it not the fact that the quartermasters of many of the regiments were directed by the War Office as to whom they were to apply to for food, and that they were really not given a free hand?

Another question raises that issue. In respect to bread and meat the Volunteers were allowed to exercise the discretion they enjoyed before, but in respect of canteen stores that was not always the case.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it has been brought to his notice that some of the Volunteer battalions encamped on Salisbury Plain are not permitted to make their own contracts and arrangements with reference to. canteens, as in former years, and that some are even compelled to deal exclusively with the Canteen and Mess Cooperative Society, Limited; and whether he will take steps to give to Volunteer battalions the same freedom of choice in connection with this matter as heretofore.

For military reasons it was considered expedient to form a district contract for all units encamping on Salisbury Plain. The board to select the tenders was composed of one Regular, four Militia and four Volunteer officers; and two contractors, viz., Messrs. Dickeson and Sons and the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society, were selected.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the same privileges can be extended to the assistant postmen as. to the other classes of Post Office employees in regard to leave, to enable them to attend Volunteer camps during the present year.

The privilege of leave on full pay to attend Volunteer camps is confined to those officers whose whole time is at the disposal of the Department, and the Postmaster General, I am informed, sees no reason for extending it to assistant postmen and others who give only a. portion of their time and are not required to do a full day's work.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state what action will be taken, by court-martial, by reprimand, or otherwise, to determine the responsibility for the Aldershot casualties, and to impose upon those found responsible any appropriate penalties; and whether the contractors, if any, who failed to supply the troops with food will be struck oft' the lists in future, or otherwise dealt with in respect of their breach of contract.

As I have already explained to the House in the debate on Army Estimates of the 19th inst.,† the steps taken by the Commander-in-Chief are deemed sufficient. The civilians employed had no contract with the Government. The question of their continued employment rests with the officer commanding the corps concerned, who will no doubt take proper notice of what occurred.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the men sent to hospital at Aldershot on account of illness caused by the heat on the 11th inst. are subjected to hospital stoppages, and whether the allotments to the families of such as are married will therefore cease; and whether any pensions will be payable to the widows, if any, of those who died on that day.

The regulations admit of the full remission of the stoppage in such cases, the discretion rests entirely with the general officer in command. The separation allowance to the families will not cease. The question of pension will be referred to the Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund, who have control of the funds available for this purpose.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can now state when the General commanding the troops at Aldershot was appointed, and whether this general officer, who entered the Army in the year 1850, has been able to transact any business or be present at any field days lately at Aldershot; and if he will give the number of troops now stationed at Aldershot.

† See debate commencing at page 480 of this volume.

This officer was appointed on the 15th December, 1899, to command the Aldershot district. On the 22nd May he proceeded on sick leave, but he expects shortly to return to Aldershot. The number of troops stationed there is 29,400.

Is the same staff which had been considered sufficient for a division of 15,000 men now considered sufficient for 29,000?

That question hardly arises out of my answer. We have a sufficient staff. As my hon. friend knows, a great number of our general officers are in South Africa.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if the Army Order relating to the payment of Volunteers in camp will limit the payment to medical officers to one such officer for each corps, so that when a corps is entitled to two or more medical officers all but one will have to pay their own expenses; and, if so, why medical officers should be placed in such a position.

The Order allows pay for one medical officer in each unit, one additional for each brigade, and three for each bearer company. This is considered sufficient.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he is aware that work on the Machynlleth Rifle Range was suspended on 12th May last when near completion, although the range is urgently required; and if he can say when sanction will be given for the range to be completed.

Sanction has been given for the completion of the range.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, looking to the use that is being made of Indian troops for Imperial purposes in South Africa and China, and looking also to the distressed condition of India, the Government will take into early consideration the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure as to the apportionment of charge between India and the Imperial Exchequer.

I agree with the hon. Baronet that no time should be lost in coming to a decision on the recommendations of this Commission. I am already in communication with the Departments concerned, and I hope shortly to be able to conclude the whole matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state at what date the explanatory memorandum of the Indian Financial Statement will be issued to Members; and will the total figures be expressed in tens of rupees, so as to allow of comparison with previous statements.

The explanatory memorandum is in the press, and will be issued to members as early as possible. The total figures will be ex-pressed in pounds, so as to allow of a comparison of the figures in the Estimates with those in the accounts. The figures in the return of not income and expenditure from 1888–9 to the present time, which has just been presented, have been re-cast, and shown in pounds, in order to facilitate a comparison of the accounts during that period.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Ameer of Cabul has forbidden the export of horses to and the import of salt from India; and whether the Government of India has any means of checking such action on the part of a Prince who receives a subsidy from the Indian Treasury.

The Government of India has received reports from its agents which seem to confirm the action imputed to the Ameer in the hon. Member's question. As regards the second question, the hon. Member is aware that the Ameer is a sovereign who is independent in the conduct 'of his internal administration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can say what is now the total strength of the British and native troops withdrawn from the Indian establishment for service elsewhere, including the troops under orders for China: and whether the Government of India is taking any steps to supply the places of these troops.

The total strength of the British and native troops withdrawn from the Indian establishment for service elsewhere, including the troops under orders for China, is approximately 16,000. We hope that the British troops now serving in South Africa will shortly return to India, but so far no steps have been taken to replace the native troops serving abroad.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, looking to the Viceroy's statement that the famine in India exceeds in intensity any previously recorded visitation, he will arrange for the Indian Budget to be brought forward at an early date.

The Indian Budget, I suppose, will be taken at the ordinary time.

Is there any special reason why the Indian Budget should be delayed until the last days of the session?

No, there is no special reason.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the tenders of an English firm for the repair and re armament of the Turkish fleet are below those of the German firm of Krupp and Co.; whether the contract is likely to be given to the German firm in consequence of political pressure; and whether Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople will be instructed to give support to the desire of the Turkish Government to decide this question on its financial and technical merits.

Her Majesty's Government have no information to confirm the statement in the first paragraph. They are informed that a contract has been signed for the repair of eight Turkish ironclads by a firm at Genoa. It is stated that the armament is to be supplied by Messrs. Krupp. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has already brought the claim of a British firm to the notice of the Sultan, and His Excellency has since been authorised to express the hope that British firms may receive a fair share in the orders for war material given by the Turkish Government.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an Imperial Iradé has been issued by the Sultan giving to Russian subjects the sole right of constructing railways in a large portion of Asia Minor fronting she Black Sea; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government have made any protest against this monopoly and new sphere of interest, the practical effect of which will be to prevent the industrial development of Asia Minor.

Her Majesty's Government understand that an arrangement sanctioned by Imperial Iradé has been arrived at between Turkey and Russia by which the Turkish Government reserve to themselves the right to construct railways in the North of Asia Minor, and in case they do not make the railways themselves they undertake to grant the exclusive right of construction to Russian subjects on the same terms as the concession of the Anatolian Railways to the Germans. Her Majesty's Government have no official cognisance of this arrangement, and no protest has been made against it.

Will the Government protest when they get the official information?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any further information relating to the safety of British subjects in Peking and the progress of the relieving force.

I regret to say we have no authentic information. Our last communication from Sir Claude Mac-Donald is nine days old. The Admiral's force when last heard of seven days ago was between thirty and forty miles northwest of Tientsin and the same distance from Peking. Tientsin, which is thirty miles from Ta-ku, is now cut off from Ta-ku, and telegraphic messages from the latter place have to be conveyed by steamer to Chefu, a distance of about 250 miles. The latest news we have is a despatch from Rear-Admiral Bruce, which is as follows—

"Ta-ku, viâ Chefoo, 21st June.—There has been no communication from the Commander-in-Chief for seven days nor with Tientsin for five days. Allies hold Ta-ku forts and Tong-ku securely, and they will advance for the relief of Tientsin when in sufficient strength. Troops. are expected from Hong Kong to-morrow, and 300 from Wei-hai-wei the day after to-morrow. It is believed that fighting is constantly go in, on round Tientsin. Our garrison there should be about 3,000 men. Following proclamation was agreed to this morning to be issued at once: 'The admirals and senior naval officers-of the allied Powers in China desire to make known to all Viceroys and authorities of the coasts and rivers, cities, and provinces of China that they intend to use armed force only against Boxers and people who oppose them on their march to Peking for the rescue of their fellow-countrymen.'"

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury the following question, of which I have given private notice:—Whether Her Majesty's Government propose to appoint; a general officer to command Her Majesty's forces on land in China, and whether the alleged accord between the European Powers as regards the disturbances in China also includes Japan.

The Admiral on the station has been given full powers to act in the existing difficulty. It is not possible at present to state what; future arrangements will be made. The reply to the second part of my hon. friends question is in the affirmative.

As it has just been announced that military forces are going out to China, is it proposed to place them under the command of the Admiral?

It is not possible to answer that question at present.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether all the correspondence relative to the concession to France at Shanghai has been published.

The Papers presented included all the correspondence which was material to the issue, and which could properly be published.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a Return can be granted showing the number of cases of lead poisoning in the different branches of china and earthenware manufacture, so as to distinguish between the decorative branches and those concerned with dipping, ware cleaning, etc., and a Return showing for recent months the number of temporary suspensions of workers in china and earthenware, and the number of permanent suspensions.

