Commons Sitting of 15 July 1882

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading— Educational Endowments (Scotland) [147].
Committee—Report—Electric Lighting (re-comm.)* [200].

QUESTIONS.

  EGYPT—THE CONFERENCE, &c.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSgave Notice that on Monday he should ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he had seen an article in the "Berlin Post" of July 14, observing, with reference to his statement that the Governments of Germany and Austria—
  "Had declared that our action was perfectly legitimate," that "such a remark had been received in well-informed circles at Berlin with some surprise, since England had never addressed any inquiry on the subject to the German Government, and the latter had never had occasion to express itself in any way in the matter;"
  and, whether he could explain this contradiction of his statement by the semiofficial organ of the German Government; and whether it was the fact, as stated in the English Press, that his statement had also been contradicted on the highest authority at Vienna?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I may as well answer the hon. Member's Question at once. I see no reason to modify the statement that I have already made on this subject.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Conference at Constantinople, with reference to the affairs of Egypt, met yesterday; and, whether he can make any statement as to the proceedings?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the Ambassadors of all the Powers have now, I am happy to say, received instructions with regard to their late proposal, and wore to meet this day at 11 o'clock.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Perhaps the hon. Member, or the Secretary to the

  563
  Admiralty, will take this opportunity of informing the House as to the latest state of affairs in Alexandria?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We have telegrams this morning from Mr. Cartwright to the effect that there are hopes of being able to rally by degrees all the influential Natives round the Khedive, and that all the gates of the town are guarded by English Marines, while the town is being patrolled by American Marines. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, however, will be able to give the House fuller information upon this point.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have three telegrams, which I shall be glad to read to the House. The first, dated 9.30 last night, is to the effect that the Marines hold the gates of the town, and that the streets are being cleared. Another telegram, dated 11 P.M., is as follows:—
  "The gates of the town are now guarded by seamen and Marines. The fire is not spreading, and nearly all looting has been stopped. Germans have landed to protect the hospital, and Americans to establish a Consulate. Her Majesty's ship Minotaur has arrived."
  I may add that the Tamar, which has 1,000 Marines on board, has been ordered to join the Fleet. A telegram, dated 10.20 this morning, has been received from Sir Beauchamp Seymour to the following effect:—
  "Am organizing police as fast as possible. All the gates and Forts Napoleon and Caffarelle are occupied by our men. The whole Marines of Squadron, and landing parties from all excepting Sultan and Inflexible, landed; Minotaur arrived this morning."
  MR. MONK: Will the hon. Gentleman say how many Marines are at Alexandria?
  MR CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That I cannot say exactly. It would a little depend on how many there are in the ships that recently joined.
  MR MONK: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Tamar is likely to arrive at Alexandria? Is she at Maita?
  MR CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know. She was at Malta.
  MR VILLIEES-STUAR: Can the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs state whether any steps have been taken to intercept Arabi and his Army to prevent their reaching Cairo?
  SIR JOHN HAY: When is the Tamar likely to arrive?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERAN: I have already said I do not know. She has been ordered from Malta to Alexandria.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: May I ask whether Her Majesty's Government are able to givetho House any information with reference to the position of Arabi Pasha?
  SIR CHARES W. DILKE: No, Sir; we have nothing but the vaguest possible rumours, and these areabsolutely contradictory.

  EGYPT (PARLIAMENTARY PAPER, No. 9.).—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  SIR CHARES W. DILKE: I wish to take this opportunity of making a statement with regard to the Parliamentary Taper, Egypt, No. 9, which was laid upon the Table yesterday, and circulated in the course of the day. That Paper was presented in consequence of a Question which was put to me by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), and it has been laid upon the Table as an extract, and I wish to explain why that course was adopted. The reply to the whole of the subject-matter of the Question of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, as far as it was touched by the despatch, is contained in the Paper laid before the House, and the portion of the despatch omitted refers to another subject. In order to prevent any misapprehension upon the subject, I state that the rest of the despatch has been omitted, not because of any desire to conceal facts, but only because the remainder of the despatch referred to the Correspondence which was going on between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government in regard to the powers of the Egyptian Chamber of Notables. The question is still pending, and the two Governments have agreed that it would be unadvisable to publish the Papers relating to it at present.
  MR. VILLIERS-STUARTbegged to repeat his Question as to whether any steps were being taken to intercept Arabi Pasha and his force, so as to prevent them from reaching Cairo?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The hon. Member is aware that the operations at Alexandria were undertaken for the purpose of protecting life and property at Alexandria: but the question

  565
  with regard to Cairo is a very different matter.

  THE MINISTRY—RUMOURED RESIGNATION OF MR. BRIGHT.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: As I see a Cabinet Minister in his place, I should wish to take this opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any truth in the rumour which has got abroad within the last few hours with reference to a matter possessing considerable political domestic interest?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: What rumour?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes it to be more particularized, I refer to the rumoured resignation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I have reason to believe, Sir, that there is some foundation for the rumour.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 200.]
  (Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Evelyn Ashley.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, that when the question of holding a Saturday Sitting was discussed on Thursday night he intimated that he would not make the Amendment that stood on the Paper in his name with regard to this measure until the third reading of the Bill; but after a consultation with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, he came to the conclusion that it would be better to raise the question he intended to bring before the House with regard to the measure on the day when the Bill was specially fixed to be taken rather than on the stage of its third reading. As the Forms of the House, might, however, preclude him from moving his Amendment, he should content himself with drawing attention to the matter. As it was known that he was more or less connected with Gas Companies, he wished to
  566
  state at the outset that he did not appear on that occasion as the Representative of their interests in opposition to this measure. On the contrary, the Gas Companies, as far as he was able to gather, were satisfied with the general scope of the measure, and, indeed, regarded it as a very strong and a very commendable effort on behalf of the Board of Trade to grapple with a very difficult question. But, although the Gas Companies were not opposed to the Bill in its general details, they were opposed to it on two points of principle to which it was desirable the attention of the House should be called. In the first place, in regard to the question of electric lighting, no Bill the House could pass would have any effect upon the competition which naturally must arise between various systems of lighting. The results of that competition must, in the end, depend on efficiency and economy; and, although regulations might be valuable in the interests of the public, he did not see how, in any way, they could affect the interests of the Gas Companies, who could well afford to look on as to what was taking place in the world in reference to electric lighting. They had had 40 years' start, and in the course of that period an enormous amount of capital had been provided under the sanction of Parliament, and expended in gas lighting in every part of the Kingdom. During the last few years electric lighting, a novel mode of illumination, had made great progress. That progress, he ventured to think, had been more scientific than practical; but no doubt it had made even practical advance, and the Exhibitions at Paris and the Crystal Palace had demonstrated its valuable qualities. Within the last few weeks 55 Companies had been registered, dealing with the question of electric lighting; and the aggregate capital approached, or even exceeded, the £13,000,000 or £14,000,000 expended during the last 40 years in gas lighting in the Metropolis and district. Although he should be the last person in the world to grudge the scientific men who had been engaged an adequate reward for their labours, he thought, at the same time, it would be patent to the House that a considerable portion of this capital was not likely to prove remunerative, except to the individuals to whom he had referred. The two points to which he wished to call the

  567
  attention of the House were—first, the powers taken by the Board of Trade to grant licences to persons and to Companies to supply lighting by electricity; and, secondly, the fact that the local authorities were to be entrusted with the powers contained in the Bill, and might plunge into large expenditure for purely experimental and speculative purposes without being under the necessity of obtaining the assent of the ratepayers. As to the first point, the power asked for by the Board of Trade had hitherto only been granted by Parliament, either by express Acts of Parliament, or by Provisional Orders which had subsequently the sanction of Parliament. It was, therefore, an entirely new departure for a Department of the State to assume, or indeed usurp, the powers of Parliament to grant Charters to Companies or Corporations for purposes of this kind. Such licences should not be granted without the full sanction of the House after full discussion. Under Section 2, "public purposes" would mean the lighting of any street or place belonging to or under the control of the local authority, or any church or place of public worship, vestry hall, or theatre. Homo of the buildings mentioned in the clause were frequently occupied for other than public purposes, and certainly a theatre could not be called a public place. Besides, the licence would give power to the local authorities to raise money on the rates for private purposes—namely, for supplying electricity to private consumers. He did not know that such a power had ever been entrusted to local authorities before without their having first obtained the existing supply. In his opinion, it was undesirable to entrust public authorities with the power of using money derived from rates for purposes which might not unfairly be termed speculative. If the money were raised in this way there would be a temptation to create a bureaucracy within the local authority, which would have the power of spending money that they had not personally contributed except to a very small extent. Finally, he would ask the House to consider that there was no provision in the Bill for the ratepayers exorcising any control in this matter over their representatives when they were once elected, or for the auditing of the accounts of these undertakings. In con-elusion, the hon. and gallant Member
  568
  moved the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is undesirable to retain in the Bill the novel powers proposed to he given to the Board of Trade to grant licences to local authorities, Companies, or persons, enabling them to exercise powers which have hitherto only been granted by Act of Parliament, or Provisional Order confirmed by Act of Parliament, and the power given to local authorities under Clauses live and six, and other parts of the Bill, to raise money on the credit of local rates, without the consent of the ratepayers, for the purpose of competing with private capital, are contrary to every principle hitherto recognized by the Legislature, and that no Bill containing such powers will be acceptable to this House,"—(Colonel Makins,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Mr. CARBUTTsaid, he was glad the hon. and gallant Member had called attention to this Bill, which was an entirely new departure in legislation, the principle of which, if carried out, would probably hereafter be applied to railway property, and entail, by the arbitrary mode of purchase now proposed, enormous loss on the present shareholders. The Purchase Clauses he very strongly objected to, and he thought they should be considerably modified. The principles of the Bill were a violation of political economy, and if the Purchase Clauses were passed they would be contrary to the principles of fair play. The public wanted a new mode of lighting, public bodies would not risk the money, and yet were to have the power of buying up the undertakings if these proved successful. Nothing was to be paid for past, present, or future profits; nothing was to be given for goodwill; but a valuation was to be made at what might be called auction price. This would be an injustice, not only to the private Companies, but to the public generally, and would prevent the laying out of money in such undertakings and improvements. All these Companies, up to the present time, were Companies anxious to sell their inventions. If they were to buy up the Companies at the end of 15 years it would not be to the advantage of the country, because it would prevent any improvement, and instead of increasing the use of the electric light, it would

  569
  decrease it. In order to enable the shareholders to get back their money, they would require to make 10 per cent profit throughout the period. In the case of tramways, the period at which Corporations could purchase or re-let was 21 years, and he trusted in the case of electric lighting some concession would be made by the President of the Board of Trade in this direction, because he would find, if this were not done at the end of the 15 years, that a great injustice had been inflicted, and that no advance in electric lighting would be carried out. The evidence given before the Committee had only recently been placed in the hands of hon. Members, and he greatly regretted that they should have been called together on a Saturday morning to consider this subject.
  MR. SLAGGsaid, that all those who bad read the Report of the Select Committee must have been impressed by the fact that no data of any value in regard to electric lighting, certainly none of a commercial description on which calculations could be based of such a nature as to give solid foundation to commercial enterprize, had been elicited; and therefore this Bill, from the very nature of electric science, was necessarily of a purely tentative character. That fact certainly imposed a very great difficulty in attempting to legislate on the subject at the present time. His hon. Friend who had just spoken complained of the way in which Electric Lighting Companies were to be treated under the Bill, being tied down by the compulsory sale of their undertaking. But he (Mr. Slagg) took this view very strongly in regard to the establishment of Electric Lighting Companies in districts where gas was at present supplied by local authorities, who must necessarily be the best judges of what was good in such matters as lighting. He did not consider it to the public interest necessarily that outside Companies should be invited to come in and make an exploiting ground of an area which had already been supplied on the most favourable and economical terms by existing local authorities. Why should they encourage any outside body of people to come and abstract a profit already made by a local body applied to local purposes in the matter of rates? On that ground he considered that no encouragement was due from that House or the Legislature in getting
  570
  private persons to invade towns where Corporations had already well discharged their duty to satisfaction. He would take the case of his own Corporation in Manchester. They had a very efficient gas supply, and supplied not only their own local area, but also 21 out-townships, at a very much lower rate than they could possibly supply themselves. What would happen under the aspirations of his hon. Friend? He wished to give encouragement and protection for the Board of Trade to allow Companies entirely outside the sympathy, accommodation, and interest of those bodies, to obtain and take away the profits which they had been accustomed to enjoy to the very great advantage of their community. He did not see that Electric Lighting Companies had any logical ground for assuming such a position. The provisions of the Bill were of such a nature as in no degree to discourage the progress of electric science. That science had made the most remarkable strides without any expectations whatever such as had been held out by his hon. Friend. It would continue to make those strides, and, no doubt, Corporations would avail themselves of that progress, and become the supplying authority, instead of leaning on the aid of outside Companies. As to the purchase of the plant of Electric Lighting Companies, considering the wholly uncertain and experimental nature of electric science at present, the terms provided in this Bill were amply sufficient and perfectly generous. Upon what ground could a Company claim to have compensation for any huge profit they might make during the 15 years for which they had obtained a Provisional Order? They might make a huge profit during that term—a profit acquired from the uncertain and experimental nature of the science, and that ought to be quite sufficient to indemnify them for the risk. It would be rather too hard to ask those communities whose territory had been invaded, and whose money had been extracted to pay huge dividends, to compensate the Companies for the business they had planted there. It was impossible at the present time to estimate accurately or with complete abstract justice what should be the terms upon which the purchase should be made. They could only guess, because it was remarkable that in the whole of the

  571
  scientific evidence given before the Committee there was not even an enunciation or express declaration of opinion upon the elementary point as to what the cost of electric lighting was. The scientific authorities differed in the widest degree upon the point; and when they could get no data as to the cost of the light, the cost of the plant, or of any commercial item of importance, it was impossible that they could make any accurate provision as to purchase. They must not, therefore, attempt to tie down Corporations by onerous terms with regard to profits and to prospects which were at present without accurate foundation.
  MR. W. FOWLERsaid, the powers and terms of compulsory purchase were unfair to the Electric Lighting Companies as compared with those which were given to the Tramways Companies. After 15 years—an inadequate period considering the risks of the undertaking—the Corporation or local authority might come in and buy up the business if it was successful; if it did not pay, the Corporation would lie by; but if successful, they might come in and sweep the Company up on unfair terms. He wished to enter his protest against this, and considered that these Companies ought to have as long a time granted to them to recoup themselves as the Tramway Companies had. The object of Parliament ought to be to encourage people in these undertakings. They seemed, however, to be going from one extreme to the other; they gave Gas Companies too much, and now they were giving Electric Companies too little. He quite admitted that people were wild about electric lighting; but what they advanced their money for was not for the transaction of regular business, but for speculation, in the hopes of selling their shares at some gigantic profit. He noticed the other day that the £4 paid shares of the Brush Company were worth £28. That was a very demoralizing price, He was afraid if they did not take care they would discourage people from laying out their money. They held out the prospect to them of "heads I win, tails you lose," as the Corporations could not lose. His strong conviction was that Parliament was going too far in the way of protecting local Corporations and discouraging private enterprize.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he did not think the Bill was calculated to check en-
  572
  terprize, for even since the decision of the Select Committee on the matter there had been no diminution in the operations of those interested in electric lighting. Speculators, he might further remind the House, would have the fullest notice of the terms upon which they would be bought up, and could not, therefore, complain. It appeared to him that the discussions which had been raised seemed more fit for the Committee stage of the Pill. He hoped the House would go into Committee as soon as possible.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he rose for the purpose of supporting the recommendation just made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Stanhope) that they should go into Committee. The questions raised by the hon. and gallant Member for South Essex (Colonel Makins) affected matters of considerable importance, and if his Amendment was carried it would strike at one of the principal clauses in the Bill, and might be considered as almost fatal to the measure. The questions raised subsequently by his hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth Boroughs (Mr. Carbutt) and by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) could be more conveniently discussed in Committee. At all events, he should confine the observations he had to make to the very important question which had been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for South Essex. The arguments used by the hon. and gallant Member, and subsequently by the hon. Members for Monmouth Boroughs and Cambridge, were arguments which might be brought before the Committee upstairs on behalf of the Gas Companies and Electric Lighting Companies. He did not say those arguments were any the worse on that account; they were both important interests which had deserved to be fully represented before the Select Committee upstairs and also before the House. The subject in detail had been fully discussed by the Committee upstairs, presided over by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope) with, he ventured to say, the greatest ability. The Committee was a strong and hybrid Committee, and gave the very greatest care and attention to the matter. All those powerful interests were represented by counsel; the Committee held a great number of meetings, and everything that could be said on the subject was carefully listened to; and he was glad to say

  573
  that upon all important matters upon which they had decided the Committee was practically unanimous. There was some difference on matters of detail; hut even in cases on which the Committee divided there was, with one exception, a very large majority in favour of the views represented in the Bill. Now, the hon. and gallant Member for South Essex told them that the power proposed in the Bill to grant licences was a novel power. He at once admitted that was so. It followed out, however, a recommendation made by a very strong Committee which sat in 1870, and was presided over by the present Chairman of Committees (Mr. Lyon Playfair), and that Committee recommended the giving of facilities to Companies to conduct experiments. That sentence must be taken as guiding the discussion. Electricity was in an experimental state at present, and the object of the Bill was to give every facility for experimental processes in connection with electricity. But if they resorted to the practice which obtained in other matters, of proceeding by way of Provisional Order, the probability was that such Provisional Order might, at any rate, be opposed by great vested interests, which were to a certain extent hostile to the new illuminant; and the vendors and consumers, who were desirous of having this new light, and the inventors who were desirous of introducing it, would be at such a great disadvantage in consequence of the enormous cost of obtaining powers that they would materially interfere with the progress of this new science. Therefore, it was thought desirable to introduce some new method by which this experimental stage might be conducted with less expense. And what was that method? It was this. That where a local authority which was entitled to represent fully the wishes of the district, the representative authority for the district, agreed, that then the Board of Trade, after hearing all the parties who desired to make any objection or representation on the subject, might grant the licence—of course, for the experiment—for a limited period of five years. Certainly, they thought that would be an extremely convenient proceeding, and one which he hoped the House would see fit to adopt. The hon. and gallant Member for South Essex went on to matters, which were rather of detail, as to the new distinction which he con-
  574
  sidered had been created between lighting for public and private purposes. He would say at once that was not a question of any importance. It might be that Companies, in the present state of electric lighting, might desire to light public buildings and streets, when they would not wish to undertake a general district illumination. It had, therefore, been considered to be expedient to make a distinction. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to protest against borrowing or raising money on the rates in competition with private capital, and without the consent of the ratepayers. This raised two important and separate questions. The first was whether it was justifiable to raise public money in competition with private capital. [Colonel MAKINS: Raised under Act of Parliament.] Whether under Act of Parliament or otherwise. The second point was whether such power should be permitted without the consent of the ratepayers. These were quite separate questions. With regard to the first question, it was a mistake to assert that Parliament had never given power to public authorities to raise and expend money in competition with private capital. It was done in the case of tramways, which came into competition with omnibuses, which were supported by private capital; and railways, the capital for which was raised under Act of Parliament. In the case of gas itself, Corporations with public money not only competed with other forms of illumination, but, in the majority of cases, they supplied fittings to private houses in competition with private enterprise. Now, the opposition proceeded on an assumption which he ventured to think was entirely without foundation. It was the assumption that in some way or another Gas Companies, or other parties having at the present time authority to supply gas, had obtained from Parliament the right to supply lighting. [Colonel MAKINS: I explained that distinctly.] He was not putting the words into the hon. and gallant Member's mouth. He was saying that it was only on such an assumption that the argument of the hon. and gallant Member was justifiable. The contention was one which had undoubtedly been presented to the Committee, and it was one entirely without foundation. In his opinion, Gas Companies or Corporations, having powers

