dary schools as well as for the Universities; and he would be the last to propose that such schools should be placed under central control; but there should be an opportunity of making suggestions, and of showing how such institutions were working, and what was required, in order to bring about a certain extent of harmonious co-operation between them. There was all the difference in the world between increasing the arbitrary and bureaucratic authority of a Central Department and enlarging the action of that Department in the line

the way in which they should be spent | Universities. But how could that be on education; while another, who had carried out, if there was no Minister the ear of the Cabinet, and was capable to take any interest or concern in it? of persuading it, was able to decide Take the case of the Training Colleges. that certain legislative measures, and How was it possible to arrange for the certain measures only, should be reception of teachers at the Universities, brought forward. They regarded that or for the relations which the Universystem as a divorce of power from re- sities ought to hear towards the seconsponsibility, which did not exist in any dary schools and the elementary schools, other Department of the State; and they if there was no Minister of Education also looked upon it as an injury to the with a seat in that House? He admitted Public Service. It had been stated in the necessity of maintaining a large the course of the debate that the func-measure of independence for the secontions of the State as regarded primary education and those of a Minister who should deal with secondary and superior education were entirely distinct; whereas those who supported the Motion thought they were intimately connected, and that neither set of functions could be properly discharged until both were united. Cases frequently arose in which the regulations of an endowed school required revision, and the authorities who had the duty of framing schemes for endowed schools required to be stimulated in order to induce them to make more rapid progress in their duties. At pre-indicated by the right hon. Gen leman sent that could not be done, because there was no power in that House to do it. The Charity Commissioners were not directly represented in the House, and were hardly amenable to it. Why was it that the Charity Commission was so unpopular? Why was it that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works found that the Charitable Trusts Bill met with a dozen blocks? It was because the Charity Commission was, so to speak, hidden away in a dark corner. It was not amenable to public opinion; and there were no means of ascertaining what it did, or what it did not do, or what were the grounds of its action. The only way in which they could deal with the Charity Commission was to place it under a responsible Department, whose Head sat in the House of Commons. And the supervision of endowed schools -the dealing with secondary and superior education generally-was one of the functions which it was most important to intrust to a Minister of Education. They would all remember the point, made long ago, by the then Head of the Department, about the desirability of creating a ladder from which the children should rise from the primary to the middle schools, and so on, to the

Mr. Bryce

the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair). No one would desire to see the Central Authority invested with such a controling power over the Universities as was possessed by the State in Germany or France. Bearing in mind the importance of dealing with the various aspects which the subject presented, and of considering how best to make the Education Minister a true Minister of Public Instruction throughout the country, he thought the Committee ought to be sufficiently large to enable all these questions to be brought under discussion and fully considered.

MR. SALT said, he begged to apologize for having committed an irregularity on the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. What he wished to say on that occasion was that he was sorry that the proposal for introducing changes in a very important Department of the Government had not emanated from the Government themselves. It was extremely difficult to carry out such changes; and he was bound to say that, having confidence in the Department, and in the Minister coDnected with it, he did not see that any sufficient reason had been shown for the adoption of any extensive change

by all Ministers. It was the case with | Schools Commission and the Charity the old Department, and the expendi- Commission. There could hardly be two ture was quite high enough; but with a opinions of that side of the House that new Department, and a new Minister not only should stimulus be given to the anxious to show how the new broom working of these branches of Public could sweep clean, the Education Vote, Business, but that it was also very denow very large, would be further in- sirable that the character of these Comcreased. Therefore, on both of these missions should undergo some very imgrounds, he opposed the creation of a portant modification, and he could see new Cabinet Office. no more suitable time for pressing the point upon the attention of Her Majesty's Government. He would, therefore, move to add to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) these words—

MR. ILLINGWORTH rose to continue the debate.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL wished to put a Question to the Speaker upon a point of Order. He wished to ask the Speaker whether, as the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) had been withdrawn, it was competent for the Committee to discuss another Motion not on the Paper before the Motions which were on the Paper had been disposed of?