I think it will be possible to grant a Return giving most of the information asked for by the right hon. Baronet in the first part of his question. As regards the distinction between temporary and permanent suspensions, no hard and fast line can be drawn between the cases in which exclusion from the dangerous processes will in the end be permanent, and those in which it will not. But on this point also I hope to be able to give some details. My right hon. friend the Under Secretary of State will give notice of the Return this afternoon.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the salary of the Clerk of the Peace of the County of Stafford has been increased from £1,500 a year to £2,500 a year, with an allowance of £1,500 a year for clerks, although certain areas of the county have been removed from the county council by the creation of county boroughs, and whether such increased salary and allowance have received the sanction of the Local Government Board.

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer that in 1896, under the special circumstances of this case, I sanctioned a salary of £2,000, with £1,500 allowance for office expenses, the amount to be reconsidered on the occasion of a vacancy. Since then no recommendation has been made to me.

Is the holder of the office allowed to continue his private practice?

I do not remember as to that. I only know that under the special circumstances of this case I sanctioned this office allowance.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department if he is now in a position, consequent upon negotiations with the authorities in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, to introduce a Bill to extend the superannuation of teachers to the teachers in those islands; and, if so, at what date he hopes to introduce the Bill.

I have a draft of a Bill in this direction very nearly settled. It will be, I have every reason to believe, a non-controversial Bill, and I will consult my right hon. friend the Leader of the House with a view to seeing when it can be introduced.

:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, under Clause 11 of the First Schedule of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, a workman is entitled to submit himself for examination by the qualified medical practitioner appointed for the district in which he resides by the Secretary of State, when the medical practitioner appointed by his employer has given a certificate upon his condition with which he is not satisfied, although the case has not been before a committee, arbitrator or judge, in consequence of the employer and the workman having previously agreed to pay and receive a fixed weekly sum as compensation.

The provisions of paragraph 11 of the First Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act apply to any workman "receiving weekly payments under the Act." Whether any particular case—of agreement is "under the Act" is a question which can only be decided authoritatively on the facts of the case by a court of law, and I am unable to express an opinion on it in general terms.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Education Department has been called to the inadequacy of the number of students in the training colleges (especially in the western division) to meet the increasing demand for teachers owing to the growth of the number of children attending schools, and the reduction of the size of classes enjoined by the Code; and whether the Department will consider the necessity of taking measures to increase the number of adequately trained teachers.

In reply to the question of the hon. Member, I have to state that the Department has, from time to time, received representations to the effect that the supply of trained teachers is not sufficient. The relation between supply and demand is at all times a difficult one, influenced as it must be by various circumstances. It must be remembered that the training, colleges are not the only source from which the supply of trained teachers may be recruited; but the Department is prepared to consider any proposals for maintaining the adequacy of that supply.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Education Department has been called to the dissatisfaction felt by Queen's Scholarship candidates who duly qualify but are refused admission to the training colleges in order to give place to candidates entering without examination under Article 70 (d) 6, and 95 (a) 2; and whether the Department will either give a preference to Queen's Scholar candidates or impose some further competitive test on the other classes of candidates referred to.

Candidates for admission to training colleges may qualify either by the Queen's Scholarship examination or by the Leaving Certificate examination. The question as to which examination produces the most promising class of student is one which can be settled only by experience, and the Department is not prepared to interfere with the discretion of the training college authorities in this respect, or to impose any further competitive test upon either class.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any official information regarding the railway accident which took place at Slough Station on Saturday last; whether the information tends to show that the accident resulted from an unusually large number of trains being put upon the lines for the convenience of visitors to the Windsor races and whether he will give instructions for this point being thoroughly sifted in the course of the Board of Trade inquiry into the causes of the accident.

Yes, Sir; the Board of Trade received an official report of the accident, and an inspecting officer is engaged in holding an inquiry. I understand from that officer that it is unlikely that the number of trains had anything to do with the accident, but he will no doubt bear the hon. Member's point in mind during the investigation.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the last report of the medical officer of health for the city of Liverpool, in which allegations are made of the inaccuracy and unreliability of the census returns of the last census, and the consequent errors in the calculation of the mortality averages for the decennial period; and, whether measures will be adopted to ensure greater correctness in taking the next census by the employment of more competent enumerators or otherwise.

The question of my hon. friend appears to be founded on a misapprehension. No allegations are made in the report referred to of the inaccuracy and unreliability of the Census returns. The medical officer appeared to have been referring to the estimates of population in the years between 1881 and 1891. These estimates were based on the increase in population in the ten years between 1871 and 1881, and the result of the last Census showed that in the case of Liverpool the rate of increase had not been maintained. There appears, however, to be no reason to suppose that the Census returns themselves were inaccurate.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state who is responsible for the delay caused to the merchants and business men of great towns and cities in this country, notably Sheffield and Newcastle, through the misdirection and delay in forwarding numbers of London letters, and will he consult some leading men of business in. commercial circles before he deprives the public of posting, facilities hitherto enjoyed.

I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that many letters posted in London before 6 p.m. on Monday, 18th June, were not delivered in Sheffield on the following day, and will he explain the delay, and whether the causes of it were foreseen at the Post Office, and why no intimation of possible delay was given to the public beforehand.

As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, owing to the want of space at St. Martin's-le-Grand, the provincial despatching work formerly done there has had to be transferred to a new office in the Farringdon Road, part of the site of the Coldbath Fields Prison. The transfer of a force of 2,500 men to new surroundings was naturally attended with some temporary disadvantage to the work, and on this account the correspondence could not be dealt with altogether as expeditiously as under normal conditions. The Postmaster General regrets that any inconvenience should have been caused to the public in carrying out this change, and he begs to assure the hon. Member that every effort is being used to restore the regular working of the service at the earliest possible time.

Can you answer the latter part of my question?

:I cannot answer that.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can expedite the printing of the Annual Return of the British Museum, which was laid upon the Table of the House early in the session, and has not yet been delivered to Members.

The Annual Return for 1899, finally revised for press by the authorities of the British Museum, was sent to the Treasury on 12th June, and forwarded to the printers on 14th June. The Report will be delivered on Monday next, the 25th.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, having regard to the announcement to the Trustees of the British Museum by the Government of their intention to take proceedings with a view to a judicial decision on the title of the Museum to the recently acquired Irish gold ornaments, whether he will lay upon the Table the correspondence on the subject between the Treasury and the Trustees of the Museum, as well as the Report of the Departmental Committee presided over by Lord Rathmore.

The correspondence is voluminous, and contains moreover the Law Officers' opinions, which it would be contrary to established practice to lay before Parliament. I propose, however, to present a summary in some detail of what has passed between the Treasury and the Trustees, but before doing so I shall submit such summary to the Trustees in order to ascertain whether it is in their judgment a fair representation of the case. The report of the Departmental Committee was presented to Parliament last year.

Will the right hon. Gentleman add to the Return a copy of any regulations or minutes issued by the Treasury in respect of treasure trove since the passing of the Act of 1837, and also a note of legal proceedings, if any, which have since been instituted for the recovery of treasure trove.

I must see the documents before I can promise to lay them on the Table. Perhaps my hon. friend will put his question on the Paper.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why the teaching staff of the Killylea National School, county Armagh, which has been connected with the Board of National Education in Ireland for a period of seventeen years ending March 31st, 1900, have only received results fees for sixteen years; and whether any arrangement is being made to pay the one year's fees yet due.

Results fees, as such, are not payable after the 1st of April, 1900; but teachers who taught under the results system up to the end of last financial year will receive an equivalent for such fees, based on the average payments for the last three years. The mode of payment is at present under consideration.

The object of the Bill I have to introduce is to amend certain details in the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, in respect of which difficulties of working have cropped up. No useful purpose would be served by my going into those details, but I hope and believe the Bill will be found to be non-contentious. Bill to amend Sections 42, 51, 54, 56, 57, 69, 103, 115, and 121 of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, and Articles 19, 24, and 36 of the Schedule to The Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.

At the present time the procedure of Councils in Ireland cannot be altered except by Act of Parliament. We think it desirable to introduce an easier process and to provide for greater elasticity, and this Bill consequently proposes to enable it to be done by Provisional Order instead of by Act of Parliament. Bill to provide for the alteration of the Local Government (Procedure of Councils) Order, 1899, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.

This, my third Bill, is intended to enable guardians or unions in Ireland to send children to schools or institutions not situated in those unions, and also to enable them in certain cases to exceed the limit of land now allowed to be set apart for the erection of labourers' cottages. Bill to amend the Poor Relief (Ireland) Acts, 1838 to 1892, with respect to relief given by the maintenance of lunatics and children, and with respect to the quantity of land which may be acquired under those Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.