  575
  to supply gas, had obtained no right whatever to be protected by Parliament against the introduction of any new light. Then there came the second question, whether the local authority should exercise its powers without the consent of the ratepayers; and the hon. and gallant Member for South Essex appealed with good reason and considerable force to the experience of the Borough funds Act, under which Corporations were compelled, if they desired that their expenses should be borne by the rates, to appeal to the rate payers before the time of application for an Act of Parliament. He denied the statement of the hon. and gallant Member that that Act worked well in the opinion of those who he thought best qualified to judge. On the contrary, there was no provision in the Municipal Act which was more resented, and very properly resented. But let them understand. He always found in that House an almost certain method of obtaining a cheer was to speak of the great local government which had done so much for the happiness of the population and for the education of the people. Yet another way of obtaining a cheer was to sneer at the Corporations which had done the work. Hon. Members must choose between the two. If Corporations were really representative of the true interests of the ratepayers, which it was his contention was shown by the history of the last 30 years, then it was an unconstitutional proceeding to submit their opinions to a plébiscite whenever they went for now powers. Undoubtedly it tended to degrade them in their own eyes and to lessen their responsibility. It certainly seemed to him that the effect of it was bad in more ways than one, for it certainly lessened the efficiency and authority of Corporations. He hoped to see the time when the clauses of the Borough Funds Act containing this objectionable provision might be repealed. He had only one other remark to make. The hon. and gallant Member for South Essex had perhaps failed to observe that, although the Bill did not in this ease give an appeal to the ratepayers by plébiscite, yet it did provide that before any licence or Provisional Order was granted all persons interested should be heard by the Board of Trade. The objections of the ratepayers, therefore, would undoubtedly be attended to, as they were now when Provisional Orders were applied for and
  576
  granted by the Local Government Board for a great number of purposes. Now, very largo powers for raising money, for consolidating loans for all kinds of municipal work, were granted to Corporations and local authorities after a local inquiry held by an officer of the Local Government Board, at which every ratepayer had a right to be present, at which all objections were heard and carefully considered; and he might say that this system had worked admirably—had saved the time of Parliament and saved the money of the ratepayers. It was that system, and no more, that the Bill proposed to substitute for the Borough Funds Act. The Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for South Essex would, as he understood it, abolish the power to grant licences, and would prevent Corporations and private persons from developing this new illuminant. That might be in the interests of Gas Companies, but not, in his opinion, in the interests of the public. His hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth Boroughs (Mr. Carbutt), who had a great interest in the progress and development of the electric light, would not vote for the Amendment, which would have a distinct tendency to prevent its general adoption. With these few observations he left the matter in its present state to Members of the House, and reserved to a later period his observations on the clauses.
  MR. WARTON,who had given Notice of his intention to move that the House go into Committee that day three months, said, that he was mainly concerned for the interests of inventors, whoso efforts would be trammelled by this Bill. Very strong evidence was given by one of their number, the owner of 10 patents and the recipient of numerous distinctions and decorations; and when such a man, speaking as the representative of his class, said that it would deprive them of security they ought to have, the House ought to pause before it placed them at a disadvantage. The Bill gave too much power to the Board of Trade, for which he had no great respect. Without offence to the right hon. Gentleman, he might be permitted to say that the Board of Trade did not content itself with its own business, but showed the tendency to encroach on the duties of other Departments. It had taken away from the

  577
  Trinity House the management of lighthouses, and, if he might use the expression, it had stolen from the Admiralty certain duties connected with foreshore. No doubt this was all very natural, and that was the reason why they had been called down to the House on a Saturday to discuss a Bill which might, under different circumstances, have taken its chance with others in the ordinary way. He was not aware that there was a single scientific person connected with the Board of Trade. It was desirable to get behind this magnificent shadow to see what was the actual substance, because there was nothing this Board would not undertake to do, oven to altering Acts of Parliament by new orders. He regarded the adoption of the bureaucratic, or French principle of leaving everything to such a Board and its highly intelligent President, as unsatisfactory, if not unconstitutional. Not only did he advocate freedom for inventors, but he urged freedom for the Electric Companies to make their own way in the world as other Companies had hitherto done, untrammelled by the Board of Trade and unfettered by having to apply for licences, and being obliged to stand or fall on their own merits. There was another point—the interests of the ratepayers—and he regarded the continual attempts to press more and more heavily upon them as really abominable. Let them burn tallow candles, gas, or the costly electric light as they pleased, but do not, he said, compel them to do either of the three.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he could not help rising to enter a word in protest against the Bill. It seemed to him that objections could reasonably be made to the Bill which were in no way removed, but, on the other hand, rather increased, by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his remarks, seemed to him to speak as though there were only two parties to be considered—the private Electric Companies and Gas Companies. He entirely forgot and overlooked the case of boroughs, for instance, like Birkenhead, where the Corporation were the owners of the gas. If there had been longer Notice of this Sitting, he believed more Members would have been present to support his view. Personally, he (Mr. Mac Iver) had not any interest either in
  578
  respect to gas or the electric light; but the House would pardon him for saying that he could not help feeling and seeing that this Bill was regarded as a fight between those who were respectively interested in gas and electricity. He did not believe that electricity was still in an experimental stage; on the contrary, it was proved that for very many purposes electric lighting would have permanent value, while gas would be used for other purposes. Further, he believed that an endeavour was being made in this Bill to obtain unfair advantages on behalf of certain speculators in electric lighting to the disadvantage of those who were in the position of the Corporation of Birkenhead, and who, like them, were making and providing the supply of gas for the town. He thought he in no way overstated the views the people of Birkenhead were likely to Lave on this subject when he mentioned that while they had no prejudice or any wish other than well in respect of electric lighting generally, yet they failed to see why the promoters of Electric Lighting Companies should have advantages which they—as the promoters of Gas Enterprizes—had not experienced in their time. What they asked—and that was all they did ask—was that there should be the most thorough fair play; that Electric Lighting Companies should be placed in the same position as others before them had been, and that exceptional powers should not be conferred upon them. He wished just for a moment to follow up what the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who preceded him, said with reference to the Board of Trade. That was a Department of which he (Mr. Mac Iver) had had a long experience from various points of view; and, while he had always—and with reason—regarded certain of its members with respect, he looked upon it as a Department which, in more than one particular, was thoroughly incompetent. The Speaker, he hoped, would pardon him for saying this, because not only he, but also the Archbishop of Canterbury, was a member of the Board; but he supposed that neither of them took any active part in its duties. If they did, no doubt his objections would be entirely removed, and the work imposed by the Bill would be in good hands. But no one knew to whom these powers would

  579
  be intrusted, and he considered it wrong that the Board should possess them. It seemed to him that the President of the Board of Trade gave a peculiarly unfortunate illustration in support of what he was saying in the speech he had just delivered, for he spoke of tramways and their competition with other modes of conveyance, and compared that competition with the relative positions of Electric Lighting Companies and Gas Companies at the present time. Surely he might have gone on and pointed out how unfair some of the competition was. The Department, if at all, ought fairly to consider the whole question as between Electric Light and Gas Companies; and, having now offered his protest against the Bill before the House, he (Mr. Mac Iver) should be very glad to carry the protest further by going to a division.
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, after the discussion, he would not trouble the House to divide, but would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Granting of licences authorising the supply of electricity).
  MR. WARTONsaid, that with regard to this clause he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to the curious definitions given in the 3rd and 4th sections of the 2nd clause—he referred to the definitions of "public purposes" and "private purposes." With that omniscience which the Board of Trade possessed, they seemed qualified at any time to draw up a definition of anything, and to be able to exercise any powers on any subject. With regard to "public purposes," the Board of Trade said in the subsection that they should mean lighting any street or any place belonging to or subject to the control of the local authorities, or any known or registered place of public worship, or any vestry hall or building belonging to or subject to the control of any public authority, or any
  580
  public theatre, &c. A theatre was a public place, no doubt; but the Board of Trade had not included music halls in this subsection, notwithstanding the fact that at the present time music halls were equally as important as theatres. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, or any hon. Member, had been to the Canterbury Music Hall; but if any of them had been there they must have seen that it was quite as important a place, from the point of view of this legislation, as any theatre, and they would have seen that the same class of audience attended the one as went to the other. He would move to insert the words "or music hall."
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 7, after the word "theatre," insert the words "or music hall."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that, judging from the great legal acumen of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), he should have thought that the hon. and learned Member would have been aware that a definition in an Act of Parliament was always, to some extent, an arbitrary thing. He (Mr. Chamberlain) did not suppose it would be possible to include music halls in the Bill, because, if they went that length, they would have, on the same ground, to include an almost endless number of similar places of amusement. He took it that theatres would be lighted by electricity, as they afforded accommodation to large numbers of persons; but they were to a certain extent under public control. Moreover, theatres had often been included before in definitions of Acts of Parliament. They had been included in measures recently introduced, and he thought the Committee would be entitled to draw the line at theatres. It would not, in his opinion, be desirable to go any further. Of course, if music halls wished to have the use of electricity, they could adopt it in the ordinary way by obtaining a licence for a "private purpose."
  MR. WARTONsaid, that he had had the pleasure some time ago of going round London on a fire-engine to visit the theatres and places of amusement, and he found the music halls, or many of them, were quite as important as some

  581
  of the theatres. In one music hall, it was very well known there had been two fires. The building was a very capacious one, consisting of a large central hall and commodious galleries. Some day or other it might be lighted by electricity; but it was not to come tinder the provisions of this Bill as a public place, notwithstanding its previous history, and notwithstanding the fact that it was attended by far bigger audiences than some of the minor theatres, and that it was a very popular institution indeed. If the Government did not accept his Amendment, he should feel it his duty to divide the Committee upon it.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, this matter was not of that consequence which the hon. and learned Member seemed to suppose. By excluding music halls from "public purposes," the Government did not interfere with the possibility of these places of entertainment being lighted by electricity. The only thing was that the licence for lighting them would be a licence for "private purposes" instead of for "public purposes." The only question in the matter was as to which category they should be placed in.
  MR. WARTONsaid, his point was this—that many of the music halls were quite as important as some of the theatres. Some of them had bigger audiences, and there was quite as much danger from fire breaking out in them as in any of the theatres. He should be obliged to press his Amendment.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKwished to point out that there would be less risk from fire by electric lighting than there was at present by the present system of lighting by gas. The possibility of an outbreak of fire, except, of course, in cases where the engines and dynamo machines were on the premises, was prevented by the fact of the introduction of a small piece of lead into the wire. When there was too high a tension, this piece of lead would melt and stop the current. If the engines generating the electricity were on the spot, there would, of course, be danger; but, otherwise, lighting by electricity on the low-tension system was safer than gas-lighting.
  MR. M. BROOKSsaid, the hon. Member for the County of Dublin (Mr. Ion Hamilton) had an Amendment to the last clause of the Bill, and it ap-
  582
  peared to him (Mr. Brooks) that it would be advisable to discuss that proposal now, as this was a better place for it. The hon. Member suggested that inquiry should be carried out by the Local Government Board in Ireland.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that question would come on subsequently.
  MR. M. BROOKSsaid, he did not think he was out of Order, as he was merely pointing out that it would be desirable that the hon. Member for the County of Dublin (Mr. Ion Hamilton) should bring forward his Amendment on this clause.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, the point now before the Committee was the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend behind him (Mr. Warton).
  MR. WARTON: Yes; it is whether the words "music hall" shall be inserted.
  MR. SHAWsaid, that many hon. Members had not the remotest notion as to what the Amendment was, as the words were not on the Paper.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The proposal is, after the word "theatre," in page 2, line 7, to insert the words "or music hall." The Question is, that the words "or music hall" be there inserted.
  MR. CARBUTTsaid, that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) came on page 2; but he (Mr. Carbutt) had an Amendment which would come on be-fore that—namely, at the bottom of page 1, in Sub-section 2, which said—"A licence shall be for any period not exceeding five years," &c.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That Amendment cannot be put, unless the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. War-ton) withdraws his proposal.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he should be happy to withdraw any Amendment of his to facilitate the bringing on of any other Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CARBUTTsaid, he should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he would agree to any alteration in the Licensing Clause, because, as it stood at present, it would give a Corporation the power of vetoing the existence of a Company altogether? A Company might go to work for five years with the consent of the Corporation, and that Corporation might, at the

  583
  expiration of that period, say—"You must now clear out your wires and engines, because we want to let somebody else in." He (Mr. Carbutt) should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade could see his way to having a revision of the term during which a Company was to be allowed to carry on its operations.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member propose anything?
  MR. CARBUTTsaid, he only wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he could see his way to making any alteration in the Bill?
  THE CHAIRMAN: But I must point out that there is no Question before the Committee.
  MR. CARBUTT: Then I beg leave to propose to leave out the word "five," and insert the word "seven."
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 27, leave out "five," and insert "seven."—(Mr. Carbutt.)
  Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINwished to know the exact point the hon. Member desired to raise. He (Mr. Chamberlain') would draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the sub-section said—
  "A licence shall be for any period not exceeding five years, but may at the expiration of such period be renewed, at any time, with such consent," &c.
  The only cases, therefore, in which licences could not be renewed would be those cases where the local authority had refused their consent. If the hon. Member proposed that the Board of Trade should go outside the consent of the local authority, he was really suggesting that the Board of Trade should usurp the authority of Parliament in a way it had hitherto never attempted to do. It was one thing to say that the Board of Trade should be empowered to grant a licence with the consent of the local authority; but it was another and a totally different thing to say that it should override the local authority without recourse to the opinion of Parliament.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he should like to know who were the Board of Trade for the purposes of this Bill?
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, that supposing a Company went to a local authority and said—"We cannot go to the expense of laying down our wires for such a short period as five years, but we will make an experiment in electric lighting if you will give us, say, 10 years," he presumed it would be in the power of the local authority, under such circumstances, to agree to such extension of time. But yet the local authority in existence during the first five years would not have power to bind their successors. He wished to know whether any arrangement for an extension of time could be made at the outset?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that the Board of Trade were not able to grant licences for a longer period than five years; but, at the same time, he saw nothing to prevent a local authority from agreeing with a Company that at the expiration of five years they would continue their consent. With regard to the question asked him by another hon. Member (Mr. Mac Iver), there had been a discussion in the House on the matter referred to some time ago, and the whole question had been gone into. It was perfectly true that the technical constitution of the Board of Trade—coming down as it did from ancient times—included the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, and many other personages; but for many years the Board as so constituted had never met.
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, that if, at the end of five years, the local authority agreed with the undertakers that the licence should be extended for another five years, he presumed that there would be the same power of objecting as there had been in the case of the original licence. The application would be, to all intents and purposes, for a new licence, only the Local Board or Corporation might have agreed beforehand with the undertakers not to oppose the renewal.
  MR. MAC IVER: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the Committee to understand that, for the purposes of this Bill, the "Board of Trade" is the right hon. Gentleman himself?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly, for the purposes of this Bill, the person who has control of my Office, working through, his officials.
  MR. CARBUTT: I understand that a Company may arrange with a Corporation for a licence for 10 years.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a Company making an arrangement with a Corporation for 10 years, so far as the consent of that Corporation is concerned.
  MR. W. FOWLER: But at the end of the five years there might be a new Corporation, and no bargain of that kind would be at all binding upon them.
  MR. SLAGGsaid, the 2nd sub-section had these words—
  "A licence shall be for any period not exceeding five years, but may, at the expiration of such licence, be renewed at any time, with such consent as above mentioned, upon such terms and conditions as the Board of Trade may determine."
  There was nothing in these words to show that a licence could practically be granted for 10 years. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) said, however, that a licence could be given by a Corporation for 10 years. That statement seemed to alter the Bill altogether. An agreement for 10 years must be a binding one, and he (Mr. Slagg) did not see anything in the Bill to give such a power.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I was asked with regard to the consent of the Corporation only, and not with regard to the granting of the licence. Hon. Members must bear in mind that it is not the Corporation which grants the licence, but the Board of Trade, which, before doing so, must be satisfied that the conditions are fair and reasonable, and are such that under them they could properly accede to the application. The Board of Trade will make a thorough inquiry into the circumstances of the case, unless, of course, the local authority says—"This inquiry shall not be made, as we do not give our consent." Of course, it is necessary that the consent of the local authority should be given. The Bill does not bind the local authority to say that it shall not renew its consent. An hon. Member says that the Corporation cannot bind its successors; but that is not the case, as Corporations are continually binding their successors.
  MR. CARBUTTsaid, he should be happy to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. WARTONwished, before the Amendment was withdrawn—and the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman would tell him whether or not he was in Order—to take this opportunity of calling the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to a matter of some importance. He spoke in no unfriendly spirit to the right hon. Gentleman, and would not propose an Amendment, preferring rather to leave the matter to the right hon. Gentleman's good sense. The sub-section said—"At the expiration of such licence, be renewed at any time, with such consent," &c. He should think the licence ought to be renewed immediately it expired, and not "at any time," as the Bill had it. Such things as this, owing to. the hasty way in which they were getting through the Bill, were apt to be lost sight of. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be advisable to introduce an Amendment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment before the Committee has not been withdrawn, and that must be disposed of before any other Amendment can be put.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, there seemed to him to be some difference of opinion with regard to this part of the Bill. As far as he was concerned, he was satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade; but if there was a doubt as to the power of the Corporation to consent to the granting of the licence for a longer term than five years, perhaps the Government would consider the matter before the Report, and make the whole thing clear at that stage.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it seemed to him to be a most alarming doctrine to lay down that a Corporation always had the power of binding its successors. One body might be in office for five years, and it might be succeeded by another of a totally different shade of local politics, and it would be in the highest degree dangerous to say that the first body was to bind the second. This Bill laid down, as a matter of public policy, that a licence should only be granted for five years; and it would be a very inconvenient thing to give the Corporation the power of departing from that line of public policy, and bind-

  587
  ing over their successors, who might be of a very different way of thinking with, regard to this question.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say that a Corporation would bind over its successors in all cases. The Corporation will not bind its successors as to policy; but if such a body makes an agreement, its successors will be found to adhere to it as in the case of all other contracts. If that were not so, how on earth could anybody have dealings with a Corporation?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: If a Company cannot bind a Corporation for 10 years, how can they do it for five? That is the reductio ad absurdum.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: But the Bill gives them power specifically to bind the Corporation for five years.
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, that an agreement would be obtained for a licence for five years, and the local authority, at the same time, might enter into an agreement with the undertakers that when the licence came up for renewal they would not, as a public body, oppose it. But, then, the subsection went on to say—
  "With such consent as above mentioned, upon such terms and conditions as the Board of Trade may determine."
  So that, practically, the local authority and the undertakers could agree that, on the expiration of the first five years, there would be no opposition to application for renewal at any time. In this way the Company might agree with the Corporation for perpetual powers—they might go on for ever. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members said "No!" but he saw nothing to prevent it. A Corporation might agree that they would abstain hereafter from opposing any renewal of the licence.
  MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he was well aware that a Corporation could bind its successors; but it could not do socontrary to the spirit of the Act, and the spirit of the Act clearly was that a licence should only be granted for a period not exceeding five years. At the end of the five years, seeing that there might be a different Corporation in power, it was only fair to require that the consent should be given over again. That was a very important point, which should not be lost sight of.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, that a Corporation was a perpetual body, which
  588
  could enter into an agreement in perpetuity or for any term of years. According to this Act, the Corporation could give its consent for five years; but it was within its power to make an agreement with the Company that it would, at the expiration of five years, renew its consent. There could be no doubt in the mind of any lawyer on this point. If such an agreement were entered into by a Corporation, it would unquestionably be binding on their successors, just as agreements of the kind wore binding in other cases. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would allow him to make a suggestion, he would say that the wording of the sub-section was rather loose, and that it would be better, instead of using the words "at any time," to say "from time to time."
  MR. STORY-MASKELYNEsaid, there was one point that had been lost sight of. The only condition under which the question of renewing the licence would arise would be a case in which a Company had not discharged its proper functions—in which it had failed to discharge the duties the Corporation had intrusted to it. In such an eventuality it was only right that there should be a power to prevent the renewal of the licence at the end of five years. It seemed to him that, under the Hill, when a Company had not done its duty, the Board of Trade could intervene; but in this matter it was not only the Board of Trade, but also the local authorities, who were interested, and at the end of five years the Board of Trade, as well as the Corporation, would have the power of intervening. The power of repeating their consent, he apprehended, was given by the Bill. When they said that the Board of Trade should have power, at any time, with the consent of the Corporation, to issue a licence, and that at the end of five years that licence should be renewed, what they meant was that the renewal should be a renewal for five years. The President of the Board of Trade would bear him out, he thought, in saying that this was the idea of the Select Committee, which had sat to consider the Bill, when this question came before it. He imagined that the point was not sufficiently well put in the Bill as it stood. At any rate, he did not think there would be any objection on the