MR. SPEAKER: The course which has been taken by the House is quite regular. By the leave of the House the Amendment of the hon. Baronet was withdrawn, and there was no irregularity in taking another Amendment. The course pursued was entirely a question for the House.

MR. RITCHIE asked to be allowed to make a remark upon a point of Order. He understood the original Motion to be one for going into Committee of Supply. And when the Amendment to that Motion, which stood on the Paper, had been withdrawn, he wanted to know whether it did not follow, as a matter of course, that the Member who had the next Amendment upon the Paper should be called upon rather than that a new Motion, by somebody else, which was not upon the Paper, should be taken?

MR. SPEAKER: The Motion for going into Committee of Supply was not withdrawn, but the Amendment of the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) was withdrawn. The original Question was then put, and upon that Question the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) brought up his Amendment. The course which has been pursued is quite regular. The original Question has not been withdrawn at all.

MR. ILLINGWORTH desired to say a word upon a practical questionnamely, the working of the Endowed

Mr. Warton

"And how such other duties as would fall within the province of a Minister of Public Instruction may be best discharged." He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Amendment to allow these words to be added to it, on the ground that it would prevent inconvenience from arising at a subsequent period.

MR. SPEAKER: That Amendment could not be put at the present moment. The Question immediately before the House is that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question. If the House decides that Question in the negative, then the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) could be put as an original Motion, and the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) would be in Order in moving his Amendment.

Question proposed,

"That the words 'a Select Committee be appointed to consider how the Ministerial responsibility under which the Votes for Education, Science, and Art are administered may be best secured,' be there added."

Amendment proposed,

At the end of the proposed Amendment, to add the words "and how such other duties as

would fall within the province of a Minister of Public Instruction may be best discharged.”— (Mr. Illingworth.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid these words are beyond the scope of the present discussion. It will be observed that the words now before us are not in the main our words, but the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh. I can con

ceive certain collateral duties which may I thought the right hon. Gentleman should be, and have been, actually discharged adhere to that promise, especially as by the Vice President of the Privy there were now very few Irish Members Council, and my impression is that they present, and this was a measure which will be considered by the Committee; should be discussed not by a small party, but, at any rate, I think the Motion, but by the Leader and the whole of the as it cannot be altered by the proposal Irish Party. This was not a Money Bill; of my hon. Friend, would be of quite and, its provisions having been explained, a different character, and would require he submitted that it ought not now to be the Committee to mark out and frame a taken, especially after the promise given plan for the discharge of all duties which by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief could be brought within the scope and Secretary. view of a Minister of Public Instruction. That, clearly, would be much beyond the matter we have been debating since 9 o'clock, and could not, I think, be assented to by the House at the present time. That would require a full discussion. My hon. Friend may raise a question of that kind by a proposal to instruct the Committee; but I do not think the House is in a condition to enter into this at the present time, and we could not be a party to accepting this Motion.

Question put.

The House divided:-Ayes 8; Noes 104: Majority 96.-(Div. List, No. 156.) Question,

"That the words 'a Select Committee be appointed to consider how the Ministerial responsibility, under which the Votes for Education, Science, and Art are administered, may be best secured,' be added after the word 'That' in the original Question," put, and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put.

Resolved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider how the Ministerial responsibility under which the Votes for Education, Science, and Art are administered, may be best

secured.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL. (Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Herbert Gladstone.) [BILL 154.] SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time." (Mr. Trevelyan.)

MR. BIGGAR said, he objected to the second reading of this Bill being now taken. The Bill had first of all been blocked; and in the second place, he believed, the Chief Secretary had told the Irish Members that he would not take advantage of the Half-past 12 Rule. He