I have to ask the permission of the House to make a correction of a statement which I made on Monday last in dealing with this Amendment. I then said, or I am reported to have said, that I had received no official communication from the Government of the four States of Australia in reference to the proceedings which had taken place since the introduction of this Bill, and that, up to the present, I was not officially made aware of the opinions of the Governments of the four States. I find that that was a mistake. It would have been more correct to say that I had no public official statement, but I have been reminded by my hon. friend Mr. Barton of a matter which escaped my memory at the time—namely, that after the first arrangement was come to with the delegates I received on 25th May from the Government of New South Wales a telegram, which I thought then was confidential but which I am now told was not intended to be confidential, to the effect that the Prime Ministers of the four States of Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania, and South Australia agreed to the arrangement which had been come to between the delegates and myself. I desire to state this, because the previous statement might have led to a misunderstanding and to the supposition that the delegates were acting without the authority of their Governments. Of course, I did not in the least intend to convey that; but I admit that my words were open to that construction, and I have to apologise to the Committee and to the delegates for the slip. It has, however, no particular relevance to the present Amendment. When we adjourned on the last occasion I had informed the Committee that I had communicated with the Governments of the different colonies in order to ascertain, if possible, what their views were with regard to the new arrangement which had been come to. At that time I had no complete account of their opinions. I have since received telegrams which' I think I had better read to the Committee. The first is from Lord Beauchamp, New South Wales, received 20th June:—

"The Premier informs me that Victoria, Tasmania, and Queensland agree to the com-promise in connection with Clause 74. New South Wales Parliament, now sitting, has-expressed wish that altered clause should be submitted to it."

"Ministers reply as follows to your telegram 19th June:—They do not think that any difficulty will be caused if Imperial Parliament resolves to amend Bill as now proposed."

"Your telegram of 16th June received. My Government are quite satisfied with the clause set forth therein as the best under all the circumstances of the case."

"Sir,—Referring to my letter of the 15th inst. and to our later interview of Saturday afternoon, I now beg to inform you that I have since received from my Government the following cablegram:—Full text of new Clause 74 sent through. Tennyson to Australian Governors received. Consider it great. improvement on previous Amendment, and request you will not offer any objection to it.' Consequently I will now accept on behalf of the Government of Queensland the new Clause 74 as presented to the House of Commons yesterday, and trust it may be passed unaltered. I desire, however, to record on behalf of my Government and of myself that we should have greatly preferred to have had the Bill as introduced by you passed without Amendment. May I suggest that further consideration be directed to the bearing of the words 'final and conclusive' in Clause 73, page 16, lines 27-28, in connection with new Clause 74? I cannot conclude without expressing to you my gratitude for the clear, straightforward manner in which you placed my attitude: before Parliament in your speech of yesterday evening, and tendering you, on behalf of the Government of, Queensland, our fullest appreciation of the great patience, care, and courtesy with which you have endeavoured successfully to reconcile views at first sight-irreconcilable; trusting also that these long negotiations may now be considered as satisfactorily concluded."

"Ministers entirely approve clause now offered, and I am desired by them to convey their cordial thanks to you for your great trouble and kindly interest in our Australian matters, and to express our congratulations to you on having arrived at a successful settlement."

I wish to make one or two observations in reference to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. It is quite true, as he said, that the Australian colonies have accepted this arrangement, but our contention was not in relation to anything which the Australian colonies were fighting for; our contention was that that should be preserved which the Australian colonies had already conceded. Our point was made in the interests of the Queen's dominions outside Australia, including those of New Zealand. The right hon. Gentleman was no doubt correct when he said that he had satisfied the Australian colonies with this clause. He has done so; but these colonies have been willing to concede something more than the right hon. Gentleman has got— namely, that where the interests of someone else outside themselves were in ques- tion the validity of those interests should be subject to appeal to the Privy Council. The right hon. Gentleman has said he has obtained everything which the Canadian Constitution gives with a trifling exception. What is that trifling exception? It is that there can be no appeal whatever to the Privy Council, except with the leave of the new High Court of Australia. Something like that question arose when the Canadian Constitution was under consideration, and the Canadian Supreme Court showed a tendency to take the view that it was the proper court to dispose of all questions of constitutional controversy, and that the Privy Council was not the place to appeal to. The Supreme Court of Canada conceived that its decisions should lay down the law finally as to questions arising between the Dominion and the provinces. What would have been the position of the provinces to-day if it had been left to the Supreme Court of Canada to say whether or not there should be an appeal? Does anyone imagine they would over have got leave to appeal? I take it the Supreme Court, taking the view that it was properly the final court of appeal, would have refused leave. We do not want to run that risk here. The right ton. Gentleman talks of having settled with the Australian colonies, but there are other places to be dealt with besides the Australian colonies; New Zealand, for instance, which has large interests in this matter. The following letter, dated 19th June, 1900, deals with this matter. It was addressed to the Under Secretary for the Colonies by the Agent General of New Zealand.

"Sir,—I have the honour to further address you on the subject of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

"I have not had the opportunity of perusing any authenticated copy of the Amendment of Clause 74 which it is now proposed to insert in the Bill. Assuming, however, that the version published in The Times newspaper of this morning is correct, it appears to me that under it the position of outside States which may become involved in litigation with the Commonwealth or one of its provinces is open to doubt, I have read with attention the speech of the Attorney General, Sir Robert Finlay, but there seems to be at least a difference of opinion as to whether the right of appeal to the Privy Council may not be taken away in cases which involve at once the constitutional position of the Commonwealth in regard to its provinces and also the interests of some outside community. It is the earnest desire and request of the New Zealand Government that the present rights which our colony and colonists enjoy of appealing to the Privy Council may not be taken away, diminished, or left in any doubt whatever.

"I have, therefore, the honour to ask that her Majesty's Government may be pleased—if the point before referred to seems, on reflection, to admit of doubt—to insert in the clause such language as may put the matter beyond the possibility of controversy.

"My Government confidently believes that it is not the intention of the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies to allow the existing rights of any of Her Majesty's subjects outside the proposd Commonwealth to be impaired or abridged.

"The Australians themselves have never set up any claim to do this, and the request of the New Zealand Government would, therefore, seem to be in accordance with the manifest wishes of all parties.

"I am, etc.,

"W. P. REEVES."

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Western Australia has been considered?

Yes, Sir, I have communicated with Western Australia. It must be borne in mind that in the first instance we can only recognise directly the federating States. The opinion of others interested is important, but we cannot guide our decision by those outside the Commonwealth. I have received the following communication from the officer administrating the government of Western Australia (received June 20th)—

"Ministers of opinion last proposal as to appeal of Privy Council preferable to proposal to allow Executive Government decide question. But Ministers strongly of opinion appeal from High Court should be by right and not by permission. Ministers think Federal Parliament should not have power to limit matters of appeal and that it should be made quite clear that existing right of appeal to Privy Council is maintained."

I am sure both sides of the House will receive with a great deal of satisfaction the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman that this prolonged quarrel has been now brought to a close, and that we may pass the Bill with the assurance that it will be satisfactory to the people of Australia. The right hon. Gentleman says that the delegates are satisfied with his latest arrangement, and he also says that it is perfectly satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government. I am rather surprised about that latter statement, because it seems to me that the right of appeal with the restrictions imposed by the present Act will become quite illusory. The appeals to this country have been very few, and not on matters of public interest to Australia. They will become fewer and more rare in the future, and in the natural course of things they will disappear altogether. There are very few eases at all likely to come to this country which are of interest to the public of Australia. It is said that certain questions affecting foreign affairs may be brought up and referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council — appeals, for instance, in regard to New Caledonia and the islands possessed by Germany—but questions of that kind would never come into court. They would be brought to the notice of the Executive Government of the day. For instance, we have heard of cases with regard to the French shore of Newfoundland. No one would suggest that a question of that sort should be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is always a matter for negotiations between the French and British Governments. I think that this right of appeal will very soon, under the Act, fall into disuse, and I am perfectly convinced that that is the best thing which can happen to it.

I have very great diffidence in rising to attempt to controvert the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Haddingtonshire. I think, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not sufficiently distinguished between the character of the constitution proposed in this Bill and the Canadian constitution. In the latter the Dominion and Provincial Legislatures have mutually exclusive powers of legislation. Here each State in the Commonwealth will have the fullest powers of legislation, affected only by the Colonial Laws Validity Act and the power of reservation and the ultimate power of disallowance. The Commonwealth will have limited powers of legislation, and therefore there can be no question of difficulty as to the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and the States.

Will the hon. Gentleman permit me? He has over looked Clause 109, which states that when the law of the State is inconsistent with the law of the Commonwealth, the latter should prevail.

I have not overlooked that clause. As long as the Commonwealth Parliament does not exceed its powers its legislation would countervail any legislation of a State; if it exceeds those powers the question becomes an Imperial one. I venture to think that difficulties are not likely to arise in matters of legislation, but rather in matters of executive action, and it is in that direction we have to look mainly, if not entirely, for the questions which may come to be decided, as between the Commonwealth and the States, by the High Court. If that is so I venture to think the hon. and learned Gentleman's fears are unfounded, and that the com- promise, or the arrangement, or whatever else it may be, may be accepted by this House without any fear of trenching on Imperial interests or the interests of the colonies.