  589
  part of the President of the Board of Trade to the insertion of words in the measure to make the point sufficiently clear, if the clause as it at present stood was not sufficiently explicit.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he was not quite sure whether he would be in Order in referring to a technical Amendment on this point; but he thought that the words "at any time" ought to be retained. No application for the renewal of a licence could be granted without giving the Board of Trade a sufficient time to consider it.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, he thought the Committee had got into some little confusion. The Bill did not interfere with the powers of a Corporation to make an arrangement beyond five years with a private Company; but what it did do was to give protection to the public—not to limit the power of a Corporation to give their consent, but to limit the action of the Board of Trade. Under the Bill, it would be necessary for the Board of Trade to renew the licences every five years. It was not necessary to limit the power of a Corporation, because their decision was not final. The final decision rested with the Board of Trade, and every case would have to be considered by them every five years.
  MR. E. COLLINSsaid, that this was a very important point, and he hoped the Amendment would not be withdrawn. No doubt, their great object was to benefit the public, and all those interested in electric lighting. The clause said that the licence should be for any period not exceeding five years, and he could not for the life of him see how objection could be taken to the Board of Trade extending the time during which their consent would apply, seeing that they had power to limit it. If this Amendment were adopted, they would not be bound to go to the extent of seven years; but they might give their consent for six, five, or three years. So many views might develop themselves within five years that the authorities might find it advantageous to have this power. He spoke with some practical experience as to the advantage of leaving the Board of Trade discretionary power in this way, because, from his dealings with that body, he had found that they had a tendency—he did not say on the part of the President, but on the part of the minor officials—to limit their own powers
  590
  as far as possible. He did not see any objection to giving the Board of Trade the powers suggested; but they would use them or not at their discretion.
  MR. SHAWsaid, the public would be heard through the Board of Trade. It had struck him very forcibly that there ought to be a provision in this Bill by which the public could be heard in another way than before the Board of Trade in London. Corporations did not always, particularly in money matters, thoroughly represent the views of their constituents; and, therefore, if in questions of this kind there were very strong public opinions entertained in a locality, it would be a wise provision to make some arrangement for local inquiry. In Ireland Provisional Orders were never granted except after local inquiry. Then, as to another point. If the five years' limit was retained in the Bill, it would render the measure, to a very large extent, a dead letter. He did not think any man of capital would be inclined to spend any large amount of money on a five years' licence—on a licence that might be revoked at the end of five years by a Corporation, which was a fluctuating body. An application was made for a renewal of a licence. The old Corporation, which had given their consent in the first instance, might no longer be in power, and the licence might be revoked by the new local authority. He did not see why the Board of Trade should put any limit in the Bill; and it seemed to him that it would be much better that they should grant licences without limit of time, reserving to themselves the power of revoking them whenever they thought it desirable. He was certainly of opinion that if the clause stood as it was, there would be very little money spent on these electric lighting experiments.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that, no doubt, these were points of great importance, and he was in entire sympathy with the hon. Member (Mr. Shaw). With regard to inquiry, the practice of the Board of Trade had, in all these cases, been to provide for local investigations where inquiry in London would cause unnecessary inconvenience and expense to the parties. Undoubtedly, local inquiries should and would be held in many cases.
  MR. SHAW: That is not provided for in the Bill.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, it was very true it was not provided for in the measure, but it would be provided for in the regulations which would be made by the Board of Trade. With regard to the second point mentioned by the hon. Member—namely, the period for which the licences were to be granted, he was afraid the hon. Gentleman did not take in view all the provisions of the Bill. It must be remembered that there were two methods by which electrical experiments could be carried out. The first was by obtaining a licence; and the second was by Provisional Orders. If a Company desired power to conduct their experiments for a longer term than five years, the Bill said they must go for a Provisional Order; and if they wished to carry out their experiments without the consent of the local authority, again the measure said that they must obtain a Provisional Order. The Board of Trade had no authority to repudiate any action taken by the House of Commons, and he was sufficiently modest to suppose that the House of Commons would not care to give up its powers with regard to Provisional Orders to himself. With regard to the licence, the period during which it should apply was limited to five years; but, at the end of five years, it was renewable on inquiry.
  MR. CARBUTTsaid, that suppose a Company went to a Corporation and said this—"We want to make an experiment in electric lighting in your town;" and the Corporation replied,—"We will give you permission for five years;" and the Company said—"If we succeed in five years, after the five years we will make fresh terms with you," might not the Corporation at the end of that period Bay—"Unless you reduce your price by one-half, in spite of the expense you have put yourselves to, we will make you take up your plant and go away?" In this way the Company might be compelled to reduce its price to a minimum. However, after what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, to the effect that a Company might agree with a Corporation that at the expiration of the first five years there should be a renewal of the permission, and as he considered that would be a great benefit to the public, as well as being satisfactory to the Electric Lighting Companies, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, the words in the Bill did not carry out the view which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had expressed. The experiment could be renewed at any time on such terms and conditions as the Board of Trade might determine, and he did not see anything in the clause that would render it certain that the permission for a licence could extend beyond the first five years. Would it not be well to insert in the sub-section the words "such further term of five Years?"
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the matter was covered by the previous description of the licences. The sub-section said—"A licence shall be for any period not exceeding five years."
  COLONEL MAKINS: Is there any objection to putting in words to make it perfectly clear?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: It is perfectly clear as it is.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that in Ireland, if a local authority wanted to borrow money to make waterworks, it could not do so without first obtaining the consent of the ratepayers, who, therefore, had direct control over the Corporation in such a matter as this; and he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government would have any objection to putting in the Bill words giving the public the same control with regard to electric lighting as was given to them in the matter of waterworks?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that if the hon. and learned Member had been in his place during the whole of the discussion upon this Bill, he would have heard that point cleared up—he would have heard how far the control of the ratepayers was recognized in the Bill. It was considered that the provision suggested by the hon. Member was not necessary in this case. It was not a matter requiring the consent of the ratepayers for the raising of money, but only a matter of giving consent to the establishment of a lighting undertaking. He (Mr. Chamberlain) was surprised at any objection to the local authority having the powers contained in the Bill conferred upon them coming from persons who were interested in Home Rule and local government. He was astonished to hear any suggestion for destroying the Constitutional form

  593
  of representative government proceeding from that quarter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WARTONsaid, the sub-section proposed that a licence could be renewed "at any time." How could it be renewed at any time? What was clearly meant was that it should be renewed after its expiration. He would propose that the words "or at any time after" should be inserted.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 28, after the word "licence," insert the words "or at any time after."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he was much obliged to the hon. and learned Member for pointing out what seemed to him (Mr. Warton) to be a defect in the Bill. He (Mr. Chamberlain), however, did not believe that such defect existed. The words "at the expiration of such licence" seemed to govern the clause; and, as he understood it, a licence could be renewed from time to time after the first licence had expired. He would promise to take note of the point raised by the hon. and learned Member, and to consult the draftsman of the Bill with regard to it; and if he thought it necessary to make any alteration, such alteration would be proposed at a subsequent stage.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that it would be undesirable to wait until the licence expired before renewing it, because, if they did so, people who had invested might be inconvenienced, and it would be very desirable that they should know beforehand what was to be done, in order that they might make proper use of their capital. It seemed to him that there ought to be powers in the Bill by which a licence could be renewed before it expired.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that an agreement for the renewal of the licence could be entered into before the licence expired.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that after the promise of the right hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WARTONsaid, it was necessary that they should know for what period
  594
  a licence was to be renewed. The clause did not give the period. He would propose, therefore, that in page 2, line 1, after the word "time," they should insert the words "for a like period." The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, might mean that in his own mind; but it was for the Committee to consider what the Bill actually said. The right hon. Gentleman said that a Corporation would have power to agree to the renewal of a licence; but that renewal should be for some definite time, and he (Mr. Warton) therefore proposed that it should be for a like period—namely, for five years.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, after the word "time," insert "for a like period."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that, perhaps, the hon. and learned Member would allow him to suggest, for the purpose of saving time, that the words at the beginning of Sub-section 2—namely,"a licence shall be for any period not exceeding five years"—would control the rest of the section.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that a great deal would depend on the form in which the licence was to be drawn.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the licence would fix the number of years, and it would be for the Company to agree with the Corporation as to the period it should operate.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL MAKINSwished to know how many renewals could take place before it became necessary to go for a Provisional Order?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there was no limit to the number of renewals.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is no Question before the Committee, and we must go on in a systematic way with the Amendments.
  MR. MAPPIN: Shall I be in Order in moving the omission of the words "at any time?"
  THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
  MR. MAPPINsaid, he would move the omission of those words. It was very important that the Committee should come to a decision on these

  595
  matters, and that legislation should be decided. It was quite evident that before five years were over they would have to give satisfaction to the local authorities. Some arrangement would have to be made, or, if not, the whole thing would lapse. The omission of those words, "at any time," would make the matter definite, and compel the parties to come to some arrangement with the authorities.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 28, to leave out the words "at any time."—(Mr. Mappin.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The Amendment which is now moved by the hon. Gentleman raises a now question. I do not know whether he intends to raise it; but if you strike out these words, the construction of the clause will be this, that there may be one renewal but no more, and you limit the powers of the Board of Trade, even with the consent of the local authority, to make more than one renewal. I do not know whether this is what is meant; but I would say, under these circumstances, that it is no doubt desirable to limit the discretion of the Board of Trade in some way. I quite believe that the application for a renewal should be put on exactly the same footing as the application for the original licence. There will be the inquiry of the Board of Trade, which will take into account all opposition that may be raised to the licence and the conditions of the licence, and only after such inquiry and consent will they be ready to grant the renewal. I think there should be a continuing power to grant renewals so long as these conditions exist. But, putting that aside, there is a now point. If all that is desired is to make it perfectly clear what the words mean, I will promise the Committee to consider the subject with the draftsman, and if I find it necessary to make any alteration for the sake of clearness, I will bring it up at a subsequent stage.
  MR. J. K. CROSSsuggested that if the words were "from time to time," it would then be necessary to leave out some of the words before them.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had been about to suggest the same thing, and he understood the effect of it
  596
  would be to make it possible to renew the licence from time to time, from five to five years, and nine to nine, just like an Irish lease.
  MR. MAPPINsaid, he thought that where the Board of Trade and the Corporation were not satisfied with the arrangements made, it would be better that those arrangements should come to an end. If the Company having the licence could not arrange with the Board of Trade, it was better that some other power should take their place.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: No doubt, it would be desirable, under those circumstances, that the licence should come to an end; and so it would, because if it were proved that the undertakers had not carried out their obligations, undoubtedly the licence would not be renewed. But that is not all. There are powers under the Bill to bring it to an end before the term is reached.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought there was also another question raised. The words were "that the consent of the authorities should be obtained from time to time," and it would then be in the power of a Corporation to agree beforehand that their consent should from time to time be given, the result of which would be, that so far as their consent was concerned, they would be in the hands of the Company to whom they would have delegated a perpetual power of electric lighting.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, because he thought that, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had pointed out, it would prove very inconvenient. The omission of the words "at the expiration of such licence," in order to insert the words "from time to time," would, he thought, carry out the general views of the Committee.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the suggestion that was made by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), and in order to meet it I have already said that I will consult the draftsman, and if he sees no objection, the alteration shall be made.
  MR. JACKSONwished to point out one other objection to these words. It might be desirable that in the first instance the licence should be, say, for two years and not for five, and it might also be desirable to continue it after-

  597
  wards for a like period. [An hon. MEMBER: The words are "not exceeding five years."] The proposal was to add the words "for a like period." He did not desire to see those words there. One point had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade which he confessed he did not quite understand. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there was power in the Bill to terminate the licence before its time.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: You will find it in Sub-section 7.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he had not understood that there was power to terminate the licence if they failed to perform their duties. It would be very unfair to a Company having a licence for five years to be at the mercy of a Corporation. It would be very much safer for the clause to stand as it was.
  MR. MAPPINsaid, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that in order to get an opinion from the Government, he believed that he would be bound to move some Amendment. He would, therefore, move, in page 2, line 14, after the word "licence," the insertion of these words—"or for the renewal of the licence;" and he made the Motion in order not to press those particular words upon the Government, but to get from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade some statement as to what form, if any, was to be gone through by the licencee to have his licence renewed. He thought the same things ought to be done when the original application was made as when a renewal was applied for. He did not find any form in connection with this clause which would show how or in what way an application might be made for a renewal of the licence.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 14, after the word "licence," insert "or for the renewal of the licence."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the same proceedings should be taken for the renewal as for the original
  598
  licence. But I understand that to be the case as it stands.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CALLANwished to make a suggestion. In line 16, which provided for an explanation, statement, or notice, it was set forth that it should include "such particulars as the Board of Trade may from time to time approve." He proposed to insert there these words—
  "And such notice shall state fully the terms on which it is proposed that the electric light shall he supplied."
  Probably the right hon. Gentleman would give some assurance on the subject; but it should be clearly understood that the particulars which the Board of Trade required to be published should contain the terms on which the light was to be supplied, or otherwise the people who were interested—the ratepayers—would not know the terms—terms which, if they had known what they were, they might have come forward and objected to. The interested ratepayers should have full notice of the terms on which the licence was to be granted.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 19, insert "and such notice shall state fully the terms on which it is proposed that the electric light shall be supplied."—(Mr. Callan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: In the 3rd clause it is set forth that the undertakers shall give a statement of the prices; but it would be difficult to put it in the application, as a statement of prices could only be arrived at after full consideration between the parties.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he only wished the consumers to know. He would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WARTONmoved the omission from line 30 of the word "make," in order to insert the word "contain." The words, as they stood in the clause, provided that the licence might make such and such regulations. He supposed the word really meant to be used was "contain." How a licence could make anything he did not know. Did it mean the licensing body? They could make

  599
  regulations. As the matter stood it was nonsense.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 30, to leave out "make," and insert "contain."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought, they might as well retain the word "make." It was commonly used in that sense in Acts of Parliament, and it was scarcely worth while to make any alteration.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he must press the Amendment in the interests of the English language. A licence could not make regulations. A maker was a person, not a thing. A maker made something; a licence could not make anything at all. "Contain" was a far better word than "make" in such a connection. A licensing body could make regulations; a licence could not.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. MAC IYERwished, for the sake of greater clearness, to move an Amendment in line 36. He proposed to introduce before the words "Board of Trade" the words "President of the." He wished to do that for this reason. It was very desirable, under this Bill, to bring home a personal responsibility fur carrying out the measure. The Committee knew, from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade himself, that for the purposes of this Bill there was no Board of Trade, and that the Board of Trade was simply the President. Now, it might so happen that the right hon. Gentleman who at present filled that office might not always be President of the Board of Trade. The Committee knew that the right hon. Gentleman possessed the entire confidence of his own supporters; but it might be that others might succeed him, and that some day there might be a Board of Trade which would have for a President a man who, perhaps, on one side or the other, might be concerned with gas rather than with electric lighting, or with electric lighting rather than with gas. That was not the present position, but it might at any day occur. It would make no possible difference in the meaning of the Bill, but it would make it much clearer to the public, who did not know that the
  600
  Board of Trade was the right hon. Gentleman himself, if it should be clearly stated that, for the purposes of this Bill, the individual who for the time being should be President of the Board of Trade was himself alone the authority who had to deal with the whole of these regulations under the measure.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 36, insert before "Board of Trade" the words "President of the."—(Mr. Mac Iver.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I have some difficulty in believing that the hon. Member is serious in introducing an Amendment by which he proposes to make a great Constitutional change in the form of an Amendment to the Electric Lighting Bill. I am aware that, on a previous occasion, the Prime Minister promised that the question of making some alteration in the functions of the Board of Trade should have careful consideration; but, until any change is made in the composition and working of the Board, it would be most inconvenient to substitute the President for the Board itself, and would raise all sorts of difficulties.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  COLONEL MAKINSwished to say a word or two before the clause passed from the Committee, because he had had no opportunity of replying to some of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the object of this licensing system was to facilitate the exponents of electric lighting in serving the public. He (Colonel Makins) was not aware that any sufficient difficulty had been felt in obtaining Parliamentary powers to deter any enterprizing bodies from going forward with public works of utility, and the long discussion which had taken place on the details of this licensing scheme showed how difficult and complicated was the system which the Government were trying to introduce into the legislation of the country. If this Bill, with its new system, became

  601
  a precedent, we should hereafter have local authorities obtaining licences from the Board of Trade for the construction of docks or railways, and almost every enterprise. No apology, therefore, was necessary for again entering a protest against this new system before it became part of the Bill. He did not represent the interests of any Party, and certainly here he was not the representative of the gas interests—it was in the interests of all commercial undertakings that he objected to this new power being given. However, after the discussion which had taken place, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division; but he was afraid that, when the scheme came to be worked out, it would encounter many obstacles.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he wished to make one suggestion. The object to be attained by the publication of notices, &c, was publicity; but that would not be attained in that way in London. He would leave the City Corporation to take care of itself; but as to the Vestries and Local Boards he could say that nothing would be known. There were some Vestries in which the people elected were more in number than the people electing. He would suggest that the Board of Trade should carefully consider whether there should not be different provisions for London from those which were laid down for Provincial towns.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Granting of provisional orders authorising the supply of electricity) agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Making of rules as to application, &c, under Act) agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Expenses of local authority).
  MR. BOLTONproposed to omit the words from and including "by a local authority," in line 12, down to and including "incurred," in line 14. The object of this Amendment was to make it perfectly clear that only those who availed themselves of the option under the Bill to use the electric light should be rendered liable to pay for it. That object might, perhaps, be attained by some better means, and probably the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, if he took that view, would propose some alteration
  602
  himself in that direction. It was quite evident that, under the clause as it stood now, the local authority might enter into a speculation to provide electric lighting for any locality, and might charge a low price to the general public for the use of it, and then they might avail themselves of this clause to assess people who were not using the light at all—who might, in fact, have provided themselves with some other electric light, or with gas.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 12, leave out "by a local authority in respect of any undertaking under this Act, and not otherwise provided for including any expenses incurred."—(Mr. Bolton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry that this Amendment was not down on the Paper, because it is extremely difficult to see exactly what the effect of it would be. I do not think that the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman proposes would at all carry out the object I understand him to have. As I understand it, the effect of the Amendment is simply this—that the only power given to the local authority in this respect is to defray out of the rates the expenses incurred in obtaining the licence, and other expenses would be thrown on the persons obtaining the licence. No local authority would undertake the responsibility under such conditions. What I understand the hon. Gentleman wishes to guard against is the possibility of the local authority supplying the electric light to certain constituents at a loss, and doing it at the expense of certain other constituents. Well, but some sort of confidence in the common justice and honesty of our local authorities is the foundation of all our local government. Any local authority found assenting to such a course as the hon. Gentleman imagines would certainly be turned out by its constituents—it could not remain in office after a transaction of that sort.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. W. HOLMSmoved to insert after "Act," page 5, line 16, "or the rents, charges, or other revenues provided by any local Act." Under clause 5, a local authority had power to incur

  603
  certain expenses upon security of the local rate, which local rate was defined on page 19 to be "the police or burgh assessment, or rate of the nature of a burgh assessment." The object of his Amendment was to provide that a local authority might, for the purposes of this Act, use the rents, charges, and other revenues provided by any other Act.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 16, after "Act," insert "or the rents, charges, and other revenues provided by any Local Act."—(Mr. W. Holms.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he did not know whether his hon. Friend had in view the case of any particular authority; but, speaking generally, the effect of the Amendment would be that a local authority, having any other source of income than the rates, might charge the expenses of an electric light undertaking to that source of revenue. As far as he was aware, wherever a local authority had such other source of income, such source of income was specifically applied by a local Act to particular purposes, and it would be a monstrous thing, in a Bill of this kind, to suddenly do away with the obligation, and enable local authorities to devote to a new and totally different purpose the income which had been specifically applied by Act of Parliament to certain purposes. Under the circumstances, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.
  MR. MAC IVERmoved that Progress be reported. The Bill contained 20 clauses, and they had now passed four. This Amendment was sprung upon the Committee unexpectedly, and as the passage of four clauses of the Bill was a good afternoon's work, and remembering that there was upon the Paper Business in which many hon. Members were interested, he thought the time had arrived when the Chairman might reasonably report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Mac Iver.)
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he would appeal to his hon. Friend not to persist in his Motion. They had all come down
  604
  to the House with the object of making progress with this Bill, and he (Mr. E. Stanhope) personally hoped the Government would go on for some considerable time yet, and, if possible, finish the Bill. There was a good deal to be said against taking a Sitting on Saturday; but now they had come down, lot them do business.
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) would withdraw his Motion and allow the Government fair play. Hon. Members had their fight as to a Saturday Sitting on Thursday night, and, having come down, pray let them go on with the work before them.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he would not put it on the ground of fairness to the Government, but of fairness to the Committee. Many hon. Members had come down here at considerable sacrifice in order to do some business, and to proceed in a business-like way to do it. Certainly it would be a most unfortunate thing to report Progress at this early hour.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. W. HOLMSasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PUGHsaid, he desired to propose an Amendment in line 18 of this clause, for the purpose of raising a question which the right hon. Gentleman had referred to twice in the course of the day. That was, whether any local authority ought to be empowered to go to any expense they might think proper with reference to any scheme for electric lighting without some definite sanction from the ratepayers of the district. Whether this sanction was given by a meeting of the ratepayers, or by some local inquiry, was immaterial, as he (Mr. Pugh) thought that either of those methods of ascertaining the feelings of a district might be sufficient. He certainly did not think that any local authority—aud if the Committee would refer to the Schedule of the Borough Funds Act, they would find that a local authority meant a Corporation, or urban authority, or rural sanitary authority, or any vestry; in fact, any local body whatever—should have the power to engage in a large undertaking contrary, J as it might often be, to the wishes of the

  605
  people they represented. He was surprised to hear the Borough Funds Act denounced by the right hon. Gentleman, and it occurred to him at once to consider that the Borough Funds Act was passed in 1872. And on the back of that Bill was the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella), and he believed the Vice President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) was Chairman of the Select Committee who inquired into the Bill. He ventured to say that there wore many Members of the Committee who would agree with him that it was an exceedingly salutary thing that some check should be put by Parliament upon Corporations spending their money in the manner proposed by the Borough Funds Bill—namely, in promoting and opposing Bills in Parliament. The Select Committee came to the conclusion that local authorities ought not to be allowed to engage in litigation of that sort, unless there was some check upon them.
  THE CHAIRMANasked if the hon. Gentleman intended to move an Amendment?
  MR. PUGHsaid, he would move, after the words "provided," in line 18, to insert the words "any such expenses shall have been sanctioned as required by 35th and 36th Vic. chap. 91, and that," He had taken those words from the Borough Funds Act, and he would only say a few further words with regard to that Act. It was well known that a great number of Corporations were opposed to that Act, because it did fetter them in going before Parliament to promote or oppose Bills. He was quite willing to admit that Birmingham and other modern Corporations did the best they could for the ratepayers; but in regard to other local bodies, and particularly the smaller ones, he would say without hesitation that the question whether a Bill was promoted or opposed at the expense of the ratepayers, depended chiefly upon the Town Clerk and the Solicitor to the Corporation, and both those gentlemen wore vitally interested in promoting or opposing Bills which came before Parliament; in fact, in many of the cases a considerable portion of the income of those officials depended upon the promotion or opposition of Bills. It was extremely desirable that the ratepayers should, have
  606
  the power of veto, and if they had, he could not see how it would in any way be destructive of representative government. Section 4 provided in the fullest manner for the incurring of all expenses. The Committee would agree that electric lighting was in a very experimental stage, and lie ventured to say that, under the circumstances, a Corporation or local authority of any other kind, ought not to be allowed to go to a largo expense in promoting an electric lighting scheme without first of all receiving the sanction of the ratepayers.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 18, after "provided," to insert "any such expenses shall hare been sanctioned as required by 35th and 36th Vic. chap. 91. and that,"—(Mr. Pugh.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he was very glad the hon. Member had moved this Amendment, though he was not quite sure that the form in which it had been moved would be the most convenient for the carrying out of what the hon. Member wished. In a later part of the Bill it was provided that local inquiries might be held, and that was one of the ways in which the hon. Member suggested the sanction of the ratepayers might be obtained; but that was not compulsory. If the Government would undertake to make that compulsory, then there would be no necessity for inserting the words which the hon. Member had suggested. The principle involved in the Amendment he did hope the Committee would take into serious consideration. It was, no doubt, very necessary that the power of veto, which was vested in ratepayers by the Borough Funds Act, should be extended to them in the present case. The local authority in the town near which he (Colonel Makins) resided, in the country, a few years ago, took upon themselves to propose to erect waterworks for the supply of the town, using the money of the ratepayers to do the work. The ratepayers had no power to prevent this, but they had power to prevent them going for a Provisional Order. A meeting was called, and it having been pointed out that many of the ratepayers, having their private supply, would be damnified, the local authority were prevailed upon to abandon their scheme and make arrangements with a private Company.