MR. TREVELYAN said, the hon. Member's objection to this Bill being brought on at this time and not being a Money Bill, was quite untenable. It was not a Money Bill in the sense that it concerned very much money; but if ever there was a Money Bill in character, it was this, because it proposed to enable the Government to make a grant of £50,000 for pauper relief. As to the question of an agreement with hon. Members, the conditions were now entirely changed. Two months ago, when he brought this Bill forward, the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) put an Amendment on the Paper of importance and interest. That Amendment was not now on the Paper, but it was to the effect that no Bill would deal with poor relief in Ireland satisfactorily which did not confer additional power on the Boards of Guar dians in Ireland, with a view to assimi. lating the English and the Irish Poor Law administration. Since that time the hon. and gallant Member had brought forward that Motion, and a debate of great interest and importance had followed, and a majority-82 to 20-had decided against the Motion. That discussion was ended; and there was now no Amendment on the Paper except that of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), to the effect that the Bill be read a second time this day three months. This was a Bill simply for the purpose of indemnifying four Boards of Guardians who had borrowed altogether £3,000, and to enable the Government to relieve those and other Boards of Guardians. The circumstances under which he had made the promise-at a time when the Resolution of the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County, or some Resolution analogous to it had been discussed had been entirely changed, and he did not think the Government were now putting any strain

-

MOTIONS.

on the House, or on any section of the House, in asking the House to advance the Bill one stage this evening.

LAND) BILL.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR said, he LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (SCOTwas not concerned to endeavour to obstruct the advance of this Bill at all, but he wished to submit a point of Order. This Bill was to a great extent, and almost entirely, a Money Bill; but over and above those portions of the Bill which dealt with what was properly the subject-matter of a Money Bill, there was a clause which referred to the indemnification of Boards of Guardians who had exceeded their powers. He wished to put to the Speaker whether the mere fact of a Bill containing clauses which related to public money was sufficient to take that Bill out of the operation of the Half-past 12 Rule? If the mere presence of such a clause was sufficient to remove a Bill from the operation of that Rule, what proportion of a Bill was it necessary to have relating to other matters in order that a Bill should not come under that Rule? It was perfectly clear that this Bill did relate to what was not necessarily the subject-matter of a Money Bill. The Bill was really a Bill to indemnify certain Boards of Guardians who had gone beyond their legal powers; and on that ground he ventured to submit that it was, at any rate, a debatable question whether this was a Bill which could not be blocked by the Half-past 12

Rule?

MR. SPEAKER: The Bill to which the hon. Member refers deals in almost every clause with money; and because one particular clause may not refer to money, that does not bring the Bill under the Rule. Being a Money Bill, it is clearly in order to bring it on.

MR. SHEIL said, that when the Chief Secretary for Ireland asked leave to introduce the Bill he gave the House to understand that no part of the would be devoted to the purposes of emigration.

money

MR. TREVELYAN said, he might now most positively say that neither directly nor indirectly would any of the money be applied to emigration.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

Mr. Trevelyan

LEAVE. FIRST READING. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I hope, Sir, I shall not have to detain the House at this late hour (12.40) at any considerable length, while I state briefly the reasons which have induced the Government to introduce the Bill of which I have given Notice. I do not think it is necessary to go into the ancient history of this question, because most Members interested in the matter know the history as well, or better, than I do. I shall not go further back than the year 1878, when the late Government introduced a Bill for the appointment of an additional Under Secretary. That Bill was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for SouthWest Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and the then Lord Advocate; and I take it for granted that, though that Bill did not ultimately go forward, it indicated in the view both of the Scotch Members, and probably of the public in Scotland, and of the late Administration, that it was desirable that there should be some change at least in the former and ancient system of administration of Scotch affairs. I also gather from the proposal to have an additional Under Secretary for Scotland that it was considered by the late Administration that it was desirable, besides the able professional assistance which the Lord Advocate is always in a position to give on all legal matters, that there should also be some official dealing more especially with every question arising in Scotch administration. That is a mere speculation on the meaning of the Bill when it was introduced, for there does not seem to have been any full discussion upon it. That was the state of things when the present Administration came into Office; and when I became responsible for the conduct of Scotch affairs, I found that the same sentiment prevailed, I will not say among all, but certainly among a considerable number of, Scotch Members, that there should be some change in the arrangements with reference to Scotch Business. It is a matter of public notoriety that a Memorial signed by a large number-I forget the exact num