I express no opinion on the controversy between my hon. and learned friend and the hon. Gentleman opposite. I rise for the purpose of saying that we are in a much more favourable position for dealing with this question now than we were on Monday last. In the interval the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies has had an opportunity of ascertaining the views of the colonies concerned, and even if this clause were open to more criticism than is the case, I think the general opinion of the Committee now is that having received the assent and approval of the colonies concerned, it ought to be carried into effect.

I desire to say a very few words in explanation of the effect of this clause, by way of removing the apprehensions expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Haddingtonshire. I cannot but feel that these apprehensions are based on some failure to appreciate the true effect of the clause as it now stands. The first thing I wish to make perfectly clear to all concerned is this—that it will rest with the Privy Council to determine whether or not a particular matter falls within the restriction of this particular clause. The High Court will have no power to settle whether a particular matter falls within the restriction. On application to the Queen in Council the Judicial Committee would look into the whole matter, and if they were of opinion that it did not fall within the restriction, leave to appeal would be given whatever the opinion of the High Court might be. I cannot help thinking that the apprehensions expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman with reference to New Zealand are based on some misapprehension as to the essential differences between the Australian Bill and the British North America Act. It is perfectly true that Article 51 of this Constitution confers many powers on the Parliament of the Commonwealth which are almost identical in terms with those enumerated in Section 91 of the British North America Act. But in addition to the powers there enumerated there are certain most important powers not now enjoyed at all by any of the Australian colonies, such as powers with reference to foreign affairs, to fisheries beyond the territorial limits, and other matters of that kind. These powers are newly conferred on the Commonwealth, and with regard to them it will not be a question as between the Commonwealth and the States as to their distribution, because the States will possess, at all events, the most important of these new powers, including those in respect to which controversy is likely to arise. It will be a question not of distribution, but as to whether certain powers in respect to these matters have or have not been delegated to the Parliament and Government of the Commonwealth. So that there is absolutely no restriction by this clause as to an appeal to the Privy Council as to whether or not these powers have been so delegated. As the Bill came from Australia it might exclude absolutely any appeal whatever to Her Majesty in Council in these matters. The peculiar condition contained in the clause as it came from Australia—namely, if "the public interest in any other part of Her Majesty's dominions" was concerned—is now set at rest by the settlement arrived at, and the right of appeal to Her Majesty in Council is introduced as regards these new powers not hitherto enjoyed by any of the colonies. Now we come to another aspect of the case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred—that is, where a State has enjoyed certain powers, and where powers in respect of those matters have been conferred by this Bill upon the Parliament and the Government of the Commonwealth. Now, what I would direct the attention of my hon. and learned friend to is this: the scheme of this Bill is essentially different from the Canadian Bill. The Canadian Bill conferred, in respect of certain matters, exclusive powers upon the Parliament of the Dominion; in respect of certain other matters, exclusive powers upon the Legislatures of the Provinces; so that the form of the question which arose was this—whether or not the one or the other Parliament would be acting ultra vires if it meddled with a matter exclusively assigned to the other. That is not the scheme of this Bill at all. What has been done is this: on the Parliament of the Commonwealth are conferred, in respect of a number of matters, concurrent powers with those which have been enjoyed, and will still be enjoyed, by the Parliaments and the Governments of the States. The States in respect of these matters will still retain their powers, and the only question which can arise is as to whether any Act of the State Legislature will be ultra vires. In regard to Article 51 no controversy can arise as to any power having been taken away from the State Legislatures, because the States will retain all the powers they have enjoyed. The question that will arise is a totally different question. In the immense majority of cases it would not be whether the Commonwealth Parliament or the State Parliament had power to legislate on the matter, because both undoubtedly had. The scheme of the Bill is different. The question that would arise is this:—Under the 109th article of the Constitution, if the law of the Commonwealth and the laws of the State were in conflict, the law of the Commonwealth prevailed. The question would not be as to the relative powers of the Commonwealth and the States inter se, for in a question of the construction of the Commonwealth statute with the State statute, if they bore on the same subject, the Commonwealth law prevails. That is not a question which will be affected by the terms of the arrangement now arrived at. An appeal on the question of the construction of a statute will be absolutely free as at present. That is to say, if Her Majesty in Council thought fit to grant leave of appeal there would be no conflict. My hon. and learned friend referred to a very interesting case affecting a Chinaman, and he asked whether the State Legislature had not acted ultra vires in legislating on that subject. In Australia that question cannot arise, because no jurisdiction is conferred on the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate with regard to aliens, yet the State Legislature would retain all its powers, because the powers are concurrent In regard to the other case mentioned by my hon. and learned friend as to rivers and lakes, the great rivers and lakes of America concern another Power than the Dominion of Canada; but no such question could, of course, arise in Australia and therefore it could not lead to complication. I would point out, moreover that the Amendment as proposed does not bear on an appeal in any class of cases whatever. As the Bill came from Australia, in certain classes of cases resting on the interpretation of some doubtful and obscure words there was no authority or power to give leave to appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council. There could be no appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council on any constitutional question unless it related to the public interests of some other part of Her Majesty's dominions. Now the effect of that was that in an excepted class of cases they set up two Courts with coordinate jurisdiction, and as to that particular class of case the High Court and the Privy Council are co-ordinate with no possibility of appeal from the one to the other. It might have been argued on the Bill as it came from Australia that the High Court in these cases would not have been bound by the decision of the Privy Council. No such contention can possibly be raised under the clause as it is now settled, because there is the power of appeal to Her Majesty in Council in every case. The only difference is that while in the immense majority of cases leave to appeal is to be granted as heretofore by application to Her Majesty in Council, such special leave in one small class of cases—which affect Australian interests almost exclusively — is to be granted from the High Court, and the Privy Council is recognised as the Appellate Court. It has been asked, if this leave is to be got from the High Court, on what principles will the High Court act in granting or refusing the application? I confess that I have some confidence in the action of the High Court. It has been the glory of our race all over the world, that the Judges in every part of the United Kingdom and in every British Colony have acted absolutely independently of political considerations. As these Judges have acted in the past I believe they will act in the future, and I think it will be found that there is no ground for any distrust or apprehension as to the way in which the High Court will exercise the powers with which it is entrusted in this very small and special class of cases as to whether there shall be an appeal to the Privy Council if the interests of any other part of Her Majesty's dominions are affected. It is very difficult indeed to see how a question of the distribution of powers between two Australian States could affect the interests of another part of Her Majesty's dominions. But if by any human possibility such a case should arise, that is a special reason for allowing an appeal, and it is much better to have a provision in this elastic form instead of trying to find a form which will stand for all time without any power on the part of any Court to vary it. I would suggest to the Committee, and all those interested in the matter, that it may be left in the shape which it has now assumed—a shape that has given satisfaction alike to all those in Australia who approved of a limited appeal, and those who asked for an unrestricted appeal.

I entirely assent to the argument addressed to the House by my right hon. and learned friend that in cases which arise as to the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament and those of the State Parliaments, the decision should be left to the Privy Council; in other words, it would be for the Privy Council to say whether the matter ought to come before it or not by way of appeal. In regard to the difference between the Canadian and this Constitution, that is not material; but I think my hon. and learned friend goes rather too far if he suggests that it is absolutely impossible that a Constitutional question involving the public interests of some other part of Her Majesty's dominions can arise, where the question is, prima facie, one between the Constitution of a State and the Constitutional powers of the Commonwealth.

I did not say absolutely impossible. I think it is extremely improbable, and that it would be dealt with by the power which the High Court has to allow appeal on cause shown.

I do not suggest that it is a probable case, but my hon. and learned friend the Member for Haddington was quite right in pointing out that this is a case that might arise, and that if it did it would have been better to have retained the words "public interests," which the original draft of the Australian Constitution contained, and which set of words had been used by the Privy Council itself in a famous decision. Probably it was from that decision that the words "public interests" in the original draft were drawn.

The words are "public interests in some other parts of Her Majesty's dominions."

It is said that these are vague words. They are wide words, and the Privy Council would have given them. a very wide interpretation. After all, there is not very much difference between us, and I pass on to enter a caveat against the last argument of my right hon. and learned friend. He suggested that under the Amendment the Committee is now discussing the High Court of the Commonwealth of Australia will not be a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction with the Privy Council, and that it will be bound to. follow the decisions of the Privy Council. I cannot feel by any means so clear as my right hon. and learned friend on that point, because we are here making a special provision for a special case. From the general right of appeal to the Privy Council to be granted we are excepting, by statute one particular class of cases, questions involving the construction of the Constitution of the Commonwealth. Surely it will not only be within the power of, but also the duty and the right of the High Court to give full effect to that provision of the Australian Constitution, and to say, "We are in this particular matter made a final Court of Appeal. In all other matters we are undoubtedly a subordinate Court, unless in a particular matter we are made a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction." They would say, "The only appeal is to lie. from us, where we are satisfied there is some special reason; we are bound to carry out the intention of the people of Australia and of the Imperial Parliament in not going beyond the express provision; they have given no appeal unless special reasons, in our opinion, exist." I think, therefore, that it will be open to the High Court in future to hold that in this matter they are a Court not of subordinate jurisdiction but of co-ordinate jurisdiction. I cannot assent to the argument that, because they are subject to appeal in other cases, they are subject to appeal in this case also.