  607
  If the local authority, in that matter, had been unchecked, and the undertaking had proved unsuccessful, the ratepayers would have found themselves saddled with a very heavy burden. He (Colonel Makins) wanted to have the power of veto extended to the licences and Provisional Orders granted under this Act. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would secure that, either by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pugh), or by making the local inquiry, which it was provided might be held, compulsory, he (Colonel Makins) would have nothing further to say in the matter. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman declined to do either the one or the other, he (Colonel Makins) hoped the Committee would take a division upon this most vital principle.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he did not see that the Amendment, as proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Pugh), would raise the point which it was desired to raise. The effect of the Amendment would be this, that when expenses were incurred by local authorities from time to time—as such expenses would be incurred in connection with an electric lighting undertaking—the local authority would have to go for the consent of the ratepayers; they would have to go to the ratepayers whenever any fresh expenses whatever were incurred in connection with the scheme. That was not what his hon. Friend meant; but he desired that a local authority should be obliged to go to the ratepayers for their consent when they were initiating the undertaking, just as under the Borough Funds Act a Corporation, seeking to obtain power for the manufacture of gas, had to go to the ratepayers. That was the principle which the hon. Gentleman raised, and it might be convenient to take the discussion now. He (Mr. Chamberlain) need not repeat to the Committee what he said before with regard to the general principles which, he thought, ought to govern their conclusions; but he thought his hon. Friend would agree with him that the kind of shackles on local government proposed was not necessary in the case of greater Corporations. The hon. Member suggested that in the case of local authorities in country districts, there was not that security which public opinion gave in great towns. He (Mr. Cham-
  Colonel Makins
  608
  berlain) admitted there was a great deal in that argument; but there were one or two points which he would put before his hon. Friend for consideration. The first point was that a real security for the honesty of local government was to be found in making the representatives thoroughly responsible. If local bodies were put in leading strings, by constant interference from outside, they would have no heart whatever in their work. Let it be distinctly understood by the ratepayers that if they did not appoint the best men to look after their business, their own pockets would suffer; the probability was, they would be quite capable of looking after their own interests. Under the existing law, which this Bill did not touch at all, whenever a local authority wanted to borrow money, a local inquiry was to be held, either by order of the Secretary of State or by the Local Government Board. Those local inquiries offered an opportunity for objection on the part of any ratepayers, and they gave also such an amount of control to the central authority as would prevent anything like an absolute abuse of power intrusted to municipal representatives. He hoped these considerations would induce his hon. Friend not to press his Amendment. He understood his hon. Friend to say he would be satisfied, as an alternative, with an understanding that in the majority of cases, at all events, wherever desired, there would be a local inquiry. He (Mr. Chamberlain) had not thought it necessary to put that in the Bill, because it was conceivable that there might be cases in which a local inquiry would involve considerable expense, and in which it would be more convenient that the application should be made to the Board of Trade.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he approached this question from a totally different point of view from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain). When he entered the Select Committee be was somewhat of opinion that the application under the Bill ought to be made subject to the conditions of the Borough Funds Act. The matter was very carefully considered by the Select Committee, and it was found that in all cases of borrowing money by Provisional Orders the consent of the ratepayers was not required, and that if they were to require that the consent of

  609
  the ratepayers should be given to the Provisional Orders under this Act, the Borough Funds Act would be extended very much farther than it had ever been extended before. It seemed to him that a proposal of this kind ought more properly to be entertained whenever the Borough Funds Act came under consideration. But, in the present case, any of the ratepayers might apply to the Board of Trade, and then their objection would be fully heard before a licence was granted. He hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pugh) would not press his Amendment.
  MR. PUGHsaid, he did think that when a local authority was going to embark on an undertaking of this kind there ought to be some check upon them incurring expense. He should be willing to limit his proposition to the expenses incurred in obtaining the licence under the Act, and if he did that he should come distinctly within the principle of the Borough Funds Act. If he (Mr. Pugh) was to understand from the President of the Board of Trade that a local inquiry would be granted, wherever required, before expenses were incurred by a local authority under this Act, he should not think it necessary to persevere with his Amendment. What he wished was that the ratepayers should have the opportunity of making their voice heard, and of having fair weight given to it before a local authority should go into that expense. Under the circumstances, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  COLONEL MAKINSasked if it was to be perfectly understood that wherever local inquiries were required they should be held?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had said so three or four times.
  COLONEL MAKINSbegged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say it was to be the practice; but he did not understand him to say that it would become a universal practice.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Power of local authority to borrow money) agreed to.
  Clause 7 (General powers of undertakers under license or provisional order) agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Incorporation of certain provisions of Clauses Consolidation Acts).
  COLONEL MAKINSproposed to insert, after "sections," in line 13, page 7, "thirty-five and." The section would then run—"Sections thirty-five and thirty-eight to forty-two inclusive, and sections forty-five and forty-six of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1871."Section 35 of the Gasworks Act was one that dealt with the question of accounts; and he thought it a very important question, where local authorities were dealing with public money, that the accounts of the undertaking should be published. It was with the object of procuring the publication of the accounts in relation to electric lighting that he now moved the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 13, insert after "sections," the words "thirty-five and."—(Colonel Makins.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that the proposal was quite unnecessary. If the hon. Gentleman would refer to Clause "C" on page 6, he would find it there provided that—
  "The undertakers shall, on or before the twenty-fifth day of March in every year, fill up an annnal statement of accounts of the undertaking made up to the thirty-first day of De-comber then next preceding; and such statement shall be in such form, and shall contain such particulars, and shall be published in such manner as may from time to time be prescribed in that behalf by the Board of Trade."
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman's reply was quite satisfactory. He (Colonel Makins) had only thought that so long as they were incorporating clauses from the Gasworks Clauses Act, it would be as well, also, to incorporate the one he had suggested. He would, however, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Power of undertakers to alter position of pipes and wires) agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Compensation for damage) agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Charges for electricity) agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Injuring works with intent to cut off supply of electricity) agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Heating electricity) agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Provision for protection of the Postmaster General).
  MR. W. N. NICHOLSONproposed to substitute for the word "fifteen," in page 12, line 3'2, the words "twenty-one." He considered that when a Company had obtained powers, either by Provisional Order or special Act, to supply electricity, it was most unfair that the local authority within whose district the supply was made should have power within six months after the expiration of the period of 15 years from the date of the Act or Provisional Order, to require the Company to sell their undertaking at merely the value of the materials, which must have the effect of very materially checking enterprize, and of preventing the development of the benefits that might result to the public by the introduction of electric lighting. He would suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that the objection might be met by the introduction of a clause giving the Companies power to appeal to the Privy Council for a prolongation of the term for an additional seven or fourteen years if the undertaking had not proved remunerative, as was frequently done in patent cases. If the right hon. Gentleman would agree to introduce such a clause, he would withdraw the Amendment which he now begged to propose.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 32, leave out "fifteen," and insert "twenty-one."—(Mr. W. N. Nicholson.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'fifteen' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, this Amendment might be considered as raising the same question as that of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. K.Cross), and was an Amendment really in the interest of the Electric Lighting Companies. It was suggested that the term in the Bill was not a sufficient temptation to induce the Companies to enter into these speculations. He should say, in the first place, that the clause in the Bill was the result of a compromise arrived at by the Select Committee. Originally it was proposed that the power of purchase should be exercised at the end of seven years; and it was suggested on behalf of the Companies, by their coun-
  612
  sel, that a longer term was necessary, and they argued in favour of 21 years. But the Committee took a medium course between these two periods, and decided upon 15 years. The Committee were guided in their conclusions by this line of reasoning—that it was their bounden duty to accept the shortest term which, at the same time, would leave room for the development of these experiments, and to go beyond that they considered would be to prejudice the rights of the public for the benefit of private speculators. The objects of the Bill were two-fold—first, that no obstacle should be placed in the way of the development of the electric light; but, in the second place, that the interest of the public, as a whole, should be protected, and that a new monopoly should not be sot up, as in the case of Gas Companies, Water Companies, and Telegraph Companies, only to be purchased at a ruinous price. The question was, whether the figure adopted was the right one, and, as to that, every Member could form his own judgment; but he had it on the authority of the Companies concerned that they were perfectly satisfied with the arrangement come to by the Committee; the only Company that was dissatisfied was the Edison Light Company, in which, he thought his hon. Friend was interested. But the other Companies declared that, in their opinion, the term was sufficient to justify the experiment they desired to make; and, seeing what had been done without any Parliamentary powers at all, the Committee must agree it was sufficient. So far as experiments were concerned, the Companies could do without any Act of Parliament; but what they asked was the power to enter upon streets and to break up roads to lay their rods, and certainly a monopoly right of that kind should be under strict limitations, and be confined to as short a period as would amply provide for the due development of the experiment.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he was surprised at a remark which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He had always understood that Members interested in any particular Company or interest which would be affected by a measure under discussion should not take part in the proceedings of a Committee even in the Lobby. Now, here was a Bill which would impose a tax upon the ratepayers

  613
  of Great Britain and Ireland, and he found—he did not know far it was right or not—that the President of the Board of Trade addressed an argument to an hon. Member as a person interested in the Edison-Light Company, which was the only Company dissatisfied with the decision of the Select Committee. Now, every Member of a Committee signed a declaration that he was not personally interested in any Company or undertaking which formed the subject of the Committee's deliberations; at least, he signed such a declaration himself when he served on a Tramway Committee some years ago; he remembered the Committee Clerk sent such a document for him to sign; but it was an important question whether any Member of Parliament, who was disqualified from serving on a Select Committee, could come into a Committee in the House on the same Bill and move an Amendment giving an advantage to the Edison Light Company—an Amendment that, if carried, would make the Company a financial success instead of a financial failure. Was it in conformity with the dignity of the House to do this? He made these observations in consequence of the kind of sanction that the words of the President of the Board of Trade seemed to convey; and he was astonished that the right hon. Gentleman should give such an implied sanction to the interference of a Member of the House in a matter where he was pecuniarily interested. He thought it right to draw attention to such a lamentable want of discretion on the part of those interested in the Edison Light Company, that they should come into the Committee and endeavour to get better terms for that Company.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDasked the Chairman, just as a matter of Order, where the Committee were?
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is a new way of lettering a Bill which has never happened in Committee before; but we are obliged to treat this letter as part of the previous clause; therefore, we are upon Clause 14 now, including Clause "N."
  MR. CARBUTTasked, could the Committee discuss the other Amendment of which Notice had been given?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question now is simply whether the word "fifteen" stand part of the clause.
  MR. CARBUTTsaid, but those who had the same views with the hon. Mem-
  614
  ber for Bolton (Mr. J. K. Cross) would talk upon this Amendment, and would have to talk again on the same point.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The only Question now is whether "fifteen" shall stand part of the clause.
  COLONEL MAKINSdesired to remind the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) that this was a general Bill, and his remarks only applied to the proceedings of a Select Committee.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, as these things went forth to the public, they might create an impression as to the practice of the House that Members taking part in a Committee signed a declaration, as in the case of a Private Bill Committee. But the two things were totally distinct. Of course, a great number of Members were interested in Railway and other Companies; but to say that no Members thus interested should take part in Public Business in which Railway Companies were concerned was an unreasonable and startling proposition.
  MR. CALLANsaid, in the case of Railway Companies, no director or shareholder could take part in the proceedings of a Private Bill Committee. That was a well-known Rule laid down by the Standing Orders of the House, and here was a Committee——
  MR. STORY-MASKELYNErose to Order, and asked, had this anything to do with the discussion?
  THE CHAIRMAN: It has nothing to do with the Question; we are now discussing an Amendment to the clause, and the Question is whether "fifteen" shall stand part.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he rose to Order.
  MR. CARBUTTsaid, having spoken before the House went into Committee, he did not wish to reiterate his arguments; but he was replied to by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), who said he had used the word confiscation. He did not think he had really used the word, but if he had he would withdraw it. Then the hon. Member for Manchester(Mr. Slagg) said he was going very much against the Corporations; but that was not his wish. Corporations did very good work; but the hon. Member quoted the work of the Manchester Corporation——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that the Question is simply whether "twenty-one" shall be

  615
  substituted for "fifteen;" the general question will arise afterwards.
  MR. CARBUTTsaid, surely he could give his reasons why he should vote for 21 instead of 15. The hon. Member for Manchester said one reason why Parliament should be careful not to grant too great powers to Electric Light Companies was that Corporations might buy up the Companies; and he said what a large amount was required by the Manchester Corporation to buy up the Gas Company. Now, the Corporation, though it gave a high price to the Company, not only made a large profit, but did not reduce the price of the gas, as the Corporation did at Leeds, where the price was reduced to the consumer. But his reason for supporting 21 against 15 was that nobody would put money in the undertaking on such terms; there would be no inducement to do so; and he would suggest that the terms of purchase should be settled by arrangement or arbitration in the same way in which the Metropolitan Board bought up the bridges in the Metropolis. Certainly he should support 21 against 15 years.
  MR. SLAGGsaid, he thought the hon. Member had made a mistake in attributing to him a statement that the Manchester Corporation did not reduce the price of gas. Practically, they had done so in a very large degree, but he would not trouble the Committee with details. The gas works had been bought at a great advantage to the inhabitants, they had reduced the cost of the water and of the gas, but without arguing the matter again, the inhabitants were very well contented, and he wanted to continue the advantage which the partnership in the lighting operations of the Corporation had begun. It was desirable that this should be done. He did not see why outsiders should be let in to make happy hunting grounds of the Corporation area. Fifteen years he thought quite sufficient, the Companies were satisfied with that term, and he should certainly vote for keeping that term.
  MR. STORY-MASKELYNEsaid, he had had an opportunity of talking with the representatives of, and gentlemen connected with, the Electric Light Companies, and from every one he had a confirmation of the conclusion the Committee came to, that 15 years was a sufficient period. He had been told that
  The Chairman
  616
  day, on behalf of the Edison Light Company, that rather than lose the Bill they would be very well satisfied with 15 years. He hoped the Committee would accept that view as one with which, as the Secretary of the Board of Trade had said, the Companies were satisfied.
  SIR JOHN JENKINSsaid, he hoped the Committee would not give way to the Amendment, and would not give to these new Companies a monopoly similar to that granted to Gas Companies. The House should consider very carefully that the electric light had not by any means arrived at such a degree of perfection that in a few seasons there was every reason to suppose it would attain, when it would probably be produced at much less cost than at present. That being so, he did not think it would be wise to extend the period beyond 15 years. At present there was no provision as to the charge to be made, and no definite means of measuring the quantity of electricity used in public, or in workshops, or in private houses. Fifteen years was an ample period to give the Companies.
  MR. W. N. NICHOLSON,in reference to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), begged to state that his Amendment, had not anything to do with any Electric Lighting Company, in none of which had he any personal interest. He had brought it forward entirely for public reasons; but after the assurance of the President of the Board of Trade, that the Electric Light Companies were satisfied with the term of 15 years, nothing remained but for him to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth in his remarks had started an extraordinary idea, that the House should proceed on the principle that no shareholder in a Railway, Gas, or Water Company should have the slightest chance of speaking on a Bill the Government might bring on, touching the interests of any such Companies, He did not think anyone would be able to speak on behalf of the mercantile classes, and the House would lose the benefit of commercial experience if the principle of the hon. Member found acceptance. The reason that induced

  617
  him to ask the Committee to consider the Amendment he was about to propose was simply that he wanted to facilitate the supply of the electric light; and the only way to do that was, using the words in the beginning of the Bill, to give these Companies some security against undue disturbance. That was a principle well established and well understood, and it was also well understood that the local authorities must have the right to purchase the undertaking at a valuation. This system of electric lighting was totally and entirely a new thing, and hundreds of thousands of pounds might be spent upon experimental trials. If you were to try to light one square mile of any town you would have to pay £200,000, at the very least, and you might probably, during the first four or five years, use a considerable sum, and, after working four or five years, begin to get a little profit, and you might, at the end of 15 years, the term proposed in the Bill, recoup yourselves for perhaps half the expenditure. Meanwhile, new inventions would come into vogue, and the cost of the electric light might be very much lower than it was to-day. A Company, then, that had worked for seven or eight years without advantage, when it began to make a small profit, would, under such circumstances, be in the unfortunate position of being bought out at half of the capital cost, and be mulcted in considerable loss. Well, he had no objection to that, if it would not tell against the extension of electric lighting, but that would be the effect; and therefore he wished to give the Corporations power, if they liked to exercise it, to give a sum equal to 25 per cent on the cost that would be incurred in establishing a similar undertaking at the time being. This provision would be entirely inoperative unless the Corporation saw that considerable profit would accrue from the possession. He did not for a moment wish to put Electric Light Companies in the same position as Gas and Water Companies, and he thought the premiums paid by Corporations on Gas and Water Companies were very exorbitant. He did not for a moment wish to put these new Companies on the same footing; but he was very anxious that Parliament should not do anything that would prevent or tend to prevent the establishment of these Companies, and hence the Amendment he now moved.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 13, line 4, leave out after "undertaking" to "considerations," in line 8, and insert, "with such addition for goodwill as may be agreed upon, or, failing agreement, as may be determined by arbitration, but without any addition for compulsory purchase: And, provided always, That the total sum paid shall not exceed by more than twenty-five per centum the value ascertained as aforesaid. When a part only of the undertaking is purchased, payment shall be made on the same terms, but with such addition as may be requisite to compensate for loss occasioned by severance."—(Mr. J. K. Cross.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, he confessed he was rather surprised at the Amendment, so inconsistent, as it seemed to him, with his experience of the line the hon. Member usually took on the side of the public. When these questions came before the House and were debated he could not help feeling sometimes that the possession of wealth was very injurious, not only to chances of Heaven, but to a man's action as a good Liberal on earth. His hon. Friend had doubts as to the want of capital; but that was altogether contrary to his commercial experience. These Companies were going to be allowed very great privileges—he was going to say at the expense of the public—but for which the public would pay in the breaking up of roads and such things, and they ought to pay a certain amount for this. When the House was told that all the Companies but one were satisfied with the Bill, then they might be certain that the public would be served by one Company or another. Could his hon. Friend point to any occasion in which private interest had to meet public interests, and to fight their way before a public body; could he find a single instance in which vested interests had not got a good deal more than their share, and the public a good deal less? He hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment to a division, and that if he did the House would support the finding of its Committee, a Committee which had taken such immense care on the subject, and produced a result which, as had been said repeatedly, the great bulk of the Companies accepted as perfectly sufficient.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) had made a mistake in the point