They are subject to appeal in. this case also; the only question is whether that appeal should be allowed and whether a special authorisation should exist.

Excuse me; it is whether they have it in their power, if they so think fit, to depart from the position given to them of being the final Court of Appeal, and put themselves in the position of a subordinate Court. I think it necessary to enter a protest against the view the Attorney General has taken on this point. I do not suggest that that is a reason why the matter should be thrown into uncertainty again, and I have no desire to raise any difficulty if it can possibly be avoided, but I think it would have been a great deal better if we had passed the Bill as it came to us from Australia. If the words the Australians employed had been used, some difficulties and friction would have been avoided. As, however, we have now arrived at an arrangement which appears to be satisfactory to the great majority of the Australian colonies, I do not think there will be any general wish in the Committee to throw any impediment in the way of the final settlement of the matter.

I am glad that the Government have come to a satisfactory settlement with so many of the Australian colonies. I gather that Queensland would still like a wider appeal, and that Western Australia and New Zealand would like the appeal to the Privy Council to stand as at present. I do not intend to propose any Amendment, but would only suggest that between now and the Report stage it should be considered whether the words which the delegates originally proposed should not be preserved as an independent clause without in any way derogating from what has been done. In that way I think the views and wishes of New Zealand, Queensland, and Western Australia might be materially assisted. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General has shown the few cases in Canada which cannot arise; but he has not shown the number of cases which may arise. I quite agree that the two Acts will be materially different Acts, but the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General and the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary must remember that the cases of ultra vires under this Bill, although they will arise in a different form, will be just like the Canadian cases of ultra vires. The first form of question that will have to be decided would be, "Is the particular statute under consideration within the legislative limits?" That would raise a common form of question under the Canadian Constitution. Then there, would be other questions. Supposing the Commonwealth legislated, under this very wide power of legislating, as to fisheries and extra-territorial waters, then, I think, New Zealand may very easily have a question on which it would be right that it should have an unfettered power of appeal. The desire of New Zealand that it should have an unfettered right of appeal seems to me to be only a reasonable desire, and I suggest to the Government, respectfully but earnestly, that they should give more consideration than they have done to the question of maintaining the original words as proposed by the delegates, if necessary in a separate and independent clause. Not one word has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman or the Attorney General to lead us to think that the delegates object to their original words. As New Zealand would not object, and Queensland and Western Australia both apparently prefer some better form of the clause, the old words should still be embodied in the Bill. If they are not, the Government must take the responsibility, and I can only say that we must congratulate the Government on getting as much assent as they have got.

I do not wish to prevent my hon. and learned friend from having the honours of war, but at the same time, as he has made a further appeal to the Government, I must be permitted to point out that there appears to me still to be an absolute and entire ignorance of the wishes of those he professes to represent. His appeal to us is to insert into this clause or some other part of the Bill, or to reinsert certain words; and he appears to think that if we did that we should give satisfaction to New Zealand. Queensland, and Western Australia. I beg to say he is entirely mistaken. I do not think either of those great colonies cares one row of brass pins whether we put those words in or not. What do they care about? There is something they do care about; these colonies have not got everything they want. From the very first, as I ex- plained to the House in the introduction of this Bill, Queensland has desired that the plenary right of appeal should be maintained exactly as it exists now, and they desire that no change whatever should be made. That is the position of Western Australia; that is the position of New Zealand. But the position of four out of the five federating colonies has been different; they have desired that there should be more or less restriction of appeal, and under those circumstances we have negotiated. I find myself in a difficulty in following the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman. What has been his object in the part he has taken in this discussion? When, on the introduction of the Bill, I explained that the Government felt that Imperial interests were so seriously concerned in this matter that they could not give way altogether to the majority of the Australian federating colonies, and that, therefore, as they had been unable to arrange any agreement, they were forced to cut out the clause and to leave the right to appeal as it was before (that is to say, when we were giving to New Zealand, Queensland, and Western Australia, for whom the hon. and learned Gentleman is anxious, all that they were wanting) then the hon. and learned Gentleman got up and said that we were wrong, that he could not agree with us, and that we were in danger of incurring the displeasure of the Australian colonies. But when we come down now and say that all difficulty that existed is now disappearing, that we have amicably come to a unanimous conclusion, which Queensland is content to accept, which all the four colonies have accepted as well, which gives us all for which we ever contended in this House or elsewhere, and which gives to the colonies in Australia all which they severally think to be of importance, then the hon. and learned Gentleman is dissatisfied, and thinks that we have insufficiently considered the rights of Queens land and New Zealand. I daresay his position is clear to himself, but I am bound to say it is not clear to me. What I wish to impress on the Committee and on all parties to this controversy is that if, as I hope i will be, the decision of New South Wale is in accordance with the decision of the other colonies, we have—thanks very much indeed to the consideration which has been given to the matter and to the friendliness of the Australian delegates, who were appointed by their Governments, thanks to the general reasonableness of all parties and the desire to secure a unanimous agreement—dealt with what undoubtedly was an extremely difficult and complicated question in a manner which, at the end, we can say was satisfactory to all the parties concerned.

I think we ought to have some explanation of why they were struck out. They were put in at the instance of the delegates, and perhaps the Attorney General or the Colonial Secretary will be able to tell us why now they should be struck out.

My hon. and learned friend will observe that the Bill as it came from Australia contained the definition that "the colonies" should mean "the colonies of Australia." If it had not been for that definition I should have thought there would be no doubt that the Colonial Laws Validity Act would apply to Australia as it applied to the laws of the Dominion of Canada. It must be remembered that we are dealing not with one colony, but with the legislation of an assemblage of colonies; and we found, on conferring with the delegates, that it would be more acceptable to strike out the words containing the definition, which they thought were unnecessary.

who had the following Amendment on the Notice Paper—

"In page 19, line 30, after 'exclusive,' to insert, 'Provided that any proposed laws for the granting of any such bounties shall be reserved by the Governor General for Her Majesty's pleasure,'"

The hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. This does not introduce any new principle whatever. Any single colony in Australia has already power to grant bounties, and as a matter of fact some of them have exercised it.

; Perhaps I may be allowed to ask the right hon. Gentleman when he proposes to introduce the complementary measure which we were told of more than a month ago as being ready to be introduced in a few days—I mean the measure adding certain Gentlemen to the Privy Council, and which was considered essential to the scheme.

It was not said to be essential—certainly not—but it was the desire of Her Majesty's Government, if such an arrangement could be made agreeable to the colonies, to make the arrangement I referred to on a previous occasion. But what I have to state now is that we are in communication with the Australian colonies through the Australian delegates, and we have not at present received information as to their desire on the subject. Therefore, I am really unable to give any further information. I think it is fair to say that I am led to understand that some further conference will be required in regard to this. It may be that the delay will make it impossible to bring in the Bill this session; but, at all events, the delay will not be with us. It will only be because the colonies desire a conference on the subject.

I beg to move that this Bill be recommitted in respect of Clause 19, which applies the Bill to Scotland. This clause was practically introduced by the Lord Advocate when the Bill was being considered by the House. Under Clause 10 of the Bill there may be a prosecution of a railway company in respect of any non-compliance with the rules which have been made under the Act, and in the case of prosecutions for breaches of those rules the clause provides that the same shall be tried in a summary manner under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, the object being that the trial should be a speedy and as far as possible an inexpensive one. In the case of England and Ireland the summary tribunal is the justices of the peace, with an appeal to Quarter Sessions. Where an appeal is made to the Quarter Sessions, that Court may review the matter both in regard to questions of law, and fact, but there is a further appeal to the High Court on questions of law only. In Scotland the procedure of the English Act is not followed, because the Scotch Summary Procedure Act is somewhat different. At one time in Scotland we had a court consisting of justices of the peace and Quarter Sessions, but the law now in regard to these actions is that the case should be tried before the sheriff. The sheriff represents a status higher even in Scotland than that of the Quarter Sessions, so that in Scotland, instead of beginning with the justices and having an appeal to the Quarter Sessions analogous to the case of England, the prosecution is taken before the sheriff. Where-ever any prosecution is taken before the sheriff his judgment as regards matters of fact is final, and an appeal to the High Court is only possible on a question of law. We are placed in this position— that in England you have two tribunals, the justices and the Quarter Sessions, and in Scotland the sheriff is superior to the English Quarter Sessions. As the Bill was brought in by the Government there would have been no appeal to the Quarter Sessions on matters of fact, and strangely enough the Amendment introduced by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire on behalf of the railway companies did provide for an appeal, but it was upon matters of law only. The Amendment of my hon. friend was not necessary at all, because, as the prosecution was to take place under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, they could appeal to the Quarter Sessions in any case. When the Report stage was reached the Lord Advocate put in a most unusual Amendment, and carried the right of appeal by the railway companies up to the High Court in regard to matters of fact as well as matters of law, and, in order to make a foundation for such an appeal to the High Court, he has had to alter what is the usual procedure in a summary case by the sheriff. In Clause 19 the Lord Advocate introduces a change by which the sheriff at the request of either party is to take notes of evidence. How is the summary character of the case to proceed if the sheriff, at the request of either party—and the railway companies may be relied upon to ask for notes—has to take notes of the evidence, and then those notes are to be laid before the Court of Session. They will have to be printed, and the Court of Session will, in the case of a breach of the rules, be able to review the case not only on matters of law, but also upon questions of fact. Look at the position of matters. If it be an offence in Scotland the railway companies have the right of review both on questions of law and of fact; but if the offence be-in England or Ireland the railway companies have a right of review on questions of law only. Is there any reason why this Bill should prescribe that the prosecution is to be summary, while in the case of Scotland you deprive it altogether of its summary character? The Lord Advocate is depriving this clause of its summary character by introducing this new procedure, that in the case of the prosecution under the Summary Procedure Act the sheriff is to take notes of evidence, and the Court of Session is to have power to review on questions of fact as well as of law. I know the only thing that it is possible: to say on the other side in regard to this proposal. It will be said that in the case of England there is an appeal from the justices to the Quarter Sessions, and you are going to say "We want an appeal also in Scotland." But it is a very different thing to. give an appeal from the justices to the Quarter Sessions in England, because the Justices' Court is an inferior tribunal to begin with. It is a different thing, to give an appeal from one legal body of that kind to another by giving an appeal to the High Court in a summary case on matters of fact. In the case of England you begin with the justices, and according to English procedure there is necessarily an appeal to the Quarter Sessions. That is a procedure which is quite applicable to England, but when you come to deal with Scotland you deal in a different way, because you make it compulsory that the sheriff shall be the only party entitled to try the case. If the law is wrong in one case, why not alter it in every other case? You have an appeal in England, because you begin with the justices, and you get an appeal to the Quarter Sessions, but in Scotland you begin with the sheriff, who is equal to the Quarter Sessions, and, therefore, the Summary Jurisdiction Act represents not an appeal from the sheriff on matters of fact but only on questions of law. The result is that in Scotland the prosecution practically ceases to be summary. It is provided that the sheriff has now to take notes of evidence, and those who have been in practice in the Sheriff's Court know the length of time taken by cases in which the sheriff has to take notes in his own handwriting. I have known a case of this kind spread over weeks and months, and the result of this provision will be that the summary character of the prosecution will be entirely done away with. Why should those who are prosecuting for a breach of the rule under this Bill in Scotland be handicapped by a sheriff being required to take these notes of evidence, and why should the parties be put to the expense of having to fight the case in the High Court in Scotland, while in the ease of Prosecutions in England and Ireland an appeal can only be made on questions of law. without reference to any review of the facts? I have put down an Amendment on the Paper to clause 19, page 6, line 39, to leave out from "1864," to the end of the sub-section, and the effect of the Amendment would be that it would leave an appeal to the High Court in Scotland the very same as an appeal to the High Court in England and Ireland. It would then be an appeal on questions of law merely and not on questions of fact. Certainly no sufficient reason has been given for this extraordinary change of the law, which is inconsistent with any procedure under the Summary Jurisdiction Act in Scotland, and which is also a great injustice to railway servants in Scotland.

I beg to second the proposition of my hon. friend below me. I believe this alteration was introduced by the Lord Advocate on the Report stage in this House. It is well known to Scotch Members that the Sheriffs' Court in Scotland corresponds more to the Quarter Sessions than to the Justices' Court, and it is a Court with which the Scotch suitors are entirely satisfied. The Lord Advocate's Amendment introduces a somewhat new method of procedure. It gives an appeal in Scotch cases only on questions of fact as well as law. We object to this on the ground that it takes away the summary character of the jurisdiction laid down by this Bill. It increases the right of appeal in Scotch cases as compared with English and Irish cases, and it may very materially increase the expenses in favour of the rich railway companies as against poor individuals. I hope the Lord Advocate will be able to offer some satisfactory explanation on the subject.

With regard to the motion I made introducing this change, I wish to say that it stood on the Paper in the ordinary way, and I can assure my hon. friends opposite that my only reason for introducing this Amendment was to provide that the procedure in Scotland should be precisely the same in its true character as in England and Ireland. It has already been decided that for England there should be a right of appeal upon the facts as well as upon law, and I felt that to translate this into Scotch it was necessary to take the course I suggested. It is not a question of status or dignity, but the point is, shall we have in Scotland an appeal on the facts alone, or on both the facts and the law? If you are going to have an appeal on both, the only way it can be done, otherwise than by the course I have suggested, would have been much more cumbersome. Let me venture to correct the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, for he is not correct in saying that in all cases under the Summary Procedure Act there is no appeal. The hon. Member has evidently forgotten the provision made under the Summary Procedure Act of 1864. There are many instances of statutes creating offences allowing a right of appeal on matters of fact, and for which proceedings might be commenced under the Summary Procedure Act. You would not need the Summary Procedure Act for the purposes of an appeal, for you would present your appeal by virtue of the provision in the statute creating the offence. If you do give an appeal upon matters of fact it is necessary to make provision for taking the evidence. This taking of the evidence has been spoken of as a novelty, but it is not so, for there are many instances in which notes of the evidence have to be taken. May I be allowed to say that I think the system proposed is very much better than the English plan. The English plan is that, having examined the witnesses before the justices, on taking an appeal to the Quarter Sessions you do not present notes of the evidence, but you examine the witnesses all over again. I think that is a much more expensive process than the process of taking notes of the evidence and having an adjudication upon that. Accordingly, if you are going to have an appeal upon that in a summary manner the method I have put down is the correct way, and the same method obtains already in many statutes of the realm. From the starting point of the English Bill this is the only way to deal with it, unless I had taken the much more cumbersome method of giving a right of appeal on points of fact and another appeal on points of law. That would possibly have been more analogous to the English position, because under this Bill there is a possibility of two appeals—one on the facts and another to the High Court upon the law alone. I think it is very much simpler and better to do as we have done, and it is no novelty at all to provide for the taking of notes of evidence and thus have an appeal to the High Court upon points of law at once. I want to make it perfectly clear to the Committee that the right of appeal given in this proposal is in substance precisely the same appeal, although the particular tribunals used are different, because they cannot exactly correspond in Scotland.

The point which has been put forward by my right hon. friend the Lord Advocate is not exactly that which we have put forward in this discussion. We desire, so far as we can, to make the state of things in the three countries analogous. The strong distinction which this Bill draws between Scotland and England and Ireland is this—that in the Bill as drawn in this clause we shall now have an appeal to the High Court in Scotland upon questions of fact and law, while in England and Ireland such a course will be absolutely impossible. In our procedure in Scotland I should say that in ninety-nine hundredths of the cases tried the sheriff is made the final judge of the facts. I do hope that my right hon. friend will take care to see that this clause is amended, and I will suggest to him that the Bill should be so recast upon this head as to take advantage of that most excellent statute which is. known as the Summary Prosecutions Act of 1875. That Act applies in all prosecutions of a summary nature in every inferior Court in Scotland, and I observe in this clause that the Lord Advocate suggests that this prosecution is to be of the nature of a civil prosecution. The advantage of the reference which I respectfully give him is that, whereas criminal prosecutions would have to go to the High Court, civil prosecutions may go to either of the divisions of the Quarter Sessions, granted only that these superior Courts shall not be troubled with the details of the facts, but they will have to address themselves to questions of law-alone. I venture to say that the calling of this proposal a summary prosecution is very contradictory. There will be an appeal upon such questions as whether a railway company can be fined or not for some delinquency discovered probably by a railway servant. The whole idea of summary jurisdiction is in the present instance particularly applicable, because what we want in reference to this Bill is that those delinquencies of railway companies shall be promptly and finally dealt with by the sheriff who considers the facts. I think it is a great public misfortune in Scotland that when these delinquencies are discovered we have to go through such a protracted procedure, which is detrimental to the public interest, and which in the case of railway servants, might be of a most disastrous character.