  619
  of his allusion when he said how difficult it was for a man of wealth to be a good Liberal. He always understood his hon. Friend fulfilled both conditions. The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. K. Cross) did not bring forward his Amendment in the interest of the Companies. As he had pointed out, the Company would certainly have to lay out a very large sum, and if they were not successful the Corporation or other local authority would have nothing to do with the undertaking; but if it was successful, then the authorities would come in and purchase. But, as he understood the clause, they would simply purchase at the cost price. He meant to say that having taken into consideration that the Company might be making a good dividend, yet the Corporation would only propose to give it the mere value of the wires and other material. The President of the Board of Trade had spoken several times of these Amendments being introduced in the interest of the Electric Lighting Companies; but this was a general Bill dealing entirely with the future; it was a question on what terms the Companies were to act in future—if they had a largo sum in works now there would be some force in the remarks—but it was entirely a question for the future. His right hon. Friend, who very appropriately presided over the Committee, as being the descendant of one of the first pioneers of electrical science, said that in spite of there being no such clause as this there was considerable activity going on among Electric Lighting Companies, and that was so; but without this Bill the Companies could only carry out small instalments in single buildings or in a block of buildings; they were unable to carry on their operations on a large scale, or for the general benefit of all classes of the community. No doubt there was considerable activity, and no doubt there always would be a preference for this system of lighting in separate houses. But it would assist the discussion of the clause if the President of the Board of Trade would explain it a little. He had said the Companies were satisfied with the clause; but he (Sir John Lubbock) was not altogether satisfied with it, and that not in the interest of the Companies, but of the public. Of course, it was quite clear that the electric light could be dispensed much more to the advantage of the pub-
  620
  lic in large than in separate individual instalments, and with more safety. One of the Metropolitan theatres was lighted with the electric light, and a very great improvement it was. It was more beautiful; it was a light that did not vitiate the atmosphere and did not raise the temperature—a great gain in buildings or workshops where a number of people were gathered together. The action of gas, as was well known, was to consume oxygen in the air and to raise the temperature, having the effect of making the air unwholesome. Owing to the absence of provisions such as were in the Bill, to use the light it was necessary to have a dynamo machine on the premises to be lighted, and this constituted a source of danger. On the other hand, if the steam-engines and dynamo machines were apart from the houses, there could be no hesitation in saying that the electric light would come into general use, as being more beautiful, more economic, and more safe than any other light. He did not know whether his hon. Friend intended to divide the Committee; but perhaps the President of the Board of Trade might be able to make some explanation that would be satisfactory. If the meaning of the clause was that even if the Company were successful the local authority could claim the right of purchase at the cost of the works and machinery, such a provision would certainly have the effect of depriving the community, especially the poorer classes, of the advantages of the light for a considerable period. It must be remembered that even if the words of his hon. Friend were accepted the interest of the public would not suffer, for there was no compulsory purchase; only, if the authority chose it, they could purchase. If the words of the clause meant that they should purchase at the price of the undertaking as a going concern, probably his hon. Friend would be satisfied; and even then he doubted whether the Company would get much more than the nominal value of their capital, for the authority would have the right to take the plant, machinery, and wires at their value for the time being, not at cost price.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) has appealed to mo to explain the clause, and I will endeavour to do so. This clause,

  621
  I may say, has been the subject of the most careful consideration by the Committee, which even took advice upon it; and, as I understand it, its meaning is perfectly clear. It has been so drawn that purchasers will have to pay a fair market value as if they bought in open market—that is, of course, having regard to the suitability of the plant for electric lighting purposes. "When the plant is valueless for such purposes its value should be proportionately reduced. When my hon. Friend says that a Company will have to submit to a loss by depreciation, that is perfectly true; but Companies would be expected to have made arrangements providing for that, as every manufacturing trade has to make allowances for depreciation of plant by working. The object of the Electric Lighting Companies should be to conduct their operations with the consent of, and, if possible, by agreement with, the local authorities. If the local authorities are deprived of the power of purchasing the undertakings at the end of a reasonable time, for a reasonable price, they would be left no alternative but to go into the business themselves. With regard to the analogy which has been drawn between this Act and the Gas Acts, it must be recollected that, although there is no Purchase Clause inserted in the Gas Acts, there is a clause in every Act to limit the dividend, and there is nothing of the kind in this Act. I think, therefore, that it will be to the advantage of the Companies themselves that the Amendment should not be adopted, and I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. K. Cross) will withdraw it.
  MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade he was not left much to say. He would only ask the permission of the Committee to say a few words in answer to what had fallen from the hon. Member for for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone), who seemed to have a very false idea of the Amendment. According to his (Mr. J. K. Cross's) idea, under the present Amendment nothing like the same exorbitant premiums could be paid as had been paid under the Gas Acts. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 43, after the word "value," to insert the words "as a going concern."—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he was afraid it would be unwise on the part of the Committee to accept the Amendment. An Amendment very similar in character to the Amendment proposed had been carefully considered by the Select Committee, and it was only after full discussion that they decided they could not insert it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 15 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Application of Act to Ireland).
  MR. ION TRANT HAMILTONmoved, as an Amendment, to insert in page 15, line 33, after the word "modifications," the words—
  "1. This Act shall be read and take effect so far as Ireland is concerned as if the Local Government Board for Ireland was in all instances substituted for the Board of Trade."
  And also, in the same clause, in line 38, after the word "the," leave out "Board of Trade," and insert "Local Government Board for Ireland." He had no wish to delay the Committee by speaking on the Amendment; but as it did not affect the principle of the Bill, and would avoid great delay, he hoped the Committee would accept it. The Board of Trade was not so easy of access as the Local Government Board, and communication could more readily be had with the latter.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 15, line 33, after "modifications," to insert—"1. This Act shall be read and take effect so far as Ireland is concerned as if the Local Government Board for Ireland was in all instances substituted for the Board of Trade."—(Mr. Ion Trant Hamilton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, there was no question of principle involved in the Amendment, and he had a very strong desire to consult the feelings of the Irish Members on the pi int. The matter was one on which he had no

  623
  strong personal opinion; but he thought that community of management would he an advantage. If the hon. Member for Dublin County (Mr. I. T. Hamilton) would look at the preceding clause in the Bill, he would see it there laid down that it would be the duty of the Board of Trade to give full opportunities for local inquiries, and many matters of that kind; and he (Mr. Chamberlain) thought that provisions found desirable in England and Scotland should apply also to Ireland. He quite agreed that if they were to have inquiries in Ireland, they should be conducted with the least possible expenditure of labour and expense; and he would see that provision was made for a local inquiry, wherever it was desirable, before parties who had experience in the matter. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be more convenient, and would save expense, if the matter was left as it stood at present.
  MR. E. STANHOPEthought it would be desirable to leave the matter in the hands of the Board of Trade, who ought to have the control of these questions in the Three Kingdoms. The object of his hon. Friend's (Mr. I. T. Hamilton's) Amendment would be gained if provision was made for local inquiries; and he, therefore, recommended him to leave the matter to the Board of Trade.
  MR. CALLANsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would make a statement to the effect that he was willing to introduce into the Act a clause to the effect that the inquiry would be carried out as the Local Government Board inquiries were it would give satisfaction. Although the Local Government Board was unpopular in Ireland, they carried out their local inquiries well, and on the spot, a course which had generally given satisfaction. He thought it would be desirable for the President of the Local Government Board to give an undertaking to that effect.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he would cause inquiries to be made into the matter.
  MR. ION TRANT HAMILTONsaid, the object of his Amendment was to introduce a local inquiry.
  MR. FINDLATERthought if any means was provided for holding a local inquiry that would meet the object in view.
  MR. PUGHwas of opinion that the matter should be left in the hands of the Local Government Board.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, he would desire that in Ireland the inquiries should be under the control of an Irish Board. Having regard to the course of previous legislation, he was surprised the Government sought to confer those powers on the Board of Trade, and not leave the conduct of the investigation with the Local Government Board. Persons who desired to obtain information as to the course to be followed for obtaining those licences could then have applied in Dublin. There would not be the necessity of journeys to London, loss of time, and the cost of sending over officials from London, if an Irish Board was named as the licensing authority for Ireland. But as the Committee appeared to think that the matter should be left to the Board of Trade, he trusted, in addition to the promise that had been made that all inquiries should be local, the President should consider the propriety of opening an office, and having some resident official to act in Ireland as the representative of the Board of Trade. In point of fact, Ireland should be placed on the same level in these matters as England and Scotland, and should have the same facilities.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause agreed to.
  MR. BARRANmoved the following new Clause:—
  (Application for Provisional Orders.)
  "No application for a Provisional Older on the part of any Company or person shall be made in respect of all or any part of the district of a municipal or other local authority without six months' notice in writing (which shall define the area intended to he comprised therein) to such authority, who shall, within that period, he entitled to make application for a Provisional Order in respect of all or any part (including the area defined in such notice) of such district; and, until such application has been disposed of, no other application shall be entertained."
  He said the clause which he had just proposed should be added to the Bill was one which asked the support of representatives of all the municipal bodies of England, and he might say that the clause was drawn up at a meeting of the representatives of a very large number of municipal bodies of England, and was forwarded to the Board of Trade. A deputation also waited on his

  625
  right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), who asked Mr. Farrar whether he had received any communications from any Corporations, and Mr. Farrar replied that one of these communications was the clause just moved. In reply to another question, Mr. Farrar replied that, as far as he was aware, there was no objection to the clause. He felt that in advocating the claims of the Corporations of England, he was only advocating the claims of the inhabitants of these boroughs. The position of a Corporation was very different to the position occupied by a private and speculative Company. Whatever loss there was in the one cage, the whole municipality had to bear it, and whatever profit was made would accrue to the whole of the ratepayers. He felt that in the case of the borough he had the honour to represent he had a very strong experience in relation to the way in which the Corporations did and ought to discharge their duties as lighting authorities. The Corporation of Leeds bought up the Gas Companies of the town at a cost of £900,000, at a time when the cost of gas to the inhabitants was 4s. 6d. to 5s.6d. per 1,000 feet, and from that period the Corporation had been able to gradually reduce the price of gas, so that, at the present time, they wore supplying the consumers with gas at a price of 1s. 10 d. per 1,000 cubic feet; and not only the borough of Leeds, but also some outlying districts, were supplied at the same terms. While they did not claim a monopoly, they claimed to be first heard before the Local Government Board before any power was given to others to light the borough. He thought the same principle applied to other boroughs, where the borough was the lighting authority. There, he thought, they should have an opportunity of going before the Local Government Board, and have also a right to be first heard before any Order was made. The clause he had given Notice of had the advantage, to his mind, that if Companies were applying to the Local Government Board for power to light any part of a town, before they made a final application, they should have to give six months' notice to the lighting authority. Between the time when the notice was given and its expiration the lighting authority would be able to bring into operation all kinds of
  626
  systems, and would thus have an opportunity of discovering what would be the best mode of lighting the town or borough. He did not think this would cause any loss either to the Company or to the lighting authority by the six months' period of time. He thought the borough should have this time for another reason, which was that the Corporation of a town had better means of encouraging inventors of new systems, which private Companies might not have the means to do. He would venture to say that, if the Corporation of Leeds had had the lighting of the town in their own hands 30 years ago, it would have been an enormous saving to the borough and to the rates. If the Corporation was now to be subjected to the control of the Board of Trade, it was just possible that they might have two or three different systems competing for the lighting of the town on various systems, because the Board of Trade would not be justified in confining the lighting of a large borough to one Company; but a Corporation would be different, and he ventured to say the lighting of a town or borough would be much more rapid under the Corporation than under the direction of any Company. He therefore asked the President of the Board of Trade to fulfil the declarations he made at an earlier sitting of the Committee, when he said that the Corporations were entitled to, and must be, trusted implicitly. If these were the views of the right hon. Gentleman he would allow the clause to pass.
  New Clause (Notice of application for Provisional Order,)—(Mr. Barran,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he thought he would be able to answer his hon. Friend (Mr. Barran) in a few words. He might say that, speaking generally, he agreed with the principle of the Amendment. He agreed that the local authorities were entitled to confidence, and should have a preferential consideration when they found themselves in competition with private Companies seeking to light the streets of a town. But he also wanted to point out that the Amendment would not carry the matter much further than the Bill provided; for

  627
  the provision in the Bill was for three months' notice, whereas the new clause provided that it should be six months' notice. The clause then went on to define the area, and, lastly, contained the provision that until such application was disposed of no other application should be entertained. The Bill already-provided for that. Suppose a Lighting Company went down to a town to light it, three months' notice of this application must be given to the Board of Trade, which would then hear the objections of the local lighting authority or anybody else who objected. The objections of the Corporation, if it was the lighting authority, must be heard before the Board of Trade could decide the application of a private Company; and he had no hesitation in saying that, under any ordinary circumstances, where the local lighting authority applied at the same time as a private Company, the local authority or Corporation would have the preference.
  MR. RAMSAY,in rising to move to report Progress, said, this Bill, which had never been heard of before in Parliament, had been placed in the Orders of the Day before the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill, which had been mentioned three several times in the Queen's Speech, and in which the people of Scotland were greatly interested. The measure now before the House had already occupied double the time the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had promised; but it was impossible to say how long the discussion would be continued, as every clause was being discussed at length. He begged to move that Progress be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Ramsay.)
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONhoped that, as the Bill had gone so far, the Committee would not consent to report Progress. He hoped some arrangement would be come to, so that the Committee would not divide upon it.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion. Hon. Members had come down for a Saturday Sitting; this was an important Bill; and he did not think an unreasonable amount of time had
  628
  been taken up, and he was quite prepared to finish this Bill and go on with the Scotch Bill until midnight, or even into Sunday.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the Scotch Members had reason to complain of great injustice in not having their Bill put down first for to-day.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, before Progress was reported, he should like to have an assurance that the third Bill put down—the Government Annuities and Assurance Bill—would not be taken. Many of his hon. Friends had come down to discuss that Bill, and it was monstrous to say that they should wait six or seven hours while the Scotch Bill was being discussed.
  SIR DONALD CURRIEsaid, he hoped the Motion would be withdrawn.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he had made this Motion because the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) was decidedly to blame for having placed the Scotch Bill second on the Paper. That arrangement had insured the attendance of Scottish Members to make a House for the consideration of the present Bill; but the right hon. Gentleman had no right to do that, having regard to the honour and respect due to Her Majesty, seeing that the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill had been announced in the Speech from the Throne on three several occasions.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked for some explanation.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that the greater part of the third Bill on the list, the Government Annuities and Assurance Bill, was unanimously approved of by the House, and the only point to which objection was raised was the proposal to increase the maximum of insurance and annuity. He felt that those hon. Gentlemen who objected to that would be placed at a great disadvantage if a division was taken on the second reading, because that would prevent a great many hon. Gentlemen who wished to support them in other respects voting with them upon that. Therefore, he would suggest that, as the points objected to were purely matters of detail, the second reading should be taken to day formally; and then he would pledge himself that the Committee stage should be taken at a reasonable hour on a subsequent day. He was the more anxious to adopt that course, because a circular had been issued

  629
  by the banks objecting to one point in the Bill, and be was willing to meet their objection in Committee by an Amendment which he intended to propose. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House would consent to the second reading.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, it was very hard that hon. Members who wished to discuss this Bill should be kept there during the discussion of a Scotch Bill.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it was unreasonable, after the Scotch Members had sat through the discussion of an English Bill, that English Members should object to sit through the discussion of a Scotch Bill.
  MR. WARTONsaid, some hon. Members had a strong opinion as to the Insurance Bill, and he hoped the Government, having put down three Bills when one or two would have been enough, would give way upon this point. Of course, the Scotch Members ought to have time to discuss their Bill, and he hoped they would have it.
  MR. REPTONasked up to what hour the House would continue to sit?
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he had consulted several hon. Members, among them the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), and he believed it to be the general wish that the second reading should be taken formally as he had suggested, with an undertaking that the Committee stage should be taken at a reasonable hour, when the points objected to could be dealt with.
  MR. REPTONsaid, he was afraid that would not meet the views of hon. Members who objected to the Bill.
  MR. TORRENSsaid, there were many Members who had a serious objection to this Bill.
  MR. WARTONsaid, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), for instance, had a strong objection to the Bill, but he was obliged to be absent to-day, and the Postmaster General could not have spoken to him.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. BARRANsaid, he should be satisfied if the President of the Board of Trade would accept six months' limit instead of three months.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope my hon. Friend will not put us to the trouble
  630
  of a division. It is absurd to suppose that any Corporation in the world would not find three months ample time to make up their minds, and it is not fair that the time should be kept open three months longer. The effect of the Amendment would be that a Corporation who had not any intention of going on with the scheme would be able to keep the ratepayers from the advantages of new experiments for six months.
  MR. SLAGGsaid, he did not see the importance of this extension of time; but he did object to giving Corporations a preference, and it did not seem to him that that preference was sufficiently distinct. The President of the Board of Trade had written to the Town Clerk of Manchester saying that it was true in this case no express preference was given to the municipal authorities; and there could be no doubt that in the event of competing schemes being introduced by the Corporation of Manchester and by private Companies, both Parliament and the Board of Trade would be disposed to give preference to the Corporation. That was a point he wished to have made clear. It was not fair that Corporations should stand in precisely the same position as a Company outside; and if the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that it should be made clear in the Bill that no preference should be secured to the Corporations he should be content with the time proposed in the Bill.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he thought the arguments had been well and properly urged; but he was anxious that the President of the Board of Trade should know what the feeling was upon this matter. This Amendment, he had reason to believe, expressed the general opinion of the Corporations of England, as did the other two which he had placed on the Paper. The borough he represented included two municipal boroughs, which had expended something like £500,000 upon gas works. In order to make the works pay, the operations had been extended beyond the municipal limits; otherwise the rate would have been very heavy to the two towns. Those towns thought they ought to have a preference as to the establishing of the electric light. They were in favour of electric lighting, and were not opposed to the Bill; all they asked was that they should have preference over

  631
  any strange Company coming in and competing with the gas works, and thereby throwing the rates more heavily on the ratepayers. It seemed to him that in fairness there should be some express provision in the Bill giving Corporations the option of first coming in. As the Bill now stood, half-a- dozen Companies might come in and get Provisional Orders, and yet not give a good light; whereas, if a Corporation had the right to introduce electric lighting, they would be able to select the best light that could be found.
  MR. W. HOLMSsaid, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Barran), believing that it would be very unreasonable that the Corporations should have a preferential claim in the matter of electric lighting, more especially in a case where a municipality had the management of the supply. He also thought it reasonable that the six months' limit should be adopted.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that this question was most carefully considered by the Select Committee upstairs. They examined witnesses and heard speeches by counsel, and the upshot was that they put in this Proviso requiring three months' notice. He had listened very carefully to the arguments now advanced; but he saw no reason to alter the decision of the Committee.
  MR. C. H. WILSONurged the President of the Board of Trade to give way upon this point, as he believed nearly every large town supported the proposal. He know that a great number of Members representing large constituencies were in favour of it. He spoke for a large constituency himself, and hoped it would not be necessary to go to a division.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 88: Majority 59.—(Div. List, No. 267.)
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, that in consequence of the result of the division he would not move his Amendment.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be reported to the House."
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, in his opinion, there was no instance of any Government having acted so unfairly as the present Government had acted to-
  632
  day. English Members had been brought down at 12 o'clock to discuss an English Bill—the Government Annuities and Assurance Bill. Five hours had been already occupied in discussing another Bill, and perhaps five more hours would be occupied in discussing a Scotch Bill before the Government Annuities and Assurance Bill could be reached. He hoped, under these circumstances, the Government would not think of going on with the Government Annuities and Assurance Bill that day.
  MR. RYLANDSsupported the appeal of the hon. Gentleman. The question was one in which great interest was taken, and it would be most unsatisfactory to take that Bill after a long discussion on the Scotch Bill.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he should be extremely sorry to put the House to any inconvenience. He had hoard a rumour that some people were going to object to the Scotch Bill being taken. He hoped they would not; but if the Scotch Bill was discussed that afternoon fully, he would not bring on the third Order on the Paper.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he trusted the Government would really reconsider their intention of bringing forward the Scotch Bill that afternoon. That Bill was a very important one. It was one brought forward in the Queen's Speech, and he thought it was altogether—[Cries of "Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss a Bill which is not before the Committee.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he simply appealed to the Government not to bring forward this Bill, on the ground that the discussion could not fail to occupy five or six hours. To bring it on at that Sitting would be most unfair to Scotland.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 147.]
(Mr. Mundella, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. MUNDELLA: I regret, Sir, as much as any Member of this House that