As this Bill now stands it establishes a very serious barrier in the way of getting these appeals speedily settled. The Lord Advocate has not made it clear to the House that in the case of Scotland there would be no greater hardship for a railway servant than in the case of England, where the appeal is made from the justices to the Quarter Sessions. If the Lord Advocate could assure the House that the cost of such an appeal would be restricted we should be quite satisfied, but I am afraid that railway servants will find themselves mulcted in serious costs. Of course if we are assured on this point our objection to

The House might have expected that the right hon. Gentleman in moving the Second Reading of this Bill would have vouchsafed some kind of explanation of the provisions it contains. On the First Reading the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman was of the most perfunctory character, and he did not attempt more than to casually state one or two provisions of the measure, and did not in any way refer to some of its most important proposals. I certainly think the right hon. Gentleman has not treated either the House or the subject with which this Bill deals with the respect he ought. The Bill is certainly one which may be perfectly well described as a Bill without any principle whatever. It is an omnium gatherum. The right hon. Gentleman has gathered a large number of scraps together, and has thrown them into the Bill. I do not think there are any two clauses in it which have any connection with each other, and there is no general principle running through it. So far, however, as I can gather, the majority of the clauses, with the exception of Clause 2, are of a fairly reasonable character, and tend in the right direction. These clauses, however, are merely the coating and the sugar with which to administer the medicinal pill contained in Clause 2. I am quite sure that the proposal contained in Clause 2 is the main object of the Bill; that the other clauses are merely set out in order to make it more agreeable. The proposal in Clause 2 is of a novel character, and being of a novel character I think the right hon. Gentleman should have vouchsafed us some kind of explanation as to the policy of his Department in connection with it. When I say the proposal is novel, I mean that it is novel to this generation. It re-establishes in this country grants of public money for the building of denominational schools not in the hands of public bodies or under responsible control. I quite understood, and I think the country understood, that building grants were abolished once and for ever, and that they were never to be heard of again. Now we have a revival of the old custom condemned many years ago, the only difference being that the money is to be taken not out of the National Exchequer but out of the rates levied by boards of guardians. However, it is public money all the same, find we ought to have the same restrictions and the same principles applied to it. These grants are for the purpose of enlarging or building schools of a denominational character, in order to enable boards of guardians to have poor-law children educated in them. I acknowledge that the education of poor-law children is a problem of very considerable difficulty, but if I may be allowed to say so, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has taken a very wise course to secure its solution. Different boards of guardians adopt different policies with regard to poor-law children. Some boards keep them in the workhouses, others board them out in large numbers of thirty or forty in one place, while others again board them out in ones or twos. It is obvious that some boards of guardians will adopt this clause while others will not, and you will have as a result most unequal action all over the country. Some schools will be able to get public money granted them, while others with just as good a claim will be unable to persuade boards of guardians to apply money for this particular purpose. Again, suppose a board of guardians decides to enlarge a school to accommodate twenty children who require places, the Board of Education authorises the board of guardians to pro-vide money for that purpose and they proceed to do so. That accommodation may be necessary to-day, but in five years time there may not be a single poor-law child attending that school. I certainly think that we may have a most reckless addition to our schools as a result of this clause, and we have no guarantee that boards of guardians will continue to carry out the same policy from year to year, or that even if they do it will produce the same effect in each village. Then we have another extraordinary novelty. Boards of guardians are asked to adopt a policy of contributing to the building or enlarging of schools in which poor-law children are to be educated. In the case of London we have the anomaly that money collected in the metropolis would be spent in Surrey, Kent, or Middlesex, where the schools may be situated. I think that is what is likely to occur, and if I am wrong it is because the right hon. Gentleman has not taken any means to secure that we should have any correct information as to the principle upon which this clause is based. Then there is another anomaly — another violation of a principle which is recognised as proper. If boards of guardians are asked to make these grants they should have some control over the schools which receive them. I think it will be a most iniquitous proceeding if the thin end of the wedge is now to be inserted by authorising grants-in-aid taken from the local rates without any control being given over the schools. I see in this proposal the beginning of a policy of using the rates of this country for the assistance of denominational schools, and using it without any quid pro quo, or without giving any control over the schools which receive these grants. I think this clause runs counter very seriously indeed to what we considered the policy of the Government and the Education Department was. I think we ought to have some explanation, and I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentle-man will be able to give us a satisfactory explanation, or a promise that proper safe- guards will be provided. I will not now refer to the other clauses of the Bill. Most of them are of a satisfactory kind, but I believe that Clause 12 is the main proposal, and that if it is left as it stands it will very seriously affect the principle we thought animated the Education Department of this country, and will inflict very serious injury. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time on this day three months.

formally seconded the Amendment.

Speaking generally, I view with the deepest satisfaction every clause in this Bill. I believe it is an admirable Bill from first to last, and I would wish to say one or two words in reply to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved its rejection. The Bill enables boards of guardians to send poor-law children to public elementary schools of all kinds. I happen to be the first man in England who sent any number of pauper children to public elementary schools. That was in June, 1872, and after twenty-eight years experience of this form of educating poor-law children, I can say it has been a most complete and absolute success. First of all, it gives the officers in the workhouses a period of quiet and peace, and it secures a certain amount of complete order during several hours of the day. It provides outside assistance for training these boys and girls, who get another form of discipline, which is altogether admirable. It gives the children a variety of life, and destroys that inertness — I might say almost soddenness—to which they are liable. It associates them with ordinary children in every-day life; they are no longer labelled as paupers, and their lives are made much happier and more natural. In these schools thus conducted I have found no absconding when the opportunity has been offered, and, therefore, if I was as much opposed to Voluntary schools as the hon. Gentleman opposite, I should feel bound to support this Bill, because of the great advantage it will confer upon pauper children by introducing a variety of life and discipline into their training. I will not refer to the other clauses. I think they are in every way satisfactory, and that the necessities of the situation have called forth every one of them.

This Bill is full of technical points which will require explanation before it obtains a second reading. There are one or two criticisms which I desire respectfully to offer. The clause to which my hon. friend the Member for Morley referred appears to me to be an admirable clause in regard to certain classes of schools. The tendency of boards of guardians seems to be to disband their pauper schools and to board their children out. One can conceive of a board of guardians of a great city boarding out their pauper children in a village a few miles out, and sending these children to the public elementary school. The accommodation in the village school will thereby be swamped, and additional accommodation and additional expense will become necessary. In fact in some villages a new school, or at least a new department, will have to be built. I take it that the object of the clause is to make it lawful for the hoard of guardians to provide or contribute towards the cost of the additional accommodation. That is a perfectly proper thing when it applies to village board schools, because in these there is every guarantee, by public audit and public management, that the money voted by the board of guardians will be spent on the school, and nothing but the school. But in an indirect way this raises the question of rate-aid to voluntary schools. I should be out of order if I were to discuss that principle, as a principle; but I may be allowed to say that I should not look with hostility upon the extension of rate-aid to voluntary schools, under certain proper and essential conditions—namely, that the board of guardians or whatever the rating authority may be—should have the right to appoint on the committee of management of the school to be so aided from the rates a representative or representatives, and that they should have the right of auditing or requiring the Local Government auditor to audit the accounts of the school. If that were done, the risk of determined opposition to the clause in question would be withdrawn. I will not say many words in regard to the provisions which extend the powers of compulsory school attendance, which widen the net to bring in truant boys, increase the attendances under what are known asdunce certificates, and raise the penalties which may be inflicted on parents for neglecting to send their children to school. The school board of the city which I have the honour to represent has already communicated with the Board of Education on Clause 4, Sub-section 1. By Clause 4 the local authority—that is, the school board —is empowered to pay the expense of the conveyance of children who are sent, under the Education Acts, to a certified industrial school. That is a very proper thing, but I would point out that hitherto where that has been done it has usually Been done my means of a policeman. That is to say, that children sent to an industrial school, not necessarily as the result of crime or misdemeanour, but of truancy or a comparatively trifling offence, have been so sent in the charge of the police. I wish that there could be added to this Bill, in respect of the attendance clause, a proviso that all school attendance cases and punishments arising from these should be heard and determined in another than the ordinary police court. The present practice has, I feel, a bad moral effect on the children. I hope the Government will accept in Committee an amendment in the direction I have indicated, so that the boys who are sent to an industrial school and conveyed there at the expense of the board of guardians may be sent in charge of the board's own visiting officer. With these remarks I extend to this Bill my support, and give my thanks to the Government for having introduced it.

I agree with the hon. Member for West Nottingham that many of the pro- visions of this Bill will be of great advantage to education, and will be welcomed by all those who are anxious to strengthen the law with reference to attendance. But it is a point of some importance to know where we are going, and to understand more fully what will be the actual result of these proposals. Now, in the first place, I am quite sure that all those who are acquainted with the present state of educational administration would deprecate the introduction of fresh authorities, and the opening up of fresh conflicts of jurisdiction, by conferring new functions on new authorities in any direction conflicting with existing authorities. If any useful result is to be expected from the Board of Education Act of last year, it ought to be in the direction of unifying the authorities and the machinery in order to get the best possible results. The objection I take to Clause 2 is that it pretty much places on the boards of guardians, indirectly it is true, the right and the duty to provide further accommodation when deficiency of places arises in educational districts. Well, that seems to be a new departure which I much deprecate. It would be very undesirable to interfere, in my opinion, with the existing powers of school boards to provide accommodation, or to thus extend the action of boards of guardians in making the necessary provision for sending the children to ordinary elementary schools. If that most desirable policy is to be fully carried out the proper course would be to adhere to the principle of the Act of 1870, that where there is a deficiency of accommodation the school board should afford the provision of buildings as the authority representing the ratepayers of the district, and that they alone should have the power to deal with the question. The clause as it stands is open to the very serious objection that it enables the board of guardians to subsidise denominational schools, and to provide money out of the rates for an increase of accommodation in denominational schools without any consultation with the ratepayers, or recognising in any way the principle of control by the ratepayers, or without providing any modification whatever of the conditions under which these schools are carried on. It would mitigate the objection on this side of the House to some extent if the boards of guardians were entitled to elect representatives to serve upon the committee of management of such schools. I must at once say, however, to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President that that would not meet the whole of my objections to this clause. Unless the clause can be explained in a different sense from that in which its effect has been interpreted I think it will meet with very considerable opposition in Committee.

While I entirely approve of facilities being afforded to poor-law children for attending ordinary public elementary schools, where that is possible, as provided for in Clause 2, I feel that there might have been included in the Bill the other side of the picture in which both sides of the House are very considerably interested—namely, the permission to the placing of poor-law schools under the Elementary Education Act, where the board of guardians desires it, and the Local Government Board approves it. I have no doubt the two right hon. Gentlemen responsible for the Local Government Board and for the Board of Education are very well able to arrange a clause by which that could be carried out. I have brought before the House, on a very recent occasion, this very question, and I know that many Members on both sides are interested in it. It is not a party question. The children in poor-law schools do not receive any of the advantages of being under the Board of Education. They are, as we all know, examined and inspected by inspectors under the Poor Law Board and the Local Government Board, and their education is extremely inferior. Many of us are of opinion that the education of these children will never be satisfactorily dealt with unless they are brought under the general educational scheme of the country, and they and their masters are placed under the inspection of the Board of Education itself. Clause 2 goes a certain way in that direction, but only a small way. Even if those poor-law schools were to be broken up, it would take many years to bring them under the ordinary educational system of the country. I do not intend to traverse all the arguments brought forward in Committee of this House in a previous debate, but I would remind the House that these children are at present under a great disadvantage as compared with the other children from an educational point of view. The Local Government Board has no facility for inspecting or managing the education of these children. It has no accumulated experience; but the Board of Education has that accumulated experience. I would be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill or from some; other Member of the Government an expression of their willingness to introduce into the Bill a clause to accomplish that which the guardians and the Local Government Board are willing and desirous to do, namely, to declare that the schools under the poor-law authorities are public elementary schools as far as the teachers are concerned, and also as far as the examination and inspection of the children are concerned. This is a very important point, and affects many-thousands of children under the care of the 600 unions in the country. It has-been said that these are merely barrack: schools, contaminatory in their character and accompanied by the workhouse taint; but, on the contrary, the boards of guardians who are most forward in the matter; such as those of Birmingham and some of the districts of London, are most anxious that they should be placed under the Board of Education for inspection and control, instead of under the Local Government Board. Those boards which have devoted a great deal of money and attention to the creation of schools, such as that at Hornchurch in the neighbourhood of London, where colonies have been founded for the separate home system, are doing their best to train the children in a. manner which will enable them in the future to best meet the circumstances of life. But they find that they cannot get the children taught up to the standard of other children unless they are brought under the ordinary educational system of the country. I trust the Government may see their way to expand the scope of Clause 2.

Speaking in regard to this Bill as a whole, I do not think that anybody, on whatever side of the House he may sit, will deny that nearly all its provisions are good and valuable, with, perhaps, one exception. I regret, myself, that the Bill has been complicated by the introduction of the rather unfortunate clause to which not unnaturally a considerable amount of attention and suspicion has been given. The right hon. Gentleman would have facilitated this discussion if he had made some slight explanation of the Bill in moving the Second Reading. As it is, it has been flung down without any guidance from him as to the course of the discussion. My right hon. friend might have foreseen, being familiar with the history of education in this House, that any proposals to enable public bodies to vote money to Voluntary schools are certain to be very closely watched, not merely on this but on the other side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman must recollect the controversy that was aroused by the proposal to enable boards of guardians to pay fees of children under the 25th Clause of the Education Act of 1870. The provision in this Bill may go a great deal further than that proposal of former years, and the only way to mitigate or avoid the not unnatural suspicion which animates Members on this side of the House would be to adopt the suggestion made by two of my hon. friends—namely, that some representation should be given to the boards of guardians, or some other public representative authority—the rural council, or the school board, as the case may be—so that the board of guardians who vote the money might feel that they have some control over the establishments to which their money is given. Where in a case of this kind you are going to draw upon a fresh fund for Voluntary schools, surely we are entitled to ask that some form of representative control should be introduced into the poor-law schools. When the Bill gets to Committee Amendments will be placed upon the Paper. Nobody complains of the procedure of my hon. friend in moving the rejection of the Second Reading in order to raise a full discussion, but I hope my hon. friend will be satisfied with the discussion he has raised, and having regard to the other propositions in the Bill, will not press the rejection; and I hope the Vice-President of the Council will understand that when the Bill gets into Committee the second clause will be closely examined.

This Bill contains some excellent provisions, but there is one aspect of Clause 2 which I do not think has received sufficient attention in this House. I allude to the effect that it will probably have all through the country, and the change, to a great extent, under which guardians and rural district councilors will be elected. This clause will probably have the effect of making these elections bitterly contested on sectarian and non-sectarian lines. It is true that Clause 2 is partial in its character, but that very fact will cause opinion to divide, and the bitterest feelings will be raised. It is practically a recommencement of the old system of building grants, which we thought had been entirely and absolutely got rid of. I am afraid the effect upon the elections of local governing bodies all over the country will be extremely prejudicial. I hope, however, that my hon. friend, having regard to other proposals in the Bill, will not press his motion to a division.

I did not abstain from making a speech in moving the Second Reading of the Bill from any disrespect to the House, but because, the measure being a Departmental one and containing a number of what I had fondly imagined to be purely non-controversial amendments to the law, I thought that, on the whole, it would be more respectful to the House to await the observations which hon. Members might wish to make before thrusting myself upon their notice. Unless I had heard the speeches delivered by hon. Members opposite, I should never have dreamt that it was possible to conceive that there was such a diabolical plan underlying so innocent a clause. Perhaps I might explain to the Committee exactly the reason of this perfectly innocent clause. The clause originated in the conviction of the Education Department of the enormous advantage of poor-law children going to the ordinary elementary schools of the country and mixing with other children. The hon. Member for North Birmingham, who has had great experience, said the best system for the education of pauper children was to divest them as far as possible of their pauper surroundings, and give them the same education as the children of the village. In carrying out that principle experience proved that great injustice might be done to certain parishes. As an instance, I might mention a case which came long ago within my own experience. A poor-law union in the county of Essex, with a very small work- house and very few children, had the children taught within the walls of that institution by the best of teachers. The parish, however, became a school board district, and the school board built a school which was attended by the children from the workhouse, and is attended by them, so far as I know, to this day. But why should the ratepayers of the parish have to bear the expense, which ought to be borne by the union? That is, I think, a very great injustice to a small rural parish. The same state of things exists in a number of rural parishes in this country, and the object of the clause is to enable the guardians to do what they have no legal power to do at present —namely, to contribute both to the building and the maintenance of the school. A great number of metropolitan unions now adopt the laudable practice of boarding out their children in country parishes. Where only one or two children are boarded out in a particular parish, no burden is imposed on the inhabitants of that parish, but when a considerable number of children are boarded out in a small parish, increased expense is entailed on the managers of the school. If it is for the interest of the ratepayers to send their children out into the country, it is only reasonable that they should subscribe to the country schools where the children are educated. Nobody ever dreamt of subsidising voluntary schools or reviving building grants or introducing into the election of guardians strong sectarian elements. I do not think the clause would have any such effect. It is a permissive clause. I think boards of guardians may be trusted to take precautions to prevent the use of their money for sectarian purposes. Suggestions have been made that provisions should be put into the Bill requiring boards of guardians to be represented on the committee of the school, and requiring some sort of public audit of the accounts. Let the House imagine one of the great London unions—Poplar or Shoreditch, for instance—having children boarded out in Essex, Kent, or Surrey, and being directed to appoint somebody to represent them on the management of the school, and provision having to be made for the audit of a school account amounting, perhaps, to only £100. What a burden would be thrown upon boards of guardians.

What I suggested with regard to auditing was that the accounts of the school should be subjected to the ordinary audit by the official auditors.

It is all very well for the Local Government Board auditor to audit the accounts of great schools, but to require a small parish school to have its accounts audited every year by a Local Government Board auditor would put on the managers of the school an additional burden which they are quite unable to bear. The whole matter is optional, and if a board of guardians is not satisfied that every security is afforded for the proper expenditure of their contribution they can withhold that contribution. I will consider any Amendment proposed in Committee, and the House will have further opportunities of considering this clause, but I hope they will not be induced by these vain and unreasonable fears to omit from the Bill this most important and salutary clause. As to sending children to industrial schools, I think that everything that can be done ought to be done to detach children altogether from the ordinary administration of the criminal law in this country. If I was one of a bench of magistrates, I would not like to send a child to an industrial school in charge of the police; I agree with the view that the attendance officer is a far fitter person to be entrusted with such a task; but it is another matter to prevent by Act of Parliament the police-under any circumstances taking a child to an industrial school. If the House will read the Bill a second time, I propose that it should be referred to the Standing Committee on Law, where there will be an opportunity of discussing in detail technical clauses. Of course, the House will have the opportunity on Report of reconsidering any matter of principle, and giving its final decision on the clauses.

said he should not have intervened in the debate had it not been for the reference made to the Essex parish which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to. If the whole of the education of the country was administered in the wise, liberal and statesmanlike manner that it was by the vicar of the parish in question, there would be no word of suspicion as to what was being done. But all parishes are not so fortunate, and he feared that in some cases advantage might be taken of this measure for sectarian purposes.