633
Scotch Members should have been put to the inconvenience of waiting till this hour in order to discuss the measure which is now before us, and I am sure every Scotch Member will admit that it is through no fault of mine that the Bill is brought on at such a late hour. I quite agree, however, with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) that as we are here we had better make a night of it. As we have the business on hand, let us get the business through. Nearly every Amendment on the Paper with respect to this Bill is a Committee Amendment. They are on matters really to be discussed in Committee; and as I have a statement to make which I think will materially affect those Amendments, I trust hon. Members will agree that we should go on with the second reading of the Bill; and, for myself, I will do my very utmost to get a proper time for the Committee, and ample opportunity for the consideration of those Amendments. I have certain Amendments of my own, which I will put on the Paper on Monday. Having said that, I feel that I ought to make my statement as brief as possible. I will set an example, I hope, to Scotch Members, by condensing any remarks I have to make upon this Bill. I shall not trouble the House with the history of former Commissions. Commissions have been appointed from time to time to deal with Scotch endowments; nor is it necessary to dwell upon the reasons which have, in the opinion of the Government, rendered this measure urgent. I may say that throughout the three Sessions during which this Bill has been before the House, although there have been many discussions, and many Amendments placed on the Paper, and many deputations to the Department, and many Divisions of the House, I have never received any representation to the effect that a Bill is not necessary. The most important school boards in Scotland, including Glasgow and Edinburgh, have petitioned in favour of the Bill. The Convention of Royal Burghs has petitioned for Amendments; but they have gone the length of saying that, rather than the Bill should be lost, they should prefer it as it stands; and every Scotch Member who has communicated with me has admitted the urgent necessity for the Bill. I may say, then, that the necessity for this measure arises as a
634
corollary of the Commission on the Act of 1878, appointed to deal with Scotch endowments, but which was almost entirely a permissive body, and, being so, failed in dealing with local endowments. It is not to be expected that a Governing Body will reform itself. When that measure was passed through both Houses of Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) in this House, and the Duke of Rich-mond in the other, both made a statement to the effect that, if at the expiry of the Commission it had not accomplished the object in view, they would appoint a Commission giving compulsory powers and powers of a sweeping character. Now, Sir, I have to propose that such a Commission should be appointed. I say that, although a compulsory Commission is necessary, it does not arise from the fact that Scotch endowments have been subjected to those gross and flagrant abuses which characterize English endowments, and which so startled the country when the Schools Inquiry Commission made its Report to this House; but arises rather from the fact that many endowments are now obsolete, some are positively injurious, others are dormant, and all are more or less requiring adaptation to the new wants and circumstances of the time. But there is another question to which I would refer. Until these endowments are dealt with in the spirit I have indicated, they are a positive hindrance to much of the constructive work of a voluntary character that would otherwise be done in Scotland. Every Scotchman recognizes the need of a certain amount of technical industrial education. The whole traditions of Scotland are in favour of a higher education than the mere ordinary education of public schools. [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: NO, no!] My hon. Friend challenges me on this point. All I say is that John Knox advocated, and I think that is the tradition of Scotland, that there should be in every parish—"in every notable town," I think the words were—a higher or grammar school, and that these schools should be the means by which the poor of the country might go from the elementary school up to the University. Well, Sir, I say that until we have dealt with these endowments, they stand somewhat in the position

635
of a hindrance. A recent writer, writing on all these subjects, says—
"Until the country is satisfied that the money left to it by past benefactors is rightly used, it will not bestir itself to the only kind of voluntary activity which promoters of associations appreciate, the kind which results in liberal voluntary contributions for the improvement of high schools. The fact is that these endowments, so far from promoting, are, at this moment, a bar in the way of higher instruction."
The State, by the Act of 1872, has provided a complete system of elementary education for Scotland up to the Sixth Standard. My hon. Friend behind me is anxious, and so was the Commission on which he sat, that the instruction in public schools should be raised as high as possible, so as to bring it within the limit of the grants of the State. I pointed out to him that if we are to grade the Scotch schools we must, as soon as possible, turn the endowments to a different account from that to which they are devoted at this moment. In Scotland there are nearly 500,000 pupils a-day under instruction—almost double the number that were under instruction in 1872; but this Act of 1872 renders the provision of endowments more imperative than it was before the passing of it. I say again, Sir, that the provisions of this Bill are strikingly in harmony with Scotch traditions. I know the need of secondary education has given rise in the last three Sessions to a great deal of dispute. It has been supposed that because secondary education is needed, the aim and scope of the measure is to take endowments, which were left for the poor, and apply them for the benefit of the rich. Middle-class education does not necessarily pre-suppose that it is education exclusively for the middle-class. Middle-class education should not be the monopoly of any class—an opportunity ought to be afforded to every class to rise to the class above them. Well, I hope, before I sit down, to remove some of those exaggerated apprehensions which some hon. Members entertain. I do not for a moment deny the value and importance to a considerable section of the community of free elementary education. I do not desire by this measure at all to interfere with the desire of the founder when he has made a bequest with a deliberate limitation. I know some of my hon. Friends say this does not appear in the Bill. All I can say is, that I will put in words to make it appear in
636
the Bill. We believe that it does so appear, but we are prepared to strengthen the words of the Bill. I say it is not contemplated in the Bill to interfere with the intention of the founder as to the providing of free elementary education. Free education may be most beneficially, and in some instances most injuriously, applied; it all depends on the administration. If it is done by pure nomination, it is very rarely done well. The whole experience of the past shows that. If it is done on some competitive principle—if it is done by fixing some standard of excellence, either by good attendance or good attainment—then free primary education is valuable. That is a question of administration and arrangement, which is entirely left in the hands of the Commission; but that no endowment shall be diverted from its purpose or its class is one of the objects of the measure, and I shall put in words to give effect to that statement. I should like to read a few lines from the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission. As to selection of free scholars by competition the Commissioners say—
"Admission by competition has been tried in a considerable number of cases, and there appears to be no doubt of its success. It is universally recommended by our Assistant Commissioners as likely to be the most successful remedy for the present state of things, and seems to meet almost all the objections to any other system of nomination, or to indiscriminate admission. It is above partiality, whether personal, social, or political; it marks by natural selection those who can profit by an education higher than the rudiments; it puts the free scholar in the place of honour instead of the place of reproach; it stimulates the education without, and leavens the mass within; it encourages parents, masters, and scholars."
Sir, I can answer for the advantages of education of that kind, because since the passing of the Education Act of 1870 in this country large numbers of scholarships have carried on poor children even for two or three years longer than the primary schools. There is another point on which I should like to say a word or two—namely, with reference to provision for the fees of poor children who cannot pay for themselves. I think an endowment applied to that purpose is perfectly legitimate endowment. For my part, I cannot see that where endowments are expressly left for that purpose you ought to divert them, nor do we contemplate doing that under this Bill; but after all that can be said for elementary educa-

637
tion, it does not remove the bar which separates the children of the poorer classes from the advantage of higher education. Take the mass of the working men's children in the country, the difficulty is not so much the 2d. or 3d. a-week to pay for the child's instruction until the child reaches the age required for labour, but it is that the parent denies himself the benefit of the child's labour when he reaches the age of 12 or 13 years. It is then that the help is wanted, when the child has to be kept at school and from labour during three or four years of great importance to the parent, and also when some higher education has to be provided and to be paid for. What we need so much is some means of carrying on poor children beyond the Fifth or Sixth Standard, and doing it better for them than we have yet done. There are many ways in which this can be accomplished. Of course, the principal means is by means of scholarships, and I cannot conceive anything better than a settlement of this question. It is not what it would do for secondary and higher education, but it is the enormous influence it would have on the whole mass of the public education of the country. I could give an illustration. In my own town, since the passing of the Education Act of 1870, it has been found by many manufacturers that the difficulty as to clever children of poor parents is the carrying them on after 12 or 13 years of age. They put their hands in their own pockets, having no endowments for the purpose, and they have offered scholarships of £10, £15, and £20 a-year, for one, two, and three years, for clever children, who gain them by com-petition in the elementary schools of the town. The result is to stimulate the whole elementary education of the district. The same thing has been done in Liverpool in a marvellous manner. There is an Educational Council in Liverpool that has contributed some £30,000 for this purpose. There are 90,000 children in the schools there, and I engage to say that that £30,000 has done as much to stimulate the better education of Liverpool as the very much larger sum which is contributed by the Government grant, and I believe the same effect will be obtained in Scotland. I do not think I need, in the presence of Scotchmen of very high position in regard to education, dilate on the advantages of what I have
638
shadowed forth. Many Amendments have been placed before me, and I wish to state, as briefly as possible, what we are prepared to do with respect to them. There are many things we can accept, and wherever there is any reasonable Amendment placed before us, we shall be glad to do so. We have no other object in the world in this measure but to improve Scotch education in accordance with the best Scotch tradition; and I can only say that I believe that if Scotchmen avail themselves to the full of the advantages which this measure affords, and if we have a good, useful, active Commission of able and intelligent men, the result will be satisfactory. When the time comes, we shall name a Commission of able and intelligent men, zealous for the cause of education and the honour and advancement of their country. I will now point out how far these Amendments will affect the Bill. In the first place, it has been said that the Preamble too specifically points at secondary education. I am bound to say that the subject has been long enough before the Scotch people to know what it means, and I am quite content to leave the matter to the time when the Bill has been properly formulated and settled, and to leave in these few words—"Whereas it is desirable to extend the usefulness," and so on, "of education," and to cut out the three succeeding paragraphs, down to line 12 in the Preamble. Then I come to the most important of all the clauses—Clause 6, which provides for a popular elective element in trusts. I perfectly agree that it is exceedingly desirable, in order that trust bodies may be kept wholesome and sweet, that the popular element should be introduced. There is a danger in having it exclusively popular. I can only say for myself that I have been a member of every kind of Governing Body in this country, and I say that it is a great advantage when men who are not called upon to go through the rough process of popular election are selected to give their services in the cause of education. I know nothing has worked better in that respect than the Free Library system, in which a certain number of members are appointed by the Town Council, and a certain number of members are appointed outside the Town Council. Persons appointed outside are persons who, while they would not enter into

639
the arena of political contest, are of high educational attainments, who are willing to place their services at the command of the community, and who have rendered the greatest possible service in our Free Libraries and Museums from one end of England to the other. What I propose is this. We have in Clause 6 stated that where a body has derived its qualification from election, the popular element shall not be less than a majority. I am prepared to say in that case it shall not be less than two-thirds; but, of course, I always adhere to the school board principle. I think it would be most important that there should be some of the school board element. In a country like Scotland, where every parish has a school board, it is important that those who have to deal with the education of the country should have some share in the government of these trusts. It is of the highest importance, for the reason that they are responsible for the education of their district; they know the exact condition of their locality, and the wants here and there throughout the country; and they are the men who supply information as to the necessity of this or that grant for education being most useful for the country. Therefore, I propose that, instead of not less than a majority, it shall not be less than two-thirds of the Governing Body where they are at present actually a majority. Where, on the other hand, they are to any extent representative, the popular element shall then be not less than one-half; and where there is no elective representation it shall now be not less than one-third, so that the popular element shall run through every trust in Scotland. I feel some remorse in fettering so much the hands of the Commission on this ground. If you appoint such men, who have but one object to serve—the good of their country—you ought not to tie them hand and foot when they come into a Commission of this kind. But let it be borne in mind that we have said here this is the minimum; they may make any other change beyond, they may make it entire, they may make it the maximum—not less than two-thirds, or one-half, or one-third, derive their qualification from election, and they may be members of the school board. [An hon. MEMBER: Is it to be direct representation?] The vast majority of the
640
municipal trusts in Scotland are under £50, and the idea of direct representation to multiply elections would make the thing ridiculous. I do not describe all the Amendments, but only the more important. My third Amendment is one in Clause 7, which meets, I think, really rather a bugbear, if I may so call it, than a reality. There has been an impression abroad that because we said we have a regard for secondary and higher education in Scotland, therefore that implied that a trust might be taken out of its particular locality to some other part of Scotland. There never was any such intention, and I have always declared so; and in order to make it plain that there shall be no danger of derealization, we have agreed to put in three words—I think, indeed, I borrowed them—"To provide for higher education in those localities to which the endowments severally belong." That surely fixes it as completely as it can possibly do, and puts an end to all danger of delocalization. The next point is that of free education. Clause 13 has relation to free education, and the scheme is supposed not to guard sufficiently free education. We have therefore agreed to put at the end of Clause 13 the words—
"And shall provide that no funds now applied, in terms of a founder's will, to frce primary education shall be diverted to any other purpose."
DR. CAMERON: What about the existing Acts of Parliament?
MR. MUNDELLA: Lot me answer my hon. Friend as to Acts of Parliament. I suppose what Parliament has done it can undo. I suppose Parliament has not always done wisely; and if my hon. Friend says that whatever has been done by Parliament shall never be disturbed, that is a conservative doctrine I never expected to hear from anyone on these Benches. If a man left something 200 years ago, and Parliament has in the last 10 or 20 years made some change, and if it is thought now desirable that some further change should be made, my hon. Friend wants to preclude the possibility of that being done. That is a new doctrine I never heard propounded before in this House. Suppose the money has been applied contrary to the provisions of the founder's will—is it not to be revised? And what we say is this—that whatever

641
has been provided by a founder for free education shall not be diverted to any other purpose.
DR. CAMERON: Are those the words?
MR. MUNDELLA: Those are the words. Now, Sir, there is another important Amendment to Clause 15—that is the limiting of the endowments to the classes to which they were intended to be made. We, therefore, propose to insert after Clause 15, and in line 29, the following words:—
"Provided that where the founder of any educational endowment has expressly provided for the education of children (whoso parents are not sufficiently able to maintain them), cither generally or within a particular area, or for their maintenance, clothing, or advancement in life, such endowment for such education or maintenance, clothing, or advancement in life, as the case may be, shall continue to be applied for the benefit of such."
That strictly confines the endowment to the class for which it was intended. I see the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), who is an old Endowed Schools Commissioner, is perfectly shocked at this. I am not altogether surprised, and I think, in some respects, he is right. But my duty is to carry a measure which shall be consonant, so far as possible, to the wishes of the majority of Scotchmen, and as shall conduce to the best interests of Scotch children and Scotch education. I have done my best, in conjunction with the Lord Advocate and the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery), to meet what we believe to be the wishes of the Scotch Members in this matter, and I trust we have so far succeeded. Then, Sir, I come to the last of my principal Amendments—that is, the question of procedure. Now, we have taken great care in order to meet—I may almost say the suspicions—the apprehensions of a great many of our Scotch friends. We have taken great care that the procedure shall be very careful and very guarded. We have proposed that the preliminary inquiry shall be a public inquiry. We do not propose, as some people have suggested, that the Commissioners should deliver their votes in public. That is too outrageous, and I think nobody will get up in the House to propose it. We do say the inquiry shall be a public inquiry. I will just give the mode of procedure as it will appear upon the Paper. (1) The Governing Body will have due time to prepare and send in a
642
scheme of their own; (2) the Commission will have to consider this scheme; (3) there shall be a full public inquiry; (4) full publication of all proposals; (5) objections to be received after the publication; (6) Scotch Education Department to consider the scheme and any objections; (7) there shall be a new publication with the decision of the Scotch Education Department; and (8) there shall be an opportunity for petition and Parliamentary consideration of any scheme dealing with this matter. Surely nothing can be more guarded or fair or hedged round than we have endeavoured to fence this measure. I am afraid I have kept the House too long; but it was my endeavour that my statement should be complete as to the Amendments. There are some Amendments suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow which we are prepared to admit. One particularly is this—they have powers at Glasgow for appropriating moneys for a museum, technical education, and Free Libraries; and we shall put in these objects and include them in the scope of the Bill. I trust that though this measure is late and has been long delayed, and although there has been some inconvenience to hon. Gentlemen who have attended here to-day, I do trust they will still show that same self-sacrificing and patriotic spirit to the end of the Session, and that this Bill will become law, and Scotland will reap the advantage of it.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Mundella.)
COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he was entirely favourable to the principle of this measure; and he was quite disposed to vote for the second reading. Indeed, if it had not been for Amendments proposed from the other side of the House the second reading of this Bill would have taken place long ago. As he and those who sat with him had not interposed any such Amendments, he felt that he could with a perfectly clear conscience suggest to the House a proposal which he was then about to make. Let him remind the House that this was a very important Bill; at least, Her Majesty's Government considered it to be a very important Bill, or they would not, he supposed, have put it down in the Queen's Speech in three successive Ses-

643
sions. Under these circumstances, surely they might have found some other and more favourable day for the discussion of this measure But assuming, for the sake of argument, that they were unable to find such a day, surely they might have given them a Saturday earlier in the Session. What had they done? They had not even given them a complete Saturday; but they had given them the fag-end of a Saturday at the fag-end of the Session. He said that Her Majesty's Government had brought the Scotch Members down to that House to-day tinder false pretences. ["No, no !"] He repeated his words—false pretences. They had used them as a catspaw—they had used them to keep a House for the Electric Lighting Bill. The President of the Board of Trade told the House yesterday that the Electric Lighting Bill would not occupy more than two hours. It had lasted more than twice that time; and he might remind the House that the Prime Minister said he did not intend the Sitting to-day should be a protracted Sitting. But if they might judge from the speeches which were about to be made, it was very likely to be protracted into Sunday morning. That was an evil precedent. Irish Members would not allow themselves to be used as Scotch Members were used in this business; and he could only warn Scotch Member's opposite that if they allowed themselves to be used in this way by the Government, not only this Government, but future Governments, would put down in the Queen's Speech any number of measures for Scotland, and say there was no occasion to find a day for a discussion of these measures early in the Session, because they could always give them a Saturday at the end of July. Believing this would establish an evil precedent, on the part of Members sitting not only on that side of the House, but on the other side—for this was no Party matter—he begged to move that the debate be now adjourned. MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH seconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Colonel Alexander.)
MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he sincerely trusted the Motion would not be pressed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said—"Why did not the Government give us
644
an earlier Saturday Sitting?" He must know how bitterly the proposal for a Saturday Sitting had been fought by Members on his own side of the House, and he know that the Government could not have given one earlier. He appealed to the hon. and gallant Member, considering the difficulties of the Government throughout the Session, not to waste time in useless debates about adjournment. He would appeal to the patriotism of Scotch Members to allow the House to proceed with the Bill.
MR. ORR EWINGsaid, he sympathized with his hon. and gallant Friend in the feeling that the Scotch Members had not been well treated. They were in a very different position from English Members. When they came up to London, at the opening of Parliament, they very seldom had the opportunity of going home again during the Session, and they were practically kept in London from February to August. He thought, therefore, considering the importance of the questions involved in this Bill, and the small amount of legislation which was devoted to Scotland, a little more consideration should have been shown Scotch Members in the matter; and it was but due to them that the Bill should have been first on the Paper. The Electric Lighting Bill might have been brought on afterwards, and carried on to any hour of the night. However, seeing that this was a Bill which they should all like to see passed a little modified from what it was, and that the Vice President of the Council had made his speech and indicated several important Amendments, he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would withdraw his Motion for Adjournment, and that they might finish the debate on the second reading.
MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he regretted that the Government did not seem to know their own mind on this Bill. The point on which he felt very strongly was the slur which was thrown by the Bill upon popular representation. That matter was brought prominently before the Government two years ago, and very strongly last year; but, nevertheless, no adequate concession was made in the present Bill. Under the pressure of the Scotch Members, the Government seemed now disposed to make certain concessions in the proper direction, and he only regretted they

645
did not do so to begin with, and frame their Bill on proper lines. If they had done so the Bill would have commanded greater confidence in Scotland, and its passing would have been facilitated. Personally, he was not satisfied yet with the concession which they had made with regard to representation. He was not going to argue the question upon this Motion; but he thought it would be well to exercise still further pressure upon the Government. He was exceedingly surprised that they should have been so niggardly on the question of popular representation, and particularly that the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill should endeavour in this indirect way to throw discredit upon that principle.
LORD COLIN CAMPBELLsaid, he rose to Order. He thought the remarks of the hon. Gentleman were not confined to the Question before the House.
MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he was giving his reasons for supporting the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. He said that on this point the Government had merely yielded to extreme pressure from the Scotch Members; and, perhaps, by exercising still greater pressure, they should get the representation put upon a proper footing. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that these were questions for Committee. They knew very well that if the Bill went into Committee the Government would use its majority to press the Bill through, perfectly regardless of the views of the Scotch Members and the Amendments which they might move. The only hope, therefore, for those who wished to see the Bill further amended was to induce the Government to make further concessions before they went into Committee; and then, if the Government could do so frankly and freely, and state what they were prepared to do with regard to the measure, he hoped there would be no difficulty whatever in passing a Bill of which all the Scotch Members, in some shape or other, were in favour.
MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he rose to join in the appeal which had been made to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Ayrshire to withdraw his Motion. There was very much to be said for his contention that the Scotch Members had just grievances, and it was true that some most important mea-
646
sures in regard to Scotland had received no consideration from the House, and that there was no proper time devoted to Scotch Business. But the Scotch Members possessed one faculty, that of common sense, and it was certainly against all their hereditary common sense that the House should go on wasting time on Motions for Adjournment, while they might be in full discussion of the Bill. He was sure that, after the conciliatory speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and the many Amendments he proposed, his hon. and gallant Friend would not persist in his Motion.
MR. RAMSAYalso desired to appeal to his hon. and gallant Friend opposite not to press his Motion, and he might state to him—for he believed the hon. and gallant Member was absent from the House at the time—that during the discussion upon the previous Bill he (Mr. Ramsay) had entered a protest against the Government placing the Scotch Endowment Bill second on the Paper, as, in his opinion, it should have been the first.
MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he rose to support the Motion made by the hon. and gallant Member. Two nights ago he had appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to bring forward this Bill at the fag-end of a Saturday Sitting, on the ground that the hour at which the Bill could be reached was too late to allow of its being properly discussed. He thought the Scotch Members had been hardly dealt with. They had had an arduous week's sitting early and late; and now, after meeting that day at 12 o'clock, they were ordered to begin the discussion of the Bill at an hour when, at a Wednesday Sitting, after so meeting, the House would almost be on the point of rising. They had been told by the President of the Board of Trade that the Electric Lighting Bill was not likely to occupy more than two hours. Under the expectation that the Endowments Bill might come on at 2 o'clock, the Scotch Members had withdrawn their opposition to its being fixed for second Order on a Saturday. He did not complain at all of the President of the Board of Trade, because he had no anticipation of the amount of opposition which would be made to the Electric Lighting Bill in Committee. But the fact remained, and it was now late in the afternoon. The Vice President's speech indicated some very im-

647
portant Amendments, and he frankly acknowledged that they removed a great many objections to the Bill; but those Amendments required consideration. They could not tell at first sight what their exact scope would be, and they might possibly be found to go to the desired length. He asked why no earlier opportunity had been given them of considering those Amendments? They had pressed all through the Session for concessions, and the right hon. Gentleman had kept them back, and would say nothing about them; and then, at the last moment on a Saturday afternoon, he brought them down and let them know what they were. He thought they ought to have been earlier informed of what the Government intended to do, and he should certainly support the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire if he went to a division.
MR. W. HOLMSsaid, that he, in common with all Scotch Members, felt that Scotland had been very badly treated; and had the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire moved the adjournment before the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he should have felt very much disposed to support him. But after the very clear and brief speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and after the concessions he had made, he thought, now that they were there, they should be playing truant from their duty if they did not go on. Moreover, he thought the Government concessions would go a long way to shorten the speeches hon. Members intended to make. Under those circumstances, he sincerely trusted that the Motion for Adjournment would be withdrawn.
COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, that, in deference to the appeal which had been made to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees and by other hon. Members, he should ask leave to withdraw the Motion. He never wished to put the House to the trouble of a division; but he wished to enter a protest against important Scotch Business being taken on a Saturday afternoon at the end of the Session; and he should repeat that protest on every occasion on which this Government or any succeeding Government attempted to do so.
MR. WARTONasked, before the Motion was withdrawn, whether there was any intention of taking the Government
648
Annuities and Assurance Bill, which was the third Order?
MR. MUNDELLA: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General stated that, if the Scotch debate was seriously entered upon, he had no intention of taking the next Bill.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. WEBSTERsaid, he was very glad, and he must congratulate the Vice President upon it, that the Bill now before the House was so far launched on the way to success, and he was there to express his decided belief that the main scope and principles of the Bill had the feeling and opinion of the people of Scotland decidedly with them; and that they wore very anxious that this Bill, with certain Amendments, but in its main substance, should receive the Royal Assent. If that were doubted, he might point to the fact that it did not rest on the assurance of a single Member; but that 28 Petitions had been presented in favour of the Bill, and not one single Petition had been presented to the House against the principle of the Bill, and only seven Petitions had been presented suggesting modifications and alterations, which he believed would be met by the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. He might say, also, that in addition to Petitions from the School Boards of Glasgow and Edinburgh, which were mentioned as supporting the Bill, there were also Petitions in its favour from school boards of other large towns in Scotland—from Aberdeen, from Dundee, and from Kirkcaldy. He should not go over the same ground as the Vice President of the Council had done when he communicated to the House the various points upon which he was ready to make concessions. He had watched these very anxiously, and desired to press upon the right hon. Gentleman and the House the consideration of a matter which attracted the highest interest, and that was the case of the Society for Propa-gating Christian Knowledge. He watched very anxiously to see whether that Society was included amongst the Institutions which were to be brought under the scope of the Commission; and he thought he was entitled to say, from assurances given by the Vice President and other Government officials, that it was intended that that Society, which, accord-

649
ing to the Returns, had the largest educational funds of any body in Scotland, amounting to £200,000 in value, should be brought within the purview and scope of the present Bill, and those who were acquainted with Scotland and knew the interest taken in educational bodies would understand that it must be so.
MR. MUNDELLA: Certainly it will.
MR. WEBSTERsaid, that being so, and the Society having expressed their willingness to be included, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to certain reasonable Amendments being put into the Bill, which should make that point perfectly clear and beyond all shadow of doubt. Leaving that point, he did not understand that any Amendments wore proposed on Clauses 8 and 10, which were so obscure and puzzling that, after very careful attention, he had found it impossible to understand them, and the same doubt and difficulty with respect to them was found by others. Another matter he wished to mention was that amongst the other safeguards to be furnished to the people of Scotland the right hon. Gentleman stated that the schemes passed by the Commissioners were to be brought before Parliament.
MR. MUNDELLA: The custom is this—that whenever any scheme is petitioned against by anyone in the district, then that scheme must be laid before Parliament; but to require that every scheme should be laid before Parliament would be too much.
MR. WEBSTERsaid, he thought it was desirable that every scheme should be brought before Parliament; and, if he was not much mistaken, it was the case with respect to the schemes passed by the English Commission.
MR. MUNDELLA: No; that is not so.
MR. WEBSTERsaid, he would not dispute the point then, but he thought he should be able to show at a later stage of the Bill that it was so; but he thought that every scheme passed by the Commissioners ought to be brought before Parliament, which would give them an opportunity they would not otherwise have of having such schemes discussed. In conclusion, while he frankly owned that he had no objection or complaint to indulge in, nor any recrimination to make, as to the conduct of the Government in relation to this Bill—he knew how hard pressed they had been for
650
time—he nevertheless hoped there would be ample time given to hon. Members to put their Amendments on the Paper, and that, when placed on the Paper, time should be allowed for their consideration in Committee, which was certainly the proper time to raise and discuss objections to the Bill.
MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that, although he had an Amendment on the Paper against the second reading, he did not for a moment object to the main principle of the Bill, which was that these educational endowments should be utilized to the fullest possible extent; and although the Bill diverted them, to a certain extent, from their original purpose, he thought it was really carrying out in the best way the intentions of the pious founders. But he did object to the way in which it was proposed to administer these funds in future as set forth in the Bill, more particularly before the explanation which had been given by the Vice President of the Council. The question which he wished to bring before the House was really this—whether these endowments should be invested in the future in representatives of the people or in a close Corporation? He was glad that the Government had given way to a considerable extent regarding the future Governing Bodies, and had provided that, in some cases, it should be administered partly by representative bodies, in other cases that it should be by one-half, and in the third case that it should be by one-third.
MR. MUNDELLA: In all cases, not by less.
MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he was very glad to hear that statement, and that the right hon. Gentleman had seen his way to concede so far. Now, he wished to point out that they did not propose that the Governing Bodies should be actually elected representatives—for his own part, he should be satisfied that the popular representative bodies should be elected of two-thirds.
MR. MUNDELLA: That is so.
MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that; but, according to the Bill as it stood before the House, no such provision was made. He thought that one-third was too small a proportion for the future. If these were really public funds—and it was upon that ground that he understood Parliament was dealing with

651
them—he thought it essential that the funds should be intrusted to the control, at least, of popularly elected bodies. They had heard, and it was of considerable importance in connection with the agitation going on with regard to these funds, that Town Councils had been condemned for their administration of them as trustees. Well, he was not concerned to defend Town Councils, or prepared to say that their administration had been perfect; but he thought that the administration of these funds at the hands of Town Councils would compare favourably with any other bodies or trustees whatever, and when the Government proposed that in some cases the proportion should be one-third and in others two-thirds, he was anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should give them some indication as to who the Governing Bodies were to be, and say whether they were to be popularly elected. He was anxious upon this point, because the education of Scotland, which the right hon. Gentleman justly observed had been in all times influenced and regulated by the people, should continue to be so; and he was anxious that on this second occasion on which the Government were going to give to Scotland an Act which would, he hoped, be of great advantage to her people, the people should have a voice in controlling and directing the kind of secular education which they desired to have. But there was an apprehension in his mind, and in the minds of other Scotch Members—and he thought that that apprehension was not altogether unfounded—that this Bill was, to a certain extent, promoted by those who had some particular views of a particular kind of education, and that it was not the kind of education that the people of Scotland wished. [Cries of" No !"] If that was not so, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he did not trust the secular education of Scotland with the people of Scotland as it existed at the present moment? With regard to the question of competition, he did not see how it was possible to introduce competition into primary education; it was not obvious to him how children were to be admitted to the benefits of primary schools by any system of competition. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the technical classes. It was a
652
more difficult subject than the right hon. Gentleman supposed. He was not aware that success had been very great in that direction, and, therefore, he was still more anxious that, if competitive technical education was to be adopted, it should be under public influence; and that was one reason why he was so anxious that the Governing Bodies should be very largely representative. There was another point on which he wished the Government had given way, and that was that in the matter of the Provisional Orders under the Bill they should have referred to the Representatives of Scotland in that House. He objected to the Education Board at Edinburgh, or to the education of Scotland being centralized in England. They heard of the Scotch Education Department; but he thought that the Scotch Education Department was really a myth. He understood that there had been only one or two meetings of that Department during many years past.
MR. MUNDELLA: That is not the case. I must at once take exception to that; there have been several meetings in the present year.
MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he should be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would inform him how many meetings had been hold during the last three years. He had no doubt that, since attention was recently called to the subject, there had been some meetings; but he was very much afraid that in previous years the Department was very much neglected.
MR. MUNDELLA: There have been, ever since I have been in the Council, very frequent meetings of the Scotch Education Department. There were meetings on this Bill the first year, last year, and this year.
MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he was glad to hear that so much care was taken of the education of Scotland. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman had removed an impression that was very prevalent amongst Scotch Members. What he wished to see was this—that these Provisional Orders should be under the control of a Minister of Education for Scotand, or of whoever represented Scotland in the House of Commons; and his own feeling, and that, he thought, of some Scotch Members, was that they should prefer, if they had representations to make with respect to these

653
orders, to make them to the Minister for Scotland or the Representative of Scotland in that House, rather than to the Representative of education generally. He hoped, again, that the right hon. Gentleman would still further consider the question of popular representation, and if the Government would concede that there should be a majority of that character in all cases he should be very glad to give them his support in passing the Bill. He should have liked the Bill to have given even greater powers to the Commissioners in dealing with the money of these endowments, without having them confined to any particular purpose or any special locality; but he would very gratefully accept the Bill as it was if the Government would only afford what he thought fair and proper provision for representation of the Governing Bodies of schools.
DR. CAMERONsaid, that the statement which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman had very considerably altered the position of affairs; and, therefore, he hoped to be able to abstain from inflicting on the House such a lengthened argument as he might otherwise have felt inclined to enter upon in support of the position which he had taken up on this Bill. It was quite true that the Amendments which were on the Paper with regard to this stage of the Bill were more suited for Committee; but it must be remembered that this was the third edition of the Bill, and the Amendments had been repeatedly urged upon the right hon. Gentleman, and up to that time they had been unable to obtain any satisfactory replies to the various points. In common with hon. Gentlemen who had acted with him in this matter, he was entirely in favour of five-sixths of what the right hon. Gentleman proposed; but, as far as the remainder of the proposals went, they could not see eye to eye with him. In the speech he had just made, the right hon. Gentlemen had gone a considerable length to meet them; but, so far as the point which he himself had specially dealt with was concerned, he must say that he was not at all satisfied with the nature of the concession. In fact, it appeared to him to a very large extent illusory; and he should feel himself obliged, while not objecting to the second reading of the Bill, to place his Amendment on the Paper on the Bill
654
going into Committee. He should be perfectly willing, of course, to remove that Amendment should the words which the right hon. Gentleman proposed show that he was mistaken in the impression he had formed of his remarks. He was as fully alive as any Member could be to the amount of educational endowments in Scotland either wasted or misapplied, and to the importance of dealing with them at once, and applying them to some other purpose; but there was a small portion of the educational endowments thoroughly well applied, legitimately and quite in accordance with the will of the founders and of Parliament and of the people, to primary education. The right hon. Gentleman had acknowledged that the funds so applied were legitimately and well applied; and it would follow, if what he had said were so, that they should continue to be applied in that manner to their fullest extent. He did not go so far as the right hon. Gentleman did in the matter of doles; but he thought that money so spent in doles was to a large extent wasted, and that when the Government were dealing with them, they were dealing with one of the most demoralizing influences concerned with these charities. But when it came to primary education, and teaching children whose parents could not afford to pay the fees to read and write, then, he thought, these funds were properly applied. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that indiscriminate admission to primary education was bad. He (Dr. Cameron) did not agree with him in that. He did not see how they could have a system of primary education that was not to a large extent one of free admission.
MR. MUNDELLA: I said by nominees.
DR. CAMERONreplied, that in free elementary schools there could not be much corruption or anything else of that sort. The right hon. Gentleman had given a description of competition as applied to primary education; but he did not understand how the right hon. Gentleman meant that competition to be applied. In the Report of the first Commission on Scotch Endowments there was a rubric to the effect that they considered competition inexpedient at an early age when applied to the better class of schools, and it seemed to him (Dr. Cameron) that if the rubric was

655
correct in one case it was in the other. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned one good application of the funds in connection with free primary education—that of enabling parents to keep their children at school longer than they otherwise would do; but that was provided for, to a large extent, by the practice of admitting the oldest of three or four members of the same family to public schools for half the fees or without fees at all. The right hon. Gentleman went so far as to say that he considered the payment of fees of children who could not pay for themselves as a thoroughly legitimate application of educational endowments with which he would not interfere; and, in giving the details of the method by which he would deal with the question, he told them that he would provide that no fund which, in the terms of the founder's wish or will, were applied to primary education should be diverted to other purposes. Wishing to save time, he (Dr. Cameron) interpolated the words "and by Act of Parliament," and the right hon. Gentleman turned round upon him and said surely it was a most reactionary idea that Parliament was infallible, and that what was done by one Act of Parliament should not be done by another. But that was a most important point. The most extensive, the most important, and best conducted system of free schools in Scotland existed, not under the will of the founder, but under an Act of Parliament passed in 1836. In the free schools so conducted some 5,000 children were educated without any expense to the State. The average attendance was higher than in any other public schools in Scotland, and the proportion of passes was higher than it was in any of the Board schools in Scotland, owing, no doubt, to the high attendance. In these schools they had something like admission by com petition. These schools having, according to the Educational Commissioners, a reputation for the highest efficiency, it was an object of ambition for parents of the poor classes to get their children into them, and the Governors were able to lay down a rule that unless children attended regularly they would be deprived of the privilege of attending that school. He said that these particular schools were under an Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to exempt schools from an Act of Parliament in order to be
656
governed by the will of the founder, and he would thus withdraw with the one hand by far the most important part of the concession given with the other. He (Dr. Cameron) did not mention what the schools were; he know the name stank in the nostrils of many Members of that House. These were the Heriot Free Schools. He did not care for them except in this, that they were free schools, and he had the same regard for them as for free schools all through Scotland. They were by far the best conducted, by far the most successful, and by far the most extensive free schools in Scotland; and why the right hon. Gentleman refused to accept the principle with regard to them which he accepted with regard to every other class of schools he could not understand. In many cases the right hon. Gentleman was quite willing to grant safeguards; but if they looked at the Report of the Educational Commissioners, they would find that they reported that a largo number of the bursary endowments in Scotland were bad—that£5,500 a-year was absolutely wasted, and did more harm than good. The right hon. Gentleman had safeguarded in the Bill people who were strong-enough to fight for themselves; but here, when there was no one to fight except the Representatives of the Heriot Trust—who were not in very good odour in that House, probably on account of the pertinacious manner in which they had defended their Institution—he refused to do so. So far as the wishes of the founder were concerned, he (Dr. Cameron) had no respect for them; but so far as the funds loft for free primary education under the wish of the founder were being safeguarded he was perfectly satisfied. The Executive Commission which had just expired had shown a very great dislike to free education, and the Commissioners of 1875 had been strongly against it. The previous Commissioners had apparently been as strongly in favour of it; but since then the superstition had gone abroad that the Act of 1872 did away with all necessity for it. The necessities of poor persons, however, were just where they had been, and although provision had been made for allowing fees to be paid on behalf of parents who could not pay them, that provision was made payable through the Poor Board, and it had been admitted that that system of paying fees through the Parochial

657
Board was radically wrong. With regard to the Heriot Free Schools, it was said that the children educated in these schools were the children of parents who could quite well afford to pay fees; but statistics showed otherwise. There was nothing like looking to facts in such a matter. A collection of the schedules of applications for admission to the Heriot Free Schools had been taken, and it had been found that the average wages of the applicants were 19s. per week. Only a certain proportion of those applicants were successful, and the average wages of the successful applicants were 17s.4½d. per week. He must say that if they were to give educational assistance or endowments to any persons who were not paupers, they could not apply them to a better purpose than in aiding persons whose average wages were only 17 s.4½d. per week. Not long ago a Sheriff in Bathgate had held that a man earning 17s. a week was not in a position to pay his children's school fees, and had granted him an order for them. It was said that these schools were not earning a grant, and that, consequently, £5,000 were lost that might have been earned. The Prime Minister had spoken not long ago of the demoralizing influence of grants in aid, and had said that they taught people to extract as much money as they could from the public purse; but why, if the people of Edinburgh could get their children better educated than in grant-earning schools without any cost to the Exchequer, and in a way that satisfied them better, should they not let them have their own way? If they wanted to alter that, why did they not extend the principle of payment by results, and pay schools by results, whether they charged fees or not? That was the proper way.
MR. MUNDELLA: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. Our Code does pay grants to schools, whether they charge fees or not.
DR. CAMERONsaid, he was very glad to hear that, because it took away an argument that he had understood was used by the right hon. Gentleman, and that certainly had been used by the previous Commissioners. It also took away a very strong argument that had been used for compelling the Governors of Heriot's Hospital to extract fees, because it was a fact that within the last few years the Heriot Governors had
658
proposed a scheme, and one of the reasons why that scheme had been rejected was that they did not ask powers to extract fees. So obnoxious to the people of Edinburgh had been the proposal to extract fees that they had expressed their dissatisfaction by turning out of the Town Council all the persons who voted for the fees. He hoped there would be no misunderstanding with regard to the position he took up in this matter. He had endeavoured to direct his observations exclusively and practically to one point. If the right hon. Gentleman confined his words to endowments applied to primary education, in accordance with the will of the founder, refusing to recognize endowments applied in the same manner in accordance with Acts of Parliament of 40 or 50 years' standing, the concession he made was simply an illusory concession, since it let all the institutions requiring reform escape out of the net, while it stamped out the most important free institutions in Great Britain. He hoped he might have misunderstood what the right hon. Gentleman had said; but, as a matter of precaution, he should put down his Amendment on going into Committee, on the understanding that he should be happy to withdraw it should he prove to be mistaken in the import of the words which the right hon. Gentleman had used.
MR. COCHRAN-PATRICKsaid, he supported very cordially the second reading of the Bill, believing it would have the effect of removing most serious defects in Scotch education, defects which prevented many children of the poorer classes from getting the benefits of secondary education. There were just one or two points which had been raised in the discussion upon which he would ask the attention of the House for a very brief period. He thought, accurately to apprehend the precise effect of the measure, they must bear in mind the fact that in Scotland they had had for a period of more than 300 years a national system of education—meaning, by a national system, one which was supported not only by payments from those receiving the benefits, but, to a large extent, by rates from the locality and grants from the State; and in order that this system should be worth the money which it cost the State, it ought, in the first place, to be complete in itself, com-

659
prehending not only elementary education, but also secondary education, technical instruction, and that intellectual culture and subjective mental training which the University only could give; and, in the second place, that all those advantages ought to he free and open to every class in the community. Education in Scotland divided itself naturally into two periods—one period coming down from a very early time to the year 1872, and the second period commencing at 1872, and coming down to the pre-sent time. With regard to the period before 1872, it was of some importance for the House to dwell upon it for an instant, because the endowments which were dealt with in this Bill were left for education of the sort which existed before the passing of the Education Act of 1872. Without entering into very-minute details, he wanted to lay before the House three points which he thought could be conclusively demonstrated with regard to Scotch education prior to 1872. The first of these points was that the education given in the parochial schools was of such a sort that a poor child from the elementary schools could go directly to the University, and thence to the learned professions. In the second place, a largo number of the children of the poorer class, to their honour and credit, and to the honour and credit of their country, did avail themselves of that system; and, in the third place, that sort of education, and that only, was in the mind of those who left the endowments for education previous to the year 1872. He did not want to detain the House with statistics which might be adduced to prove these three points. With regard to the quality of the education, there was in 1690 a Commission very much the same as that now proposed, the Report of which conclusively showed that education of a very superior kind was then given in the common schools. Again, in 1827 there was presented to the first University Commission a Return of all the pupils receiving higher instruction in Scotland in the elementary schools, showing results which were very satisfactory. And with reference to the third point, they had the fact within the knowledge of every Member from Scotland that a large number of the distinguished men of their country had sprung from the poorer classes, and by means of education had
660
been enabled to take foremost places in the learned professions and in the world. Now, he would again point out that it was that system of education which was in the minds of the donors of these endowments. But in 1872 the Scotch Education Bill was passed, and that Bill made very important alterations in the conditions of education in Scotland. In the first place, it gave to every child in Scotland a legal right to have primary and elementary education provided for it. At the present moment there was not a child in Scotland, from the Pentland Firth to the Tweed, that had not a legal claim for education; for the parents, if they were able, must provide the education, or, if they were not able, the education must be provided from the rates of the locality. That made an important difference in their consideration of this point. As regarded endowments, it was perfectly obvious, in the first place, that those who gave the endowments for education intended giving to the poor something which, without that endowment, they would not otherwise possess. They intended to confer on them some advantage, and if the education which was contemplated by them could be shown to be different from the education now given, he thought that raised a most important point well worthy the consideration of the House. The point which he would like to bring out was, that the education now given by the State—the primary education—did not enable poor children to proceed, as they used to do, directly to the University, and so to enter professional life. Everybody knew that, from reasons into which he need not enter, it was impossible that the children of poor parents could got, without the paying more than they could afford, the advantages of higher education; and he hoped this consideration would not be lost sight of in dealing with the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. There was only one other point to which he asked the attention of the House for one moment. They had heard a good deal that day of the question of "popular representation." Now, "popular representation" was apt to mislead people, and one of those phrases which it was, he thought, advisable, in a case of this kind, that they should have some more accurate idea of what was meant; and he would submit that the proposals which

661
had been indicated by the right hon. Gentleman with reference to popular representation fully carried out all that was necessary. Indeed, if he could find any fault at all, it was that the Bill went in that direction somewhat too far. What he would point out was this—that while he was entirely in favour of some kind of popular representation, he objected altogether to that kind of popular representation which preponderated so entirely over the other interests which ought to be represented in Governing Bodies. Popular representation was valuable whenever popular rights, popular privileges, or popular payments were involved; but there were some cases in which popular representation was neither necessary nor advisable. The point in the recommendations of the Government was this—that while they admitted the full necessity of some popular representation, they pointed out that in certain cases they were against a preponderating popular representation. But one consideration should be taken into account. If the Government were going to continue the management of these trusts precisely as it was before the passing of this Bill, and if they said the passing of this Bill had been rendered necessary because there were faults in the management of the trusts, then they were putting themselves in the position of saying the Bill was unnecessary. If the Government put the management precisely in the same direction, and gave the same influence to the majority as before the passing of the Bill, they had no right to ask for the Bill. He had several other points of detail to which he wished to refer, but would not detain the House with them at that hour. He could only say that if the Bill were passed, as he hoped it would be, and came into operation this Session, and if it were administered in the way they had a right to hope it would be administered, he was perfectly certain it would do more for the intellectual future of Scotland than any measure that had been under the consideration of the House during the present century.
MR. BUCHANANsaid, he would like to say a few words, because he had a Notice of opposition to the Bill on the Paper, and it was a measure that more largely affected his constituency than any other in Scotland. He did not wish
662
to speak in the character in which he supposed the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) would describe him—as Representative of Heriot's Hospital. He was not at all ashamed to defend the cause of that Institution, and to look at the Bill in view of the many ways in which it would affect that Institution. But on putting down his Notice on the Paper he had not been actuated by a desire to obstruct the Bill in any sense whatever. He was anxious that a Bill on this subject should pass, and that this Bill, with certain modifications, should pass; but he had thought he was acting on his full rights in putting down his Notice, so as to secure full discussion on the second reading. His main objection to the Bill was this. The Bill, he took it, as it stood, had really two objects. One object which it had in view was to re-organize endowments. He was altogether in favour of that. He thought they needed a Bill for the re-organization of endowments in Scotland. But the second object that the Bill, it seemed to him, had in view was, the promotion of secondary education in Scotland at the expense of funds devoted to primary education. [Mr. MUNDELLA: No, no!] He thought the Bill as it stood clearly had that object in view, and it appeared to bear that object on the face of it, as the Preamble incorporated the Report of the two previous Commissions. He was sure they were very thankful to the right hon. Gentleman for the Amendment he had intimated, which, he thought, was a very important one, and would take away a great deal of the ill-feeling and suspicion which they knew had existed in Scotland on this subject. He therefore considered it a very valuable Amendment. The clause was much stronger in the Bill of 1880, and he did not think he was going beyond the mark to say that it would be within the scope of the Commissioners under this Bill to divert funds set apart for primary education for purposes of secondary education. He was no opponent of secondary education; he acknowledged the want of secondary schools in Scotland; but he did not think funds for secondary education should be taken from primary education. As was said in a remarkable speech delivered last winter by a noble Lord who had taken a great interest in this subject—

663
"What they ought to have in view was the encouragement and development of secondary education; hut secondary education should not be chiselled out of stolen marble."
He (Mr. Buchanan) dissented from the argument that the passing of the Education Act of 1872 justified Government in diverting funds on principle from primary to secondary education. They heard a statement from the right hon. Gentleman that indiscriminate gratuitous education was bad. He should submit that it was bad, because it was indiscriminate, and was generally badly managed, and the badness consisted not in the system, but in its management. So far as he could gather, the theory of the Education Department now was that in all cases fees should be imposed, and that where an endowment was given, as it generally was, for the free education of so many poor boys or girls, for the future these funds should not be devoted to supplying free primary education by payment of fees, but that the primary education supplied out of the endowment should be limited to bursaries.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Clause 13 provides, with the Amendment, that the Commissioners shall provide that no fund applied under the direction of the will of the founder to primary education shall be diverted to any other purpose. They still remain as they were.
MR. BUCHANANsaid, the only remark he had to make on that was that under it they would exclude the most important free schools in Edinburgh which had been established by Act of Parliament. If that Act was to be repealed, let it be done by Act of Parliament; but do not put it into the discretion of a body of Commissioners, of whom they knew nothing, to repeal the Act. He understood that the Commission would not be able to deviate from the will of a founder as regarded free primary education; but it would be able to abolish free primary education as laid down by Act of Parliament. Until he saw the Amendment on Clause 13 in print, it appeared to him to justify the epithet which had been used by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), that "it was illusory as regarded free primary education." With regard to the constitution of the Governing Bodies, he might state that the great majority of them were in former times under the
664
control of the Town Councils. Out of 58 schools which came under the notice of the Education Commissioners in 1864, 29 were wholly under the management of Town Councils, while the Governing Bodies of 1G of the remainder consisted very largely of Town Councillors, leaving only 13 under other representation. He might also quote the Report of the same Commission in support of the contention that the Town Councils had given general satisfaction to the Scottish people in the administration of their endowments. These boards were looked upon with a good deal of confidence, which was duo to their deliberations being held in public. He would agree—and he thought Town Councils would agree—that, upon their bodies being remodelled, there should be placed upon them representatives of educational opinion from the school boards or elsewhere, He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the two-thirds proportion of popularly-elected representatives were to include members of school boards? [Mr. MUNDELLA: Certainly.] That took away from the value of the Amendment, as a concession, in his eye. He should object to the Amendment thus suggested. His general objection to Clause 6 was that it distinctly pointed towards a lessening of the open character of those open Governing Bodies, while it made no provision for the opening of close Governing Bodies. [Mr. MUNDELLA: It is not so.] The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that in close bodies the proportion of popularly-elected representatives should be one-third. No doubt the action of the Commissioners in this matter was to a great extent discretionary, and he believed it would be found expedient, in many cases, to leave them as they were at present. The large Governing Bodies, he thought, were anxious and zealous for the advancement of education, as was shown by their management of the moneys under their control, and they claimed that their ease should not be prejudged by this Bill, or any alteration ordered without the grounds being fully investigated. He expressed the hope that with a fair Commission appointed there would be no useless interference with educational institutions doing good work. He hoped each case would be tried on its own merits, and that there would be no useless irritating interference with

665
educational endowments doing good educational work. They were exceedingly anxious that their system of endowed education should bo in accordance with the principles that had guided its history in the past, and under which that education had been so efficient.
MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, he regretted that this Bill bad been brought forward at a time when full discussion was scarcely possible. Before the Bill was read a second time there were one or two points to which be would like to draw the attention of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had rightly said that in the case of the educational endowments of Scotland there was no allegation of gross or flagrant abuse. It was important they should remember that. In connection with the Endowed Schools Bill for England, instances had been given of very great abuse, and there was danger lest this Bill should be regarded as dealing with a similar state of things in Scotland. What was wanted in Scotland was not a revolution or reorganization of the educational endowments so much as their re-adjustment to the changed circumstances of the country. The circumstances in educational matters had been changed mainly by the Education Act of 1872. There was a phrase that was frequently heard, and it had been heard, too, during this discussion, and that was "the education of poor children. People were apt to forget two things in using the expression. In the first place, what were poor children? They were too apt to forget that the poor did not belong only to one class. There were different classes of poor children. And, again, as to education in Scotland, they had never considered that education meant elementary education only. In England there was an Elementary Education Act. They had no such Act in Scotland. The word "elementary" did not occur in the title of their Education Act. This Bill, in his estimation, very properly instructed the Commissioners who were to be appointed to have regard to the spirit of the founders' intentions. He hoped he did not correctly understand his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) to refer to this subject generally when he said that he had no respect for the wishes of founders. He (Mr. J. A. Campbell) thought they
666
ought to have respect for them, within certain limits, with the view of carrying out their wishes in the best way, considering the changed circumstances of the country. And he thought they ought to consider their wishes, not only with regard to the object they had in view in making the bequest, but also their wishes in regard to the administration they suggested. In one respect, as regarded the proposed Amendments, he thought the right hon. Gentleman went further than he would be disposed to support him. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that where there was no popular representative element in a trust at present, there should be one-third of the trust representative in future. It might be quite proper that there should be some representation of the popular element and some representation of public bodies in every trust of a public character; but he would demur to making it so much as one-third in every trust where there was no such representation at present. As to the scope of the Bill, he should not be sorry to see it extended considerably. As he had said, the great change in Scotland was on the introduction of the Education Act of 1872, and he thought that, to be logical, the Bill should cover all up to that time. He believed that if it did not, a very large number of important endowments would not be within its range. No doubt they might be brought within its range, but it was better it should cover them from the beginning. He might mention, as an illustration, that there were very large endowments in Glasgow, only one-fifth of which would be touched by the Bill if it only referred to foundations of 40 years standing. This was not a revolutionary proposal. The revolution was in 1872. The Education Act was the revolution; and what they now wished was to adapt the educational endowments to the circumstances then brought into existence. He also would suggest that the scope should not go so far in another direction—that was, that the endowments that had been dealt with by the late Commission should be exempted from the range of the Bill. That provision was in the Bill of last year; it was not in this. It appeared to him that the trustees who came before the late Commission, and had new schemes sanctioned, had a distinct, or at least an implied promise, that by doing

667
so they should not he disturbed afterwards. No doubt it would be in many cases a grievance if trustees were put to the expense and trouble of again coming-forward to give evidence before a new Commission. A question had been put to the right hon. Gentleman as to whether the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge in Scotland was included in the Bill, and he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it would be. No doubt it was an educational endowment, but it was more; and he did not see why any one mixed endowment should be mentioned. As an educational endowment, no doubt, it would come within the scope of the measure; but, so far as it was not an educational endowment, it could not come within its scope unless they went beyond the provisions of the Bill itself. In conclusion, he believed that this Bill would load to a great improvement in the application of educational endowments, and bring additional benefits to beneficiaries quite consistently with the intentions of the founders, and it would do more—it would tend to suggest measures of educational reform and new educational provisions of a constructive kind, which would go far to promote education, especially the higher education, in Scotland.
MR. W. HOLMSsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the time this Bill had been before the country. He thought no time had been lost in the matter, and the lapse of time had rather tended to ripen the right hon. Gentleman's judgment. His proposals of l88l were better than those of 1880, and those of 1882 were better than those of 1881. This Bill was not permissive; some previous measures had been, and therefore it was all the more necessary that its scope and intention should be thoroughly understood. Throughout Scotland there was doubtless a strong feeling in favour of legislation; but he was bound to say that hitherto this had not been regarded with anything like unmixed satisfaction. What had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman that afternoon did do much to remove the dissatisfaction with which the Bill had been regarded. He (Mr. W. Holms) thoroughly agreed with the hon. Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) that the founders of various endowments meant that those who re-
668
ceived endowment should get the actual benefit; and now, as they had primary education given at the expense of the ratepayers, it would be a simple matter to continue primary education, except only such cases as had been indicated by the hon. Member for Glasgow, where it had been specially left for that particular purpose. He wished to know, however, if it was intended that secondary and higher education should be given generally, and to those who might be perfectly able to pay for such higher education? [Mr. MUNDELLA: No.] he should like to see that safeguarded in the Bill—that only the children of the poorer classes should receive such secondary and higher education. Reference had been made, again, to technical education. He did not know whether that was included; but he was all in favour of devoting a considerable amount of those funds to an object so thoroughly in harmony with the wishes and intentions of the founders. The next point was that of the Governing Bodies. He objected to centralization; and he thought the clause referring to this matter gave too much power to the proposed Commissioners, and took away very much from the powers that should be held by the Governing Bodies in the locality. A good deal of cause of complaint had been removed by the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman; at the same time, he did not see why they should not have the two-thirds majority in all cases. He must point out that in Clause 17 powers were given to the Commissioners in the way of dismissing officers and teachers in connection with these schools. He did not think it was desirable that the teachers and officers should be the servants of the Commissioners. They should be the servants of the Governing Bodies.
MR. MUNDELLA: So they are.
MR. W. HOLMSsaid, that on the right hon. Gentleman's assurance he should take it to be so; but it by no means appeared clear in the clause, which said—"The Commissioners shall provide for the dismissal of officers, &c." At whose pleasure?
MR. MUNDELLA: The Governing Body.
MR. W. HOLMSsaid, he should like to see words put in making that much more clear and definite. Under Clause 4 there were to be seven Commissioners

669
appointed. In the original Bill of 1880, it was proposed to have five—two noblemen, two lawyers, and one a professor—all of them admirable men. At the same time, he thought it was rather a strange thing, looking to the fact that four-fifths of the endowments had been made by merchants and manufacturers, that that class should be entirely excluded from the Commission. The number was now to be increased to seven. He did not know what the intention of the Government might be as to the appointment of Commissioners. He thought a large proportion should be drawn from the class to which he had referred. He trusted that a day would be taken for Committee on which they should have time to go over the various points in question, and that they should not be called upon to go into Committee on a Saturday.
MR. BRYCEsaid, the evening was so far advanced that he would reserve his remarks for the Committee stage. He would only say that the congratulations which he hoped to bestow upon the right hon. Gentleman on getting through a Bill of such great importance to the people of Scotland were very much qualified by the concessions which had been announced by the right hon. Gentleman. With the exception of the popular element in the Governing Bodies, he regretted those concessions, and thought they were a dangerous precedent, and would, moreover, much impair the effect and value of the Bill. He thought that these concessions were unnecessary, and had been made in consequence of the action of four or five Members from Scotland, who were highly to be respected on their own account, but who did not, as he believed, represent the opinion of the Scottish people. If the right hon. Gentleman had persevered, and relied upon the common sense of the bulk of the Scotch and English Members, who would have supported him, he might have carried a measure that would have been much more effective and vigorous than it would be now. In his opinion, free primary education was a relief, not to the poor, but to the rich; in fact, it was a gift to the ratepayers, and it ought not to be given except in the nature of a prize or a benefit to selected children.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he took a precisely opposite view to that of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken.
670
It seemed to him that the concessions made by the Vice President of the Council would give very great satisfaction in Scotland, and that it would enable him to pass the Bill with general consent this Session. [Colonel ALEXANDER: No, no !] He hoped that it would be so; and he believed that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who said "No" did not object to the principle of the Bill. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) seemed to think that the gift of free education was a gift to the rich as it was a gift to the ratepayers. He could quote a case which showed the opposite. In the burgh which he represented an eminent founder left money for the primary education of the poor, who were sent to the parish school, and had their fees paid. Under this Bill it was perfectly open to them to follow that course. The result of that would be that not a farthing would be saved to the ratepayers, and that free education would be given to a largenumber of the labouring classes. He was of opinion that that was a great blessing and a great boon. He was aware it had been a kind of shibboleth in the Education Department that free education was a bad thing. It seemed to him that they ought not to be too positive in these things. If they went to America they found that the doctrine was the other way. Everybody there believed that free education was a necessity. [Cries of "Divide!"] As hon. Members were very anxious to go to dinner, he would not pull out his notes, or make the speech which he had intended. He would only, in a few words, express his satisfaction at the concessions which the right hon. Gentleman had made. They seemed to him, to a large extent, to disarm criticism on the Bill. They came rather late, he admitted; but still he thought that they were better late than never; and, that being so, he should do nothing to oppose, but, on the contrary, should facilitate, the passage of the Bill through the House. In conclusion, however, he must state that he was in doubt as to whether a snake did not lurk in Clause 7, as the right hon. Gentleman, whilst stating that it should be amended with reference to locality, did not make the same proposal with respect to the children.
MR. MUNDELLA: Yes; I said it should be amended in that respect.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was not aware that had been done; but he was very glad of it. For his own part, he was extremely willing and anxious that, as far as was possible and consistent, the money available under these endowments should be devoted to the promotion of higher education of a technical and industrial character; but still he did desire that these funds should be devoted to the classes of children for whom they were provided.
MR. HENDERSONsaid, that, after what appeared to him the very satisfactory statement of the Vice President of the Council, there did not seem to him to be any necessity for bringing before the House the Motion of which he had given Notice. He desired only to say that the views of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) as to popular representation and free education were views to which he was very much opposed. The hon. Member's statement, that the four or five Members who had put down Notices of opposition did not represent the feeling of the people of Scotland, did not come with very good grace from the hon. Member.
MR. A. GRANTwished to add his thanks to those of other hon. Members for the very valuable improvement that the Vice President of the Council had announced it was the intention of the Government to make in the Bill. His reason for putting down a Motion which, to a certain extent, was hostile to the Bill, was, that he thought the interests of the poor in endowments left to them were rather loosely guarded in the Bill as it had been printed. The right hon. Gentleman had given Notice of several Amendments in the direction of limiting the power of the Commissioners to deal with these endowments. Of course, at such short Notice it was impossible to say whether the improvements given Notice of were sufficient fully to guard these endowments; but he thought the Committee stage was really the proper time when they should be considered and discussed. The right hon. Gentleman had given a great concession with regard to the Governing Body; but he wished the Vice President would go further, and provide that where the founder had appointed representative trustees from one particular body or source, the two-thirds or the one-third which were to be preserved in the Governing Bodies
672
should also be drawn exclusively from that source. No doubt the greater part of the power to be wielded under this Bill would be in the hands of the Commissioners, and he would suggest the importance of putting the names of the Commissioners in the hands of Members as soon as possible. He could wish that the right hon. Gentleman had given some good reason why what he considered to be good for the older endowments should not also be applicable to those of a more modern date.
MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he would not detain the House more than two minutes; but as he had a Notice on the Paper he thought it right that he should explain in a sentence why he had put that Notice down. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) could not anticipate what he had to say upon the Bill, and he had a good deal to say upon it at a later stage. He wished to express to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council his sense of the very important concessions he had made. The right hon. Gentleman thought he might be charged with the fault of being too lenient in making these concessions. He did not think anyone who knew the right hon. Gentleman would accuse him of weakness in that direction. He had made the concessions not merely in order to enable the Bill to pass, but because the concessions were good in themselves. The right hon. Gentleman said that the mention of secondary education had given rise to a great deal of misapprehension as to taking funds from the poor and giving them to the rich. That misapprehension had been felt, and he did not think that those who entertained it were to blame. This Bill was wholly the result of a movement in Scotland for promoting secondary education. That was a thing desirable in itself; but then those who were seeking to promote secondary education, knowing that they need not apply for funds to the State, sought to make the funds left for the benefit of the poor of use to the richer classes of the community. Earl Spencer, when he introduced the Bill of 1880, stated that the aim of the Bill was the promotion of higher education generally throughout Scotland. His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) had shown that in this Bill, as originally introduced, that was set forward as one of its most

673
important objects. That being the ease, when the matter was not made perfectly clear and expressly stated in the Bill, they were perfectly entitled to oppose a Bill which appeared so liable to misconstruction. He thought the action of putting down opposing Motions for two years had been justified by the very important concessions which had been made, for not only had the funds been rescued, the constitution of the Governing Bodies greatly improved, but the power given to the communities had been modified in favour of representation. [Cries of" Divide!"] He would keep his promise to the House, but he would point out that this great impatience to finish the debate—a very natural impatience in the circumstances—was another proof of the inexpediency of bringing on important Bills on any future occasion at the latter end of a Saturday afternoon, and he would do his best on any future occasion to prevent the repetition of such a proceeding.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock till Monday